Formal sitting
President
- Mr Vice President, Excellencies, dear colleagues, dear friends, it is a great privilege for me to welcome to the European Parliament Mr Joseph Biden, the 47th Vice President of the United States.
(Applause)
Vice President Biden has been a key figure in American politics and a friend to colleagues in this Chamber for many years. He was first elected to the US Senate in 1972, serving as one of the youngest senators in his country's history. He was elected six times before becoming Vice President of the United States in November 2008.
A former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is known to speak his mind, sometimes to defend causes which are far from popular at the time. He leads opinion; he does not follow opinion. This is one reason why your speech at the European Parliament today, Mr Vice President, is so important, so crucial, for all of us. Let me thank you once again for the very warm invitation and the very constructive and fruitful discussions last Wednesday in Washington.
Dear colleagues, in today's multilateral, multipolar world, Europe and America can and should work together in a partnership for global stability and the enlightened values in which we believe. Vice President Biden's visit to the European Union today demonstrates this commitment.
Without a strong and effective transatlantic partnership as equal partners - the United States and the European Union - we cannot find lasting solutions to the many challenges we face: climate change, energy security, the economic crisis still hitting all of us, terrorism, or promoting human rights, defending free trade and improving global governance.
Colleagues, 25 years ago, almost to the day, President Ronald Reagan addressed this Parliament, on 8 May 1985. This was the last and so far the only time that a US President has spoken to the democratically elected representatives of the people of Europe. Your presence in this Chamber today, Mr Vice President, is a symbol of the renewal of that dialogue at the highest level between our two continents.
Here in Europe we have a new Treaty, which gives us in the European Parliament new strength and the possibility to act and which is so important for the whole of the European Union. In America, after one year under President Obama's leadership, there is new hope for the world. Mr Vice President, the timing of your address could not be better.
Mr Vice President, it is a great pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon to Europe's Parliament. The floor is yours.
(Applause)
Joe Biden
Vice President of the United States of America. - Mr President, thank you for that welcome. It was a delight to have you in Washington and at the White House, and it is a great honour - and, I might add, a privilege - to be able to address such an esteemed body.
I served in a parliament that only had 435 members total; this is even a greater honour. I remember President Reagan's speech here in 1985, and to quote an Irish poet - William Butler Yeats - speaking of his Ireland, in a poem called Easter Sunday 1916 he said: 'All's changed, changed utterly; a terrible beauty has been born'. Much has changed since 1985, much has changed, and a terrible beauty has been born.
As you already know, ladies and gentlemen, not only am I pleased to be back here in Brussels for the second time as Vice President, as you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington DC as the capital of the free world. But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts one thousand years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title. As a lawmaker for more than 36 years in our parliament, I feel particularly honoured to address the European Parliament.
President Obama and I were the first running mates in the last 50 years in America to make it to the White House from our legislative bodies, so we both come to our executive jobs with a deep appreciation for the work you do here in the bastion of European democracy. Together with my former colleagues in the United States Congress, you and I represent more than 800 million people. Stop and think about that for a moment.
Two elected bodies that shape the laws for almost one eighth of the planet's population: that is truly remarkable. Now, under the Lisbon Treaty, you have taken on more powers and a broader responsibility that comes with that increased influence, and we welcome it. We welcome that because we, the United States, need strong allies and alliances to help us tackle the problems of the 21st century, many which are the same - but so many are different - than the last century.
Let me state it as plainly as I can. The Obama/Biden administration has no doubt about the need for, and strongly supports, a vibrant European Union. We believe it is absolutely essential to American prosperity and long-term security. So have no doubt about that.
When I chaired the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee for all those years, I had the opportunity to meet many European lawmakers from the national legislative bodies, including some of you who are in this room today. So I appreciate, after all those years, what a consequential step it has been to build the only multinational parliament in the world elected by universal suffrage. So much has changed.
I am pleased that, through the Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue, you are building a strong relationship with the United States Congress, and I hope that the office you opened in Washington last month is going to enhance those ties.
Folks, 65 years ago this week, less than 200 km south of here, Nazi leaders signed an unconditional surrender that brought an end to the Second World War in Europe. The next day, celebrations erupted in Times Square and Piccadilly Circus; cheering crowds danced along the Champs-Elysées and the town squares throughout the allied world. Here in Brussels, at a thanksgiving service, churchgoers sang the national anthems of Britain, Belgium and the United States. On that joyous day, 8 May 1945, this continent lay in ruins, ravaged twice by total wars in less than 30 years. At that moment, a peaceful United Europe, a European Parliament, must have seemed like a fantasy to anyone alive. Yet, through the will of your fellow citizens and statesmen like Paul-Henri Spaak, for whom this great hall is named, and Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, and the visions that gave birth to a parliament and earned him the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson, here we are: assembled in this hall. Here you are.
What began as a simple pact among a half a dozen nations to create a common market for coal and steel grew into an economic and political powerhouse. A Community dedicated to free thought, free movement and free enterprise. A Europe that one historian has called 'Not so much a place but an idea'. I am here to reaffirm that President Obama and I believe in this idea, and in a better world and a better Europe it has already helped to bring about. A Europe where all Member States benefit by negotiating trade agreements and fighting environmental degradation with one unified voice; a Europe that bolsters the cultural and political values that my country shares with all of you. A Europe that is whole, a Europe that is free and a Europe that is at peace.
(Applause)
As President Obama said in Prague a little more than a year ago, a strong Europe makes a stronger partner for the United States - and we need strong partners. That is why we will do everything we can to support this great endeavour of yours. Because the past 65 years have shown that, when Americans and Europeans devote their energies to common purpose, there is almost nothing we are unable to accomplish. Together, through the Marshall Plan, we rebuilt Europe and made perhaps the greatest investment in human history. Together we built the world's most enduring security alliance, NATO, and a military and political force that tied America and Europe and brought us even closer in the ensuing decades. Together we established the greatest commercial relationship in the world's history, comprising about 40% of global trade and helping usher in an era of unprecedented prosperity and technological innovation. Together we have provided relief and hope for those suffering humanitarian catastrophes in more places than I can mention, from the Western Balkans to the Congo, to our ongoing work in Haiti today.
To those sceptics who, in spite of all these accomplishments, continue to question the state of transatlantic relationships or my country's attitude toward a United Europe, my answer is this: even if the United States and the nations all of you represent were not united by shared values and common heritage of many millions of our citizens, myself included, our global interests alone would inexorably bind us together.
The relationship between my country and Europe is today as strong and as important to all of us as it has ever been. This century has unleashed new challenges, no less dangerous than those that came before, in the 20th century, and together - together - we are taking them on, one by one. They are difficult; there will be disagreement, but we are taking them on jointly. Climate change: one of the greatest threats our planet faces. The United States and Europe are working to ensure that all countries, and especially the major economies, are contributing to a global solution. We all looked to, and we did take, a major step forward in Copenhagen. Now we have to carry out those emission cuts, the financing and the transparency called for in that accord, and we must help the most vulnerable nations, from the Arctic north to the Pacific islands, that are the harbingers of this looming crisis.
Across the troubled landscape of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are working together to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa'ida and the Taliban fighters and to train an Afghan army and police force so that their government can eventually protect its own people and not be a threat to its neighbours. In order to build Afghanistan's governing capacity, the United States, the European Union and its member nations are deploying significant financial resources and civilian resources as well. While sustaining these important missions has not always been popular, you all know - as I do - it is required. As leaders we have an obligation to make the case to our populations that this is necessary for our collective security - although, believe me, as a politician who has stood for office for the last 38 years, I understand it is not easy. I assure you it is no more popular in my country than it is in any of one of yours.
That is also why the United States and Europe are standing side by side to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons: a development that would endanger the citizens and menace its neighbours, including some of our closest allies. Together we embarked on an unprecedented path of engagement with the Iranian leaders and, ladies and gentlemen,
(Applause)
despite what some sceptics thought, the President meant what he said: that we will reach out our hand to any party that will unclench their fist. At the outset of this administration, President Obama stated that we are prepared to deal with Iran on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. With our allies we have made clear to Iran's leaders how they can begin to rebuild confidence within the international community, including by granting access to their previously undeclared enrichment facilities and exchanging low-enriched uranium for fuel to power a research reactor. But, as the world has now watched and seen, Iranian leaders spurned our collective good faith efforts and continue to take actions that threaten regional stability. Let me state it flatly: Iran's nuclear programme violates its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and risks sparking a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Wouldn't it be ironic - wouldn't it be ironic - as the Iron Curtain fell and the mutual threats of mutually assured destruction diminished among the superpowers, that a new arms race would emerge in some of the most unstable parts of the world. That would be an irony that our children, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren would not forgive us, in my view, for allowing to come to pass.
In addition, the Iranian leadership supports terrorism organisations, and that support continues unabated, and it continues unconscionably to persecute those of its citizens who peacefully take to the streets in a quest for justice: a betrayal of the duty of all governments in terms of what they owe their citizens. Tehran faces a stark choice: abide by international rules and rejoin the community of responsible nations - which we hope for - or face further consequences and increasing isolation.
In the face of the threat Iran poses, we are committed to the security of our allies. That is why we deployed the phased adaptive missile defence programme: to deter and defend against missile attacks on this continent.
(Applause)
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are also working together inside NATO to prepare for a range of future security threats, including energy security and cyber-security, and we continue to support close security cooperation between NATO and the EU.
Last year the United States and Europe acted quickly and decisively when the world was reeling from a financial crisis more dire than any since the Great Depression. In doing so, collectively we helped prevent what people were predicting: the total collapse of the world economy. Today President Obama and I are closely following the economic and financial crisis in Greece and the European Union's efforts to deal with it. We welcome the support package that Europe is considering in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, and we will be supportive - both directly and through the IMF - of your efforts as you rescue Greece.
These examples, and many others I could have mentioned, show why Europe continues not just to be America's largest trading partner but our most important ally.
Ladies and Gentlemen, our predecessors came together more than six decades ago this week to begin to build institutions designed to ensure that the 20th century's darkest chapters would not be repeated in the remainder of that century or in the 21st century. Those institutions - this institution - have been a great success, but now we have to set our sights on the challenges of this new century I referenced in the beginning.
The world has changed. It has changed utterly. A terrible beauty has been born. Perhaps the most complex threat we face today is that posed to our own citizens by non-state actors and violent extremists, particularly if - God forbid - those violent extremists were able to get their hands on any weapons of mass destruction. The scourge has no respect for borders - none. No single nation, no matter how strong or how wealthy, how organised or how capable, can meet this threat alone. It can only be successfully contained if we make common cause, and that is precisely what we must do.
The new powers granted this Parliament in the Lisbon Treaty gave you a greater role in that struggle and a greater imperative to govern responsibly. The U.S. Government and this Parliament have struggled over how best to protect citizens without yielding the foundational rights on which all of our societies are built. I am absolutely confident that we must - and can - both protect our citizens and preserve our liberties.
Since taking office last year, President Obama and I have been guided by our Constitution's imperative to seek more perfect union. Toward that end, one of our first official actions was to end the interrogation practices that produced few results and that we could not, in good conscience, continue.
(Applause)
We ordered the closure of the detention centre at Guantánamo Bay, which had become a symbol of injustice and a rallying cry for terrorists.
(Applause)
And we appreciate the support - difficult as it has been for you to take - that so many of you have provided in this effort.
We did these things because, like you, President Obama and I reject the false choice between safety and our ideals. We believe that upholding our principles only makes us stronger and that compromising them actually undermines our effort in the broader struggle against violent extremism. For what is their purpose? Their purpose is to change what we value - change how we conduct ourselves. Eight days after the September 11 attack, I told a group of thousands of university students in my country that they cannot allow the tragedy of 9/11 to end our way of life, because that is exactly what the terrorists sought. I also told them that America cannot prevail in this new struggle by acting alone.
Those words not only fit the tenor of that time, but I think they have proven to be true - and they are no less true today. I do not need to tell this audience about Europe's proud tradition of protecting citizens from government invasion of their privacy - a commitment grounded in respect for the inherent dignity of all people. We call them inalienable rights. We wrote them into our Constitution, and America's commitment to privacy is also profound - as profound as yours. Our Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizures by the State, which one of our most famous jurists once dubbed 'the right to be let alone'. The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that privacy is a constitutionally protected and fundamental right. Like the EU, the Supreme Court has characterised this right as a matter of personal dignity.
On a personal level, I have, for 36 years of my career, defended privacy rights. In the United States Senate every year, organisations rate those most committed to civil liberties, and every year I - and later, President Obama - characterise one of those four people picked. The reason I bother to tell you this is not about me but about the commitment of our Administration to individual rights. To change now would make a lie of everything I have said I stood for in my country for the past 37 years. When I led the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for confirming the President's judicial nominees, as I said, I was consistently ranked among the staunchest advocates of civil liberties, and I made it a priority to determine prospective judges' views on privacy before deciding whether or not they could go on the Court.
President Obama and I also believe that government's primary, most fundamental and most solemn duty is to protect its citizens - the citizens it serves - as well as the rights they hold. President Obama has said that keeping our country safe is the first thing he thinks about when he wakes up in the morning and the last thing he thinks about before he goes to bed at night. I suspect that is how every world leader looks at their role. Indeed, no less than privacy, physical safety is also an inalienable right. A government that abdicates its duty to ensure the safety of its citizens violates their rights no less than a government that silences dissidents or imprisons accused criminals without trial.
So folks, even as we gather today, our enemies are employing every tool they can muster to conduct new and devastating attacks like the ones that struck New York, London, Madrid and many other places around the globe. To stop them we must use every legitimate tool available - law enforcement, military intelligence technology - that is consistent with our laws and our values. We are fighting on many fronts, from the brave men and women serving abroad in our militaries to the patient and tireless law enforcement professionals investigating complex and suspicious financial networks.
Just this week, our customs and border protection, using passenger information data, apprehended a suspect in the attempted bombing of New York's Times Square as he sought to flee the country. It is vital that we maintain every capacity we have under the law to stop such attacks. For that reason, we believe that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme is essential to our security as well as to Europe's - it is presumptive of me to say. It has provided critical leads to counterterrorism investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, disrupting plots and ultimately saving lives. It has built-in redundancies that ensure personal information is respected and used only for counterterrorism purposes. But I do not blame you for questioning it. We understand your concerns. As a consequence, we are working together to address them, and I am absolutely confident that we can succeed to both use the tool and guarantee privacy. It is important that we do so, and it is important that we do so as quickly as possible.
As a former United States Senator, I also know how hard it can be to make the hard choices required by global challenges while staying true to local values. All of you are going through that every time you vote in this Parliament, I suspect. The longer we are without an agreement on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme, the greater the risk of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented. As leaders, we share responsibility to do everything we can within the law to protect the 800 million people we collectively serve. We have disagreed before, we will surely disagree again, but I am equally convinced that the United States and Europe can meet the challenges of the 21st century - as we did in the 20th century - if we talk and listen to one another; if we are honest with one another.
(Applause)
Ladies and Gentlemen, courage, Winston Churchill taught us, is what it takes to stand up and to speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. This afternoon I have done all the speaking. Be assured that I, my Government and my President are back in the business of listening to our allies. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is no accident that Europe was my first overseas destination as Vice President, and also the President's. It is no accident that we have already returned several times since then. The United States needs Europe, and I respectfully submit that Europe needs the United States. We need each other more now than we ever have.
(Applause)
So I view this week's anniversary as providing a welcome opportunity to reaffirm the bond our peoples forged long ago in the fires of adversity. Now, as then, in the pursuit of ideals and in the search for partners, Europeans and Americans look to each other before they look to anyone else. Now, as then, we are honoured and grateful to be by your side in the struggles yet to come. So again, I am here to state unequivocally: President Obama and Joe Biden strongly support a united, a free, an open Europe. We strongly support what you are about here. We wish you God-speed, and may God bless you all and may God protect all of our troops. Thank you very, very much.
(Applause)
President
- Mr Vice President, thank you very much. It was a great basis for future cooperation and our future talks. As you said, listen and talk to each other. That is very important.
I would like to thank you for repeating the most important words from last week: Europe needs America. We remember the 20th century - the First World War, the Second World War, the Iron Curtain - we were fighting side by side, achieving victory together, as democracies. As you added today, America needs Europe. We will remember that. It is a good beginning to our partnership and cooperation.
Mr Vice President, once again, thank you very much.
(Applause)


Directives concerning the protection of health and safety of workers: simplifying and rationalising practical implementation reports (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Figueiredo, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 89/391/EEC, its individual Directives and Council Directives 83/477/EEC, 91/383/EEC, 92/29/EEC and 94/33/EC with a view to simplifying and rationalising the reports on practical implementation - C6-0242/2006 -.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. (CS) Madam President, Mrs Figueiredo, honourable Members, I should first like to thank Parliament and the Council for their efforts in reaching agreement so quickly on this proposal. I also welcome the Figueiredo report, which kick-started the constructive dialogue chaired by the Council, where the foundations were laid for the adoption of the proposed directive at first reading.
The Commission's proposed directive forms part of the process of simplifying the legal environment. The purpose of this proposal is to simplify and rationalise the responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission as regards reports on the implementation of directives relating to worker health and safety, without backsliding on the principle of protection. This is a fundamental condition. The new text harmonises the timeframes for delivering national reports that will be published once every five years, and this obligation is extended to all existing directives. The plan is for only one report, including a general section dealing with the general principles of the framework directive, supplemented by special chapters on aspects relating to the individual directives. This will allow for a general overview of practical implementation.
The simplification will apply to the national bodies, which will draw up only one report every five years, the Commission, which will draw up only one national report per Member State instead of the current 500 reports, and the social partners, which will also contribute one report every five years. The Commission, in close cooperation with the consultative committee on health and safety at work, will set up a body charged with helping the Member States to draw up coherent reports. The Commission is ready to adopt the amendments for which you voted. I will strengthen the role of the tripartite advisory committee on health and safety at work in defining the structure of the reports, in clearly establishing the content of the reports and in setting deadlines for the Member States and the Commission to draw up the reports. Thank you.
Ilda Figueiredo
rapporteur. (PT) Issues of workers' health and working conditions, the organisation of health, hygiene and safety services in the workplace and the list of occupational diseases were first debated in Community circles in 1989 with the publication of Framework Directive 89/391.
Since then, other directives have been adopted covering workers' health, the organisation of occupational health services, working conditions, young workers, temporary workers, and those manning ships, thereby fulfilling the International Labour Organisation Conventions.
Almost all of these and other directives stipulate that the Member States should submit a report to the Commission on their practical implementation and the points of view of the social partners. The truth is that some Member States have not done so.
With the proposal before us, it is hoped that greater attention will be paid to the effective implementation of the directives concerned and to working conditions. It is an attempt to reduce the millions of accidents at work per year and thousands of deaths and injuries leading to permanent incapacity across the EU.
As I have said, the drafting of practical implementation reports by the Member States, is laid down in several different directives, but required at different intervals, some every four years, some every five, and others without any specific timeframe.
Now, as the Commissioner has just told us, the Commission is proposing that one single report be drawn up every five years. In order that the proposal for one report every five years meets the needs of safeguarding health and safety at work, the specific aspects of each directive must not in any way be watered down or underplayed, and this is something that this report seeks to address.
We have accordingly tabled a number of proposals, of which I should like to highlight those that refer to the structure of the report itself, which should include a specific questionnaire.
The report should accordingly include a general section dealing with the common principles and aspects applicable to all the directives and other specific chapters regarding the implementation of each of the particular characteristics of each directive, with the inclusion of specific indicators, when available.
The five-yearly report will provide a practical assessment of the various directives and, where appropriate and available, separate data by gender on equality between men and women. It will also include relevant information on the prevention measures taken by the Member States in order to make a suitable assessment of how the legislation is working in practice.
We strongly believe that there needs to be a policy of genuinely improving the practices of the various Member States. The Commission must also, as a matter of urgency, submit a more thorough report on the current situation in the Member States in the various areas of workers' safety and health in the workplace.
Lastly, I should like to highlight the close cooperation that was possible with the MEPs from the different political groups in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, with the Executive Committee and with the Council. This cooperation will certainly enable us to obtain agreement at first reading. I thank you all for the work that has been done.
Mihael Brejc
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SL) First of all, I would like to express satisfaction with this report on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, because it constitutes one of the first steps towards a significant relaxation of the burden imposed on Member States with regard to various administrative tasks. At the same time, this directive will contribute to the simplification and clarification of the work of the Commission. In the PPE-DE Group we are very pleased to note that the agreement with the rapporteur has worked and that we have been able to secure such a broad consensus within our committee. If I remember rightly, we adopted this report with only one vote against.
In terms of its contents, the report sends yet another clear message to the European public that the Commission, the Council and Parliament are taking decisions to rationalise procedures and to improve communication between the Member States and EU institutions so that everyone can reap the benefits of such action.
This directive and the single report will in no respect lead to any watering down of standards relating to health and safety at work. My political group considers this report in its entirety, that is the directive, as an important step forward, but, of course, we would like to see similar initiatives being taken in other fields and by other commissioners. Let me mention just one example: in the field of terrorism, for instance, the European Parliament has adopted around 60 different documents, directives, regulations etc. Things are quite hard to fathom out, for instance the Schengen Treaty, the single market and a host of other examples. In a nutshell, this report is a fine example of how we can secure broad consensus within political groups about regulating our common concerns in the future.
I would also like to thank Commissioner Špidla for his participation.
Harald Ettl
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Figueiredo for her work. She worked closely with the shadow rapporteur and produced a sound draft report for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
The Commission proposal aims towards systematisation and a uniform model for the directives on worker protection. In a single implementation report to be submitted every five years and for which we have been waiting quite a long time already, the Member States are to report to the Commission on the practical application of the directives in question. This plan will certainly provide the single-state authorities - which is the truth of the matter - with a better overview.
Comprehensive and effective worker protection is a basic prerequisite for ensuring and maintaining the health of workers. 4 500 employees die in the EU every year as a result of accidents in the workplace, while over 4 million people are affected by accidents at work each year. A summary report of this nature can provide us with important information with regard to what preventive measures we need to implement and make a contribution to improving the quality of worker protection in the EU.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the report on simplifying and rationalising reports and the practical implementation of directives is extremely important for employment policy. The emerging common jobs market requires constant health and safety monitoring for our citizens in EU countries.
Different conditions in individual countries require constant monitoring to ensure that the directives are adhered to, and five-yearly analyses of their suitability, effectiveness, transparency, costs and effects are needed. These analyses, based on clear and transparent guidelines, should help to improve the legal situation and common policy as regards health and safety.
There is also a need to continuously monitor health and safety directives, and the effect of these directives on the health and safety strategy within the Member States. In this regard, the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions have an important role to play.
I thank Mrs Ilda Figueiredo for her report.
Andreas Mölzer
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (DE) Mr President, the modern working world has brought with it new phenomena, ranging from the growth of psychiatric problems, via the taking of more and more sick leave and increasing burn-out to new forms of aggression such as workplace bullying.
It almost seems to be good form in the working environment to put workers under permanent time pressure and to impose on them unplanned extra burdens and tight deadlines. Anyone who succumbs to the long-term negative impact of this on their health has to explain themselves in interviews when they return to work after a period of sick leave, the idea being that illness is a result of personal misconduct. Older workers are being pushed off into early retirement en masse, and younger ones labelled as unproductive.
Initiatives such as Move Europe which relate to workplace health management are, of course, to be welcomed. However, such health promotion programmes are often run in companies that are organised in such a way that illness is simply not permitted. It is pressure within companies, in combination with the fear of losing their jobs, that ensures that employees struggle into work against the advice of their doctors. Moreover, short-term contracted activities and part-time work bring with them the constant fear of not having a job and financial worries which are then reflected in psychological problems. Absenteeism and unfitness for work, however, not only generate high costs within the companies concerned, but also burden public health budgets.
Against this backdrop we should not be surprised about the rising numbers of those suffering from eating disorders, obesity and mental illness, nor about falling birth rates. As long as work means permanent stress and children represent a poverty trap, the demographic change that is resulting in a lack of children and an overaging of the population will continue.
With this in mind, we must ensure more job security. It must be possible for a sole breadwinner to feed a family and it must be possible for a woman to decide to have children without that meaning impoverishment. Those who are sick must be allowed to get better. If we could achieve that then we would surely have taken a big step forwards on the road to meeting the Lisbon objectives.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
(EL) Mr President, with regard to all the previous directives we are given the impression that we exerted insufficient control, which did not help with their comprehensive implementation. Even the directive's explicit provision regarding the submission of reports by Member States on their state legislative provisions, which includes opinions of social partners, has not helped solve the problem, to date. Therefore, I too applaud your proposal Commissioner, considering that it complies with the goals of other European Union policies, especially with regard to the improvement of the regulatory framework on increasing corporate competitiveness.
The present proposal has added value, considering that it allows - through a single report every five years - for a better evaluation of the consequences and community provisions in the fields of health and safety at work as well as hygiene services; the need for a reduction in accidents at work is urgent and work-related diseases must be combated in order for workers, corporations and society in general, to benefit.
I congratulate the rapporteur because she cooperated with the political groups, reached a consensus within the Council and managed to include in the recitals one of my amendments referring to the utilisation of the work of both the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Bilbao) and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin), in the context of the results from the evaluation of national policies on health and safety at work.
It is important that the European Commission takes into consideration the findings of the two aforementioned institutions, in order to draft the basic questionnaire for the Member States, which will substitute the multiple reports. The question is whether a reduction in quantity can bring about an improvement in quality. We certainly hope so.
Vladimír Špidla
Honourable Members, I should like, once again, to thank you for the work you have done on this proposal.
I am sure that the vote will pave the way for us to agree on the proposal, which will lead to a substantial simplification of the administrative process, a reduction in unnecessary, bureaucratic obstacles and most importantly to a more effective implementation of the directive on health and safety at work.
I should like, if I may, to make one further remark, because some speeches did not directly relate solely to the subject of this directive, but to health and safety at work in general. Obviously, the figure of 4 500 fatal accidents per year seems relatively low in comparison to the 250 million workers, but we are talking about 4 500 human lives. From this perspective, the figure is excessively high and it is up to us to do all we can to bring that figure down. Thank you.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.


Publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs P-N. Kauppi, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 68/151/EEC and 89/666/EC as regards publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies - C6-0171/2008 -.
Piia-Noora Kauppi
rapporteur. - Mr President, this report is part of the simplification package on company law. It is very important that in the European Union we try to simplify the environment for companies to flourish and to create growth for the European economy. The aim is to diminish administrative burdens as regards publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies. The proposal is part of the wide-ranging administrative burden reduction exercise; it would free up and redirect business resources and thus enhance the competitiveness of European economies.
Nowadays, under the First Company Law Directive, companies need to publish certain information in the national gazettes that has to be entered into the Member States' commercial registers. In most cases, publication in the national gazette entails additional costs for the companies without providing any real added value. The objective of this proposal is therefore to remove any additional publication requirements in national law that cause additional costs to the companies.
Anyhow, the Commission leaves flexibility for Member States concerning these additional publication requirements. It is still possible for Member States to have additional requirements, but these should be covered by the single fee proposed for the new electronic platform.
Member States should all have electronic platforms containing the full information and providing access to this information in the companies' electronic file in the register. This would be a cost-effective and easily accessible way of providing all the necessary information regarding the companies. Some Member States already have these electronic registers and databases, but others do not have this kind of digital database.
The most important thing is to introduce the single fee set by the Member States that covers all the costs related to the publication and administration requirements. This single fee should also cover any additional national requirements for the publication of information in local and regional newspapers as well.
However, the Committee on Legal Affairs also wanted to introduce some flexibility regarding these costs and we now say that, if there are well-founded reasons, it would be possible for Member States to have additional fees.
Regarding the 11th Company Law Directive, this proposal deals with the translation requirements for documents to be filed in the registers of company branches. When registering a branch, companies also have to file certain information in the register of the company branch. This often leads to significant additional costs for companies as they not only have to ensure the translation of certain documents into the language of the Member States where the branch is situated, but also have to comply with sometimes excessive requirements for certification and/or notarisation of that translation. So now we are trying to ease translation obligations by having this certification and authorisation abolished.
The objective is to reduce the costs for translation and certification to the minimum. This also leads to benefits for companies by achieving a certain reduction in costs while ensuring the reliability of the translations.
I agree with the Commission proposal and tried to keep my wording as close to the Commission proposal as possible. However, it was not possible to reach a consensus based on the Commission proposal here in Parliament.
In the report we introduced some amendments to clarify the practical implementation of the provisions relating to publication costs and translation provisions, and we also introduced some technical amendments in order to ensure correct cross-referencing with the Second Company Law Directive.
The Committee on Legal Affairs introduced three compromise amendments tabled by several colleagues to the effect that these additional publication requirements may be permitted if they are well-grounded, but we put them into recitals - they are not in the articles. I think it is very important that there is a recommendation in the recitals for the Member States to use this flexibility, but we do not call on them to do so. If the Member State feels that its companies really need to have this publication in the national gazette - and this is really something that Member States wants - they can do that, but we have not put any call to this effect into the articles.
The second issue is that I, personally, tried to introduce a transition period, which I still think would be a very good way forward. During the transition period these publication requirements would be there, but once the transition period is over we would have only the electronic database. I think this kind of proposal for a transition period would also be in line with the issue of internet penetration, namely that some Member States have better internet penetration than others; maybe after the transition period we could then make sure that there is enough distribution of information in all Member States. In this way we could take into account the fact that internet penetration in all the Member States is not at the same level.
Charlie McCreevy
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work on this file, which has turned out to be more complicated than expected. We are taking our commitment to reduce regulatory burden on companies very seriously and are grateful for Parliament's continued encouragement in this regard.
However, it is difficult not to be disappointed with some of the proposed amendments to the First Company Law Directive. Let me recall that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 12 December 2007 on the Commission Work Programme 2008, welcomed the Commission's determination to reach the goal of a 25% reduction in administrative burdens on undertakings at EU and national levels by 2012. Parliament stated that it would regard this as a key priority for the coming months, in particular as regards SMEs, and as an essential contribution to reaching the Lisbon targets. Parliament therefore underlined that it would examine legislative proposals in this light.
Furthermore, in its resolution of 21 May 2008 on a simplified business environment, Parliament supported this specific proposal for modifications to the First Company Law Directive, agreeing that it should be easier for companies to publish statutory information. In particular, Parliament strongly supported the use of new technology.
However, the Legal Affairs Committee's report that is now on the table completely undermines the objective of the Commission's proposal. The Commission's impact assessment estimated the reduction potential at about EUR 600 million per year. Under the draft report, Member States could not only continue to impose all current administrative burdens on companies, but add new ones. So, whereas the Commission proposal is based on the idea that the new publication tool of an electronic platform should replace the current cumbersome publication methods, the draft report would, instead of reducing administrative burdens, add new ones.
The objective of the Commission's proposal has been supported by an overwhelming majority of stakeholders. It was also supported by a very large majority of Member States in the discussions in the Council that have taken place so far. But adopting the directive in the form currently proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs would risk jeopardising the credibility of the entire administrative burden reduction exercise.
To the extent that the objective of the Committee on Legal Affairs amendment is to secure the financing of newspapers that currently depend on the fees for company publications, this objective can in principle be shared by the Commission. However, other ways for this financing have to be found. It cannot be imposed on the companies by obliging them to comply with publication obligations that do not provide any significant added value in today's technological environment.
Margaritis Schinas
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (EL) Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I should like to convey our opinion to you. We endorse to a large extent the root cause of this Commission proposal, which is well structured and, of course, is designed to minimise administrative burdens.
We think that, alongside translation, the simplification of procedures and the recognition of translations by other certified translators from another Member State is absolutely justified and fully endorse this approach.
Now I come to the question of publication. Our committee believes - as the Committee on Legal Affairs, in my opinion quite rightly, believes - that, in addition to companies, there are also citizens who also have the right to know. Unfortunately, Commissioner, citizens do not have the same access to electronic media to which your initial proposal directed them.
We live in a pluralistic Europe, with different models and different values. You, as a Commissioner from Ireland, know that the outcome of the referendum in your country, the perception of many of your fellow countryman about one model for all of Europe, cost us dearly. We do not therefore want to introduce this model in Europe, knowing full well that in my country, in my region, access to the Internet is restricted. Why should we therefore deprive these people, these European citizens, of the right to learn about things which concern them via other traditional channels?
I therefore consider, Commissioner, as do the Committee on Economic Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs, that the electronic platform must be compulsory and quite rightly so. However, it must not be the only platform. We must allow all European citizens to access information. We do not want a situation in which someone in a region of Europe has to find out what is going to happen in his region on a BlackBerry, because where I live many people do not have a BlackBerry.
I therefore consider that, as the representative of the Commission, and I believe that we should send the Council the same message, you must take serious account of the position which we expressed unanimously in the Committee on Legal Affairs and by a large majority in the Committee on Economic Affairs. May I say that, if you are thinking about ignoring it, I would advise you to think again, because it is only through productive democratic dialogue that we can find mutually acceptable solutions for the benefit of the many, not just the few.
Georgios Papastamkos
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, the European Council in March 2008 ordered new, fast-track legislative initiatives to be taken in order to improve the business environment for companies in the Union by reducing administrative obligations and costs. In my opinion, the Commission's proposal for a directive which we are debating contributes little to the objective set.
The core problem for companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, is that objective conditions are needed for improving the bureaucratic, legislative and fiscal environment in general and we expect an even more substantial contribution on the part of the Commission in this direction.
In this particular instance, the main purpose of publishing companies' annual accounts and other financial statements is to apply the principle of transparency and publicity in commercial activities. However, the low level of penetration of the Internet in a significant number of Member States of the Union does not constitute an adequate guarantee.
Apart from that, having compulsory records in purely electronic format would also mean the loss of thousands of specialist jobs in traditional printed media. Furthermore, the press is an essential component of the principle of the transparency and democratic life of the Union, the contribution of which to the multilingualism and diversity of the European Union is beyond question.
I consider that the safety valve of adopting a single fee and of maintaining the parallel facility to publish in the printed media, in conjunction with the introduction of an electronic register, as formulated in the consensus reached and voted by all - I repeat all - wings of the Committee on Legal Affairs, is the balanced and rational solution needed.
In closing, allow me to emphasise that what is required of the European Parliament and what it has a duty to provide is productive consent to Community lawmaking whilst retaining the full independence of its legislative will. It is the will of the Committee on Legal Affairs, as already formulated, that plenary adopt the report by Mrs Kauppi, whom I congratulate on her work.
In post scriptum to you, Commissioner, I do not know if the consensus proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs comes as a disappointment to you, but I should like to say to you and I honestly hope that, as soon as the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the culture of cooperation between the Commission and the European Parliament will - and must - change. That is what we are waiting for now; that is what the democratically elected European Parliament is waiting for.
Ieke van den Burg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, firstly I shall say something about the procedure. It is a pity that we did not discuss it this morning, Commissioner, when we were sitting together, because I was a bit surprised that you are so harsh now in your speech to Parliament. On the procedure, I am particularly harsh on the way that the French presidency has dealt with our proposals, in not meeting any requirements to negotiate or try to have a dialogue on a possible compromise.
It is the same for the Commission. With these types of issues it is normal to try to get together and find a solution that meets the concerns of the different parties. I regret that this has happened, and I hope that in the time between the plenary and the vote in committee there will be an opportunity to do that.
On the content, I think we do not differ so much. I am also very much committed to relief of administrative burdens. I am always pushing for the XBRL system in accounting and this type of electronic platform. I think we all agree that it is necessary, precisely because in some Member States the electronic society is not yet completely in place. It is necessary to have this temporary transitional solution so Member States still have the option of using this type of paper registration.
This is really a temporary problem and there could be a pragmatic solution. I heard this week that it is only 20 years since e-mail was first used and since the first internet connection, so in 10 to 20 years' time it will be completely normal for everything to be processed electronically. It is only a very temporary problem that we are facing and we should not make a big issue of it. We should try to find a reasonable, pragmatic solution in the spirit of what you are always telling us you want also.
Jean-Paul Gauzès
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I first want to thank our colleague, Piia-Noora Kauppi, for her excellent report and for her efforts to allow a reasonable solution to be found to the various issues, especially that of the platform.
The proposed directive is part of the wider action undertaken to reduce the administrative burden on companies, to reduce the restrictions upon them and increase their competitiveness. We, of course, actively support this objective which will benefit SMEs. We approve the creation of an electronic platform containing all information and the principle of a single fee to cover all of the costs related to the necessary publications.
It is appropriate, however, to provide the best possible information and to allow continuation of the usual publication methods, which are still needed, especially in the printed press. The text proposed by the rapporteur after negotiations, and unanimously adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, will allow the Member States to provide for the retention of the usual publication methods, as their cost is included in the single publication fee.
We have therefore, Commissioner, complied with the spirit of the proposal by making the platform a requirement and by maintaining the principle of a single fee. We have, however, taken account of the reality in various countries without the IT infrastructure that some other countries have, and which have information habits that should not be ignored.
Commissioner, you know that the citizens' views have to be taken into account and that Europe must not appear to be a source of new restrictions or difficulties. This is why we are looking for the flexibility to take into account the realities of the different Member States, whilst retaining an economical system.
You harshly said, Commissioner, that the Committee on Legal Affairs' proposal undermines the Commission's position. I do not think this is accurate, nor is it accurate to say that the Committee on Legal Affairs' proposal introduces new formalities. On the contrary, it is agreed that these are existing formalities which will be retained and we obviously reject the introduction of new formalities.
What is needed, Commissioner, I believe, is for Europe to show it is capable of reducing bureaucracy and administrative burdens, whilst respecting national identities.
Manuel Medina Ortega
(ES) Mr President, I want to thank the Commission for having presented this proposal. I believe it is positive and will help us to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.
As previous speakers have said, this Parliament has a duty to bring down to earth the Commission's very generous and very altruistic proposals. The reality is that we have 27 countries with different legal systems and very different languages which means that, in each country, we must adapt to the realities of that country, including on the issue of languages.
However, as mentioned just now by Mr Gauzès and also by previous speakers, it is vital that the recognition of these national specificities does not lead to increased costs, that fees are uniform and that governments, if necessary, shoulder this additional cost.
However, there is also another issue: the issue of translations. In the European Union we do not have a common language. Different languages are spoken in all the 27 countries, and even within some of these countries, such as the Commissioner's. We have to live with this.
Also, in legal terms, we are faced with a reality in which legal documents differ. The Committee on Legal Affairs has, for example, proposed amendments on the certification of documents, together with the certification of translations. At this moment in time, the Committee on Legal Affairs is preparing a report on the recognition of certified documents in various European Union countries, which should complement this report.
Finally, I believe that the Commission has done well in presenting this proposal. The rapporteur has done a magnificent job and we have all tried to develop a proposal for a legislative text that can be recognised throughout the Union, thus guaranteeing rights and which is based on the reality of a Union that is still being constructed, that has different national legal systems and that has different levels of access to electronic communications.
Françoise Grossetête
(FR) Mr President, firstly I wish to congratulate Mrs Kauppi, the rapporteur, on her excellent work as, thanks to her, the Committee on Legal Affairs has found a compromise which was, I recall, Commissioner, adopted unanimously. This is, then, a clear signal. It will reconcile the need of companies, especially SMEs, for administrative simplicity and the citizen's right to information, whilst leaving Member States the option of retaining publication requirements, if they so wish.
I am convinced that the European Parliament will follow the lead from the Committee on Legal Affairs. The 27 Member States have their traditions. Some advocate the Internet exclusively. Others still use more traditional paper methods of communication. These traditions have to be respected. Let us not forget that 50% of Europe's citizens have no Internet access. If the information were only available on a single electronic platform, those unable to access the Internet, or who prefer to use paper, would be unable to receive information about companies in their region.
I believe that the European Parliament well understands that simply abolishing the publication of judicial and legal announcements in regional newspapers, for example, would have disastrous consequences. As a result, the Member States must be able to organise the distribution of information via complementary channels, under specific conditions.
Commissioner, this is not an ideological debate. Do you not think, in the current circumstances, that you have other things to do instead of hindering something which is working well in the Member States?
In seeking always to simplify, there is sometimes the risk of making things more complicated. Reducing costs? Yes, but at what price? Easing the restrictions to increase competitiveness? Yes, but what happens to competitiveness when the simplification risks severely damaging the economy of an entire sector? There is a strong desire for the Commission to take notice of the fact that we support solutions which will allow the printed press to overcome the difficulties it currently faces.
Commissioner, you should not be impervious to the traditions of the Member States. By acting in this way, you are responsible for risking redundancies for a certain number of journalists and a lack of information for a large part of the population.
We are looking for a balanced directive incorporating the electronic platform and the single fee. We are convinced that we have achieved this solution, and you must respect the European Parliament's vote.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament has long been raising the issue of unnecessary and disproportionately high administration costs imposed on European enterprises. These costs not only make doing business more difficult, but represent a barrier to meeting the challenges of today's highly competitive world economy.
It is therefore pleasing that the Commission has finally turned its attention to this issue, proposing to apply the fast-track procedure to the amendment of the 1st and 11th Company Law Directives, which will contribute to a faster improvement of European enterprises' business environment. In the case of the 1st Directive, the elimination from national law of all additional disclosure requirements which increase enterprise costs seems very appropriate indeed. The proposed electronic platform with full information about companies will provide an economical and easily accessible solution, as will the single payment covering all costs, whether administrative or associated with disclosure requirements.
The proposal relating to the 11th Company Law Directive concerns the translation and certification of documents to be entered into the commercial register of a branch of a company established in a different Member State. The mutual recognition of translations proposed by the Commission as a way of reducing the administrative burden will undoubtedly contribute to reducing the costs borne by companies, while ensuring the reliability of the translations. Finally, may I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Kauppi, on the excellent report.
Costas Botopoulos
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to use the privilege of being the last speaker to make a political comment and two technical comments on the directive which we are debating.
My political comment is that today we are witnessing a rare moment in the European Parliament: complete unanimity in all wings of the House, from the right wing to the left wing, on the direction in which Parliament wishes to take a specific legislative initiative. Numerous members have said and I too wish to emphasise the fact that this is a rare occurrence and must of necessity be taken into account in the Commission's final decision.
We are not undermining the Commission's proposal. We are trying to modernise it and make it more human, more logical and more practical. That is my political comment.
I have two brief technical comments: on the question of publication, Members have said and I too shall add that it is absolutely fair and absolutely right for the Member States in which access to the Internet is severely limited to be given the facility, alongside the general rule of electronic publication, of publication in the press for obvious social and financial reasons.
I should like to comment briefly on the question of translation, with which there is no problem whatsoever. The facility for there to be just one recognised translation gives us a practical solution. The question of translation raised here is not a question of language, it is not a question of transparency, it is not a question of style. It is a practical question which can be very simply resolved by recognising the translation.
There is a distinction, therefore, between the political issues and the technical issues. We are not undermining the proposal, we are improving it.
Charlie McCreevy
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me begin by saying that if Ieke van den Burg had raised this issue this morning, I gladly would have dealt with it. I had asked you whether there were any other issues you would like to raise and, if you had, I would have spoken to you about it. If you had raised any issue at all - including the weather in Ireland - I would have discussed that with you as well. I have no problem doing that.
I do not have any problem at all as to what the European Parliament decides, because that is your job and that is what you must do. But the background to this particular proposal has to be kept in mind and, since I appreciate your position, I would ask you to appreciate mine.
This particular proposal was put forward in the context of reducing the administrative burden on small companies. It was part of the simplification of the business environment. There are estimates of what this proposal would achieve: reducing the cost annually by EUR 600 million. So the reason for putting forward this proposal was to reduce administrative costs for small business. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, the whole project of reducing costs has been welcomed by the European Parliament in various resolutions.
So this is the context in which this was put forward. With the idea of bringing down administrative costs and simplification for smaller business we came up with this particular proposal.
You can hardly expect me then to accept amendments by the European Parliament that go in totally the opposite direction by not reducing administrative costs but increasing them. If the European Parliament feels that, in this particular instance, the balance of advantages weighs further in keeping this the way they want, so be it. That is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. But this cannot be reconciled with the original objective which you brought forward, which was to reduce costs. If Parliament and others feel that for all the reasons you have outlined it should be kept like this, you can hardly expect me to stand up and agree with you that this is going to reduce administrative costs when it is going to do the opposite - in fact it is going to add to costs rather than reduce them.
The amendments tabled by the two European Parliament committees mean that the only change that Member States would have to implement following the adoption of this directive would make the use of an electronic platform mandatory. No reduction in the current administrative burden would be achieved by the savings which we expected from our original proposal, which have been assessed, as I said, in the impact statement, at around EUR 600 million per annum. So adopting a directive that leads to no reduction but only to cosmetic changes would definitely give a bad signal concerning the overall reduction of the administrative burden that we have been talking about.
So I would ask Members of the European Parliament to respect my position also. If the view of Parliament seems to follow that particular line - and there will be a vote on it tomorrow - that is your view and you are fully entitled to that position. I have no difficulty with it. But you have to respect my position in that I can hardly accept amendments that go in the opposite direction to the original purpose of bringing this forward in the first instance. We should not fall out about it, but I will not be in a position to turn logic on its head and say that what the European Parliament is doing is all right, because it is increasing administrative costs rather than reducing them.
I can listen to the reasons you put forward for keeping it as it is - and perhaps there is some validity in them - but that is not what we started off doing; that is not the reason why we brought forward this particular proposal. So, c'est la vie!
Piia-Noora Kauppi
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to make a comment about the procedure. Mrs van den Burg already said that the French presidency has not behaved very well with this dossier. We have tried to propose several possibilities for trialogue meetings to discuss possible compromises. Unfortunately the French presidency is unwilling to come to these meetings. They are unwilling to organise meetings in the Council working group in order to discuss the way forward. Also they are not present here today to discuss this very important matter.
The view of the Committee on Legal Affairs gives a lot of flexibility for the Member States. It gives much more flexibility than my personal view. However, the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs is going as far as we can possibly go. This is the only proposal on the table in Parliament at the moment. My opinion is that if the Council is not able to accept Parliament's view, i.e. the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs - which is to be voted on tomorrow - as we have requested them to do, then we have to go to second reading.
We cannot allow Council to play us. If this is not accepted in the form voted on tomorrow by Parliament, we will certainly have a delay in the process. Perhaps we will not have this project ready before the elections and there is a risk perhaps that the Commission will withdraw the proposal. I think that it would be very disappointing if Council does not have a qualified majority behind it and does not come up with proposals on how to reach a compromise.
We would be willing to discuss compromises. I would personally be very happy if the Council would propose something in the trialogue meeting on which we could then base the compromise, but it is hiding and not coming to meetings and it is not organising trialogues. It leaves us in a very difficult situation.
That is why I am upset about the discussions about the procedure. I hope that the Commission does not withdraw the proposal. I hope there will still be an opportunity to have a compromise that would suit all the Member States and also the European Parliament.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.