EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Lasse Lehtinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013.
Lasse Lehtinen
rapporteur. - (FI) Mr President, the report before us has undergone a thorough reading in committee, for which I thank my colleagues and above all the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups. In a spirit of consensus we have noted the Commission's laudable efforts to highlight consumer issues in all areas of policy.
This continent will not be able to compete in global markets unless it can compete in its own internal market. The 27 national mini-markets must be combined to constitute the largest retail market in the world.
A viable internal market requires action to boost consumer confidence. Strong and independent consumer organisations have an important role in this.
Among the options for increasing confidence there is one which has stood out more than others in our discussions and which also caused the only disagreements worth mentioning. It is about the possibility of consumers having the tools to pursue compensation if something goes wrong. The view is expressed in this report that it is indispensable for consumers to have a cross-border collective redress system in cases where there is a dispute.
Commissioner Kuneva has already promised to start considering what sort of system of collective redress might work in Europe. At least there seems to be broad consensus among us in Europe on what sort of system it should not be. It should not have any fundamental similarity with the American collective redress system, which mainly benefits lawyers, not consumers. In Europe we have to aim for a system where claims for compensation are directly linked to actual damage caused. This way, how justice is dispensed would not so much focus on the penalty but on obtaining justice for the consumer. Collective redress systems would therefore not give consumers new rights, but would ensure that their present rights can be exploited to the full.
The conservatives as a group have been unwilling to take forward the idea of collective redress. The reason suggested is that the Commission has already promised to start drafting proposals on it. Parliament, however, is the political decision-maker elected by the people of Europe, and we must make its majority will evident. We have both the authorisation and an obligation to think about new and detailed solutions to issues the public see as problematic and propose them to the Commission.
I have proposed that the Commission looks into whether it would be useful to establish a post of Consumer Ombudsman reporting to the Commission, who would specifically deal with cross-border cases. This high official could act as a gatekeeper, a sort of selective authority, as is the case in national contexts when means of legal redress are being implemented. Hopefully, the report and the compromises contained in it will receive the widest possible support.
Meglena Kuneva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament for supporting the objectives and actions of our Consumer Policy Strategy for the years 2007-2013 and of course for the great support and work of the rapporteur.
I welcome the view of Parliament on the necessity to transform the 27 national mini-markets into a pan-European retail market - the largest in the world. To achieve this, we need to increase the confidence of consumers to shop across borders. We often say that trust is the currency of the modern economy. I believe that, through our endeavours and substantial efforts, helped by the set of our strategy, we could, step by step, achieve this goal.
In this context, I also very much appreciate the support given to the proposed framework directive on consumer contractual rights, which is the tool for achieving the goal. I am particularly pleased with the agreement of Parliament on the need for targeted full harmonisation where bottlenecks to the functioning of the internal market are identified.
On the Consumer Markets Scoreboard, I am grateful for the welcome given by the European Parliament to this initiative and look forward to your full support later this year. The Scoreboard is central to the aim of the strategy of better understanding how the internal market is working for our consumers - to measure the outcome of the internal market for consumers. When the Scoreboard is fully developed, we will really be able to deliver better regulation and evidence-based policy-making. Equally important, we will demonstrate to our citizens that we understand and can respond to their day-to-day concerns.
You raised the question of redress. I would like to thank you for your support for the Consumer Policy Strategy's focus on redress and enforcement. Redress, together with enforcement, is a key part of this Strategy. Like you, I strongly believe that, in order to make the internal market work, European consumers must be confident that they can enforce their rights and obtain redress across the whole European Union. I also believe that a complementarity of means of redress - judicial and non-judicial, both individual and collective - would allow the most efficient and appropriate treatment of consumer disputes. This would benefit both consumers and reputable businesses alike. Personally, I think that collective redress - both judicial and non-judicial - could be an effective means for strengthening the redress framework that we have already set up for European consumers. We have done this through the encouragement of ADR - alternative dispute resolution - mechanisms, the establishment of a European cross-border small claims procedure and the newly adopted Directive on Mediation.
Of course any future action in this area will need to be assessed carefully. As you know, I have launched two studies aimed at further exploring the issue of collective redress. The first one will examine the effectiveness and efficiency of existing collective redress mechanisms; it will assess whether consumers suffer a detriment in those Member States where collective redress is not available and examine the existence of negative effects for the single market.
The second study will provide information on the problems faced by consumers in obtaining redress for mass claims and will analyse the economic consequences of such problems for consumers, competitors and the relevant market.
I plan to use the results of these studies and the information collected from stakeholders and Member States for preparing a communication to be adopted by the Commission by the end of 2008. The aim of this communication will be to consult publicly and widely on the options available in the field of consumer collective redress.
At the same time, I am evaluating how the Directive on Injunctions was implemented by the Member States and the impact that it has had on the enforcement of consumer rights in the EU. My conclusions will be set out in a report that should also be adopted by the Commission at the end of this year.
Again, thank you to Parliament for sharing the vision of the new, market-based consumer policy - one where informed and empowered consumers confidently look for, and benefit from, the best offers in terms of price and quality in the largest retail market in the world.
Piia-Noora Kauppi
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - Mr President, I would like to welcome the Commission communication, as well as the report of Mr Lehtinen as both are overall very balanced pieces of work.
Moreover, they rightly bring out an important notion that must be addressed at EU level - consumer policy is and must be part of the internal market.
This leads me to what the Committee on Economic Affairs has rightly brought into the report: completing the internal market is in itself great consumer policy. EU-wide competition brings prices down and increases quality and consumer choice. The EU-wide access to consumers to these choices must be asserted.
In an internal market, consumers are drivers of the market economy and can, through their choices, protect their own interests. Therefore, the consistent implementation of existing directives regarding the internal market is of paramount importance.
The Committee on Economic Affairs' opinion correctly highlights two areas that are of particular importance in this respect. First, financial services: a real internal market in banking, loans, insurance etc. is needed to empower European consumers. This is especially pressing as democratic developments are making best possible investment services increasingly relevant to all. Big hurdles remain to be overcome here.
Second, e-commerce. This is linked to functioning financial markets and conditioned by the development of payment systems, but it is also important to practically all aspects of the internal market as the internet offers a real European marketplace. So we must make sure that European e-commerce really functions and consumers have right choices there.
Diana Wallis
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Mr President, in the Committee on Legal Affairs we agree with you, Commissioner: let us get rid of these 27 mini-markets; but, in order to do that, you need a much more common legal framework. I think our starting point that would help us get there is if we saw all elements of the Commission who are involved with the internal market working also coherently together. The one issue that has long interested us, and we felt that perhaps there was not sufficient mention of, was the contract law project and the common frame of reference.
We do not want to feel that this is being forgotten and everybody is moving on to the next thing which we support you in, in terms of collective redress, but let us also devote our efforts still towards the common frame of reference. We would like to have seen more emphasis on ADR forms of redress, particularly in the on-line world which is something we, as a committee, have long supported. With collective redress, yes, we are happy that you look at it and we go forward in that area, but please do not let us end up where we have with contract law, bedevilled with questions over legal base and other issues.
Anna Hedh
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (SV) Mr President, let me say a big thank you to the Commissioner, Meglena Kuneva, and rapporteur Lasse Lehtinen.
I welcome the strategy and am very glad that consumers are being treated as an important group to look after. We know that we shall never get a flourishing internal market unless we have satisfied and secure consumers. But I share the rapporteur's view that the strategy calls for continuous follow-up if it is really to develop to the consumers' advantage.
As rapporteur for the strategy in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, however, I am disappointed that the main reporting committee did not take account of more than one of our 13 amendments. They contain many important and worthwhile proposals. We wanted to see a clearer gender perspective. Consumer policy is definitely not gender-neutral. Gender should be taken into account just as children, the elderly and the disabled are taken into account. I hope that this can be taken up again in the next review.
Colm Burke
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, my thanks to Mr Lehtinen and to the shadow rapporteurs for the good cooperation over the last few months. This report introduces some very positive elements in the area of consumer policy moving forward. Consumers can only exercise their rights if they are aware of those rights, and empowerment of consumers in the EU is a central element of this report, and this will be achieved through education and awareness campaigns. Special focus will be given to equip consumers with the skills and tools needed to increase their confidence in the digital environment.
The report commends the Commission's efforts to strengthen cooperation in the area of product safety and at international level, in particular with Chinese and US authorities. Continued dialogue and information-sharing on product safety is in the interest of all parties and is central to building consumer confidence.
In relation to consumer redress, together with my PPE-DE colleagues I strongly support easy and effective access to redress for all consumers in the EU. We know that non-judicial forms of redress are the preferred solution of most consumers as they serve consumers' interests most rapidly at the lowest possible cost.
As I have stated since the outset of discussions, I do not support calls for legislative action to introduce an ill-thought-out system of collective redress in the EU. The Commission is currently preparing various studies on existing systems of consumer redress in the Member States and rather than pre-empt the results of the Commission studies I, together with my PPE-DE colleagues, call for a strong role for Parliament and the Member States in assessing the results of the studies before deciding upon further action. It is not in consumers' interests to hastily introduce a system of collective redress which would be both costly and ineffective. In all other respects I support the report.
Evelyne Gebhardt
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, may I express my thanks to Mr Lehtinen for the really good draft report he has given us, which provides us with a very sound basis for our discussions.
I should like to highlight three very important points from this report. The first is the need to ensure that a leading role is played by instruments which we already possess in the European Union for the promotion of safety and prevention. This is why it is very important that the RAPEX system should be further improved so that it can serve the interests of consumers even more effectively.
The second very important point is that Solvit, which is such a key instrument, should be nurtured and improved. There is still a very considerable information gap among consumers, too many of whom have never heard of Solvit and do not know that it could resolve a good few problems for them. That is also very important.
I am also very gratified that the European Commission is to examine the EE symbol again. Many people believe that the EE symbol is a safety mark, but unfortunately it is not. We should ensure, together with you and Commissioner Verheugen, that the rules governing this symbol are formulated so as to enable us to assure the public in future that they can rely on the safety of products bearing the EE mark. That is a very important aim.
The last and most important point, however, in the view of my group is the system of collective redress that we in the Socialist Group are advocating. The entire statute book serves no purpose if consumers cannot assert their enshrined rights, be it because there is a cross-border dimension which makes the law very difficult to enforce or because there are many small claims for minor losses, although these can certainly suck people dry over time. It is absolutely essential that we not only encourage the European Commission to examine and develop such a system but actually urge it to do so and to present us with an appropriate piece of draft legislation as soon as possible so that we can really give consumers due security and protection.
I very much regret that the PPE-DE Group has not seen fit to advocate this system with the vigour and commitment that are needed to give consumers and the public at large real confidence in the European Union and the internal market, for such confidence comes from knowing that they are properly protected when they go shopping in Europe.
Alexander Lambsdorff
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, may I begin by congratulating Lasse Lehtinen on this good and balanced draft report. We are in agreement on very many points. One reason for this has been the very good preliminary work of the Commission in this case. There are few contentious points.
Consumer strategy will be one of the main topics of discussion during the next stage in the development of the internal market. At the heart of the three main challenges facing the European Union, namely growth, employment and the recognition and satisfaction of people's needs, are 490 million consumers. The internal market has the potential to become the world's largest retail market. This is why the ALDE Group supports the Commission's targeted efforts to create one large retail market out of 27 mini-markets.
We also welcome the way in which the draft reinforces the horizontal element of consumer policy as well as its proposal for the appointment of what it calls consumer-liaison officers. In this context I should make special mention of the proposed strengthening of the European Consumer Centres and the particular attention given to the needs of children and elderly people.
May I also say something on the subject of collective redress, with which we have a problem. We have had little information and much dogma. I believe it would be premature, Meglena, to say that you will have the solid backing of Parliament on this matter. We have just heard from the PPE-DE Group that it will not back you. I believe the PPE-DE is failing to recognise the real problems. There is a scatter-gun type of damage that affects many consumers in more than one country. It is legitimate for the Commission to give some thought to this whole matter and examine it in a study. On the other hand we have PSE dogma, which craves this instrument at all costs as a political tool, regardless of the real problems - and the real problems are manifold.
There is, for example, the problem of the legal basis. Where in the Treaty does it say that we here in the Commission and Parliament are entitled to interfere with the Member States' codes of civil and criminal procedure? What did Diana Wallis just tell us on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs? The problem of contract law is still unresolved. The question of opting in or opting out, the role of the Ombudsman - there are many problems to resolve. It is simply not enough to say we do not want the US system. The Americans also had the best of intentions when they first created their system. It goes without saying that they did not intentionally create a bad system at the outset.
For these reasons we should maintain an agnostic, critical position. We should wait for the study, take its findings seriously and then engage in an informed, non-dogmatic and responsible discussion, as befits this Parliament.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Mr Lehtinen's report deals with the major issues of pro-quality strategy for the coming years. That strategy is important for the citizens of the Union, and I want to stress some of the problems involved. In the creation of national and EU law there should be greater input from consumer organisations, which are encountering difficulties in pursuing their activities and obtaining funding in certain countries. The Union should provide more substantive and financial assistance to those organisations. The collective redress systems applicable in certain countries should be used against dishonest market players, and a collective redress system should be introduced at European level.
European consumer centres in the individual countries, as well as consumer organisations and consumer rights spokesmen, should step up information and education activities aimed at special protection for the most vulnerable consumers. Protection can be made more effective through the involvement of the Solvit and RAPEX consumer centres. We support this report.
Eva-Britt Svensson
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Thank you, Mr President. Support for consumers' rights is often weak and so needs to be strengthened. I therefore thank the rapporteur and members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, who have succeeded in strengthening support for those consumer groups which most need protection: children and the elderly.
Strong consumer support calls for active consumer organisations. Individuals are not strong when they stand alone. It is through these organisations that consumers gain strength and acquire more knowledge and information. These organisations therefore need reliable and secure financing. But the insecurity which currently prevails in purchases across national borders needs to be resolved by creating the possibility for group actions to be brought against firms which break the law. The greatest problem for consumers today is that it is difficult to get a dispute between different countries heard because there are no instances to resolve such cross-border disputes. The EU must first develop instances to resolve disputes, not create more EU legislation. I think the proposal to appoint an EU consumer ombudsman is highly dubious. Why introduce more services to be financed at EU level, thereby risking a cut in appropriations for consumers organisations? Consumers will not gain anything from that.
In conclusion, I regret that the amendments from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality - as usual, I have to say - were voted down in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. They were worthy of a better fate.
Hanne Dahl
Mr President, it is a pleasure to take the floor for the first time and within an area of responsibility in which I look forward to working. It is of course positive that through this report the European Parliament is taking the initiative to secure the rights of consumers. However, I fear that, bit by bit, this legislation will simply amount to patching things up. There will be patches that cover up the fact that the EU is organised in such a way that consideration for the free mobility of goods, capital and services will always take precedence over consideration for consumers and other 'soft' areas. I believe that today's debate reflects this.
I would like to give two very specific examples of ways in which we must secure the rights of consumers. It is vital that we secure the consumer's right to complain in their own country and in their own language, and it is vital that food products and other goods that could constitute a health risk can be subject to checks in the event of import into the individual countries. The individual countries should be allowed to carry out checks and demand a higher standard than that laid down in EU regulations, out of consideration for the environment and the health of consumers. The EU's consumer health strategy must be based on the principle of caution instead of an ideological school of thought that merely serves to allow all goods to move completely freely across borders. This can be done by securing the right to complain and contact legal bodies locally, as well as by allowing the import of goods to be stopped if there are health-related reasons for doing so.
Sergej Kozlík
(SK) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report rightly assesses the positive effect of the euro in terms of reducing the cost of financial operations. Consumers have found it easier to compare prices in cross-border contracts and have also welcomed the increased retail potential in the internal market. I agree that the new Member States should be encouraged to continue their reforms and that they should be able to adopt the euro as soon as they fulfil the Maastricht criteria, in order to take full advantage of a common currency in the internal market.
The European Parliament will soon have an opportunity to test this proposal in practice when it debates the enlargement of the euro zone to include the Slovak Republic. Slovakia has, with considerable effort and well ahead of target, fulfilled the Maastricht convergence criteria. I reject the attitude of some colleagues who are now hammering us with a vague and fuzzy counter-argument about the permanent sustainability of these criteria. That could go on indefinitely.
Charlotte Cederschiöld
Mr President, in the internal market consumers and providers, as well as goods and services, should be able to move freely.
Consumers must not be less protected in other Member States than at home if we want to ensure and enhance cross-border activities. Therefore, I welcome the horizontal approach in the consumer policy and the better protection it will lead to.
It means empowered consumers and strong consumer protection as well as a business-friendly internal market legislation. However, we are concerned about the hasty approach concerning collective redress.
It is too early for Parliament to take a position. We need thorough studies of the existing systems in the Member States and an assessment of the need of a European collective redress system. We do not have enough knowledge at this stage of the consequences in terms of risk abuse, higher costs for consumers and businesses and more regulation.
I do not believe that anyone supports the introduction of a European system in the EU knowing all the drawbacks and disproportionate consequences it would bring. For now, we encourage other means of redress which are more rapid and at lower costs and leave the regulation to the Member States to be decided nationally. Existing instruments and non-legislative tools can be used at EU level.
We call on the Commission to carry out the study and present its results to Parliament and the Member States. Why go further than what is needed in order to achieve the objectives of the Treaty? Why take away the possibility of choice for Member States keeping different dispute-solving mechanisms? There are many questions to be answered.
There is no clear indication so far that an EU-collective redress system brings added value to the internal market and its consumers and businesses. The EU should not legislate without strong reasons.
Bernadette Vergnaud
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by congratulating Lasse Lehtinen on the excellent work he has done and on his capacity for listening. His report sets out to improve a Commission strategy that is already based on the principles of protecting and empowering consumers.
I support the horizontal approach advocated by the rapporteur as a means of reconciling the protection of consumers - and especially the most vulnerable consumers - with an efficient internal market. Likewise, it is essential that consumer organisations should be given a greater role in preparing legislative proposals.
In relation to product safety, the Commission not only needs to pursue its market surveillance efforts; it also needs to act quickly to establish principles for a CE marking system that will offer a genuine guarantee of quality, traceability and safety.
Lastly, it is essential to improve access to redress by proposing a European system of collective redress that will allow consumers to exercise their rights in full where there is proven harm, while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of the US system. Voting in favour of these things can only strengthen public confidence in a European market model that is both open and protective.
Andreas Schwab
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's consumer strategy encompasses various thematic areas, in which we very largely support its position. We support you too, Mrs Kuneva, in your personal commitment to the completion of the single market and your particular focus on consumers and their role in the internal market.
There are various areas of common ground. Reference has already been made to the aim of strengthening the European Consumer Centres and the Solvit system. That aim enjoys cross-party support. We also acknowledge the need for a horizontal approach to consumer policy but regret the weak emphasis on the law of contract. We must take care that contract law does not cause our proposals to fray at the edges so that we end up with patchwork legislation. This evening's vote in committee showed that consumers trust the law if they are fairly sure that they know it. If time limits vary from one jurisdiction to another, consumer confidence will wane quite considerably. We therefore need the common reference framework, because we need uniform standards in order to build consumer confidence.
The same applies to collective redress. We have heard that various groups have adopted diverse positions. The position of the PPE-DE Group is quite clear: we concur with the analysis that there are certain weak points where consumer interests are less well protected, especially with regard to cross-border transactions. We look in vain, however, for an analysis of the reasons why these weak points exist, and no one in the chamber this evening has offered any explanation. We have been promised studies. We shall read them very carefully, page by page. If these studies only analyse the legal position, however, and not the differences between the Member States in terms of the enforcement of their own laws, these studies will bring us no further forward at the end of the day.
May I therefore say to you, Mrs Kuneva, that we are wide open to real progress and take a very constructive attitude to the enforcement of existing rights but that these consumer rights cannot be more effectively enforced unless they ultimately work properly in practice. In Germany we have the Capital Investors' Test Cases Act, under which numerous shareholders have brought a group action against Deutsche Telekom; it has become evident in the course of these proceedings that the theory and practice of collective redress are often poles apart.
Gabriela Creţu
(RO) It is obvious that consumers who are well-informed about their rights can reach a high level of satisfaction and defend their interests. Nevertheless, besides knowledge, citizens also need an instrument available in order to request compensations when their rights are infringed. For this reason, we believe that group actions are necessary and welcome in a form efficient for the consumer and balanced for the market. Continuing and strengthening the process of the internal market supervision is just as necessary.
We believe the existent opinion barometer is very useful and will support its financing in the budget for 2009 as well, yet requesting more emphasis on recording and comparing the priced of goods and services traded in the 27 Member States. Last but not least, we should not forget that the consumers' rights should also function in the field of services, including the financial services and the services in the digital environment, where the degree of risk is much higher and it is much more difficult to prove the infringement of rights.
Malcolm Harbour
Mr President, I want to thank Lasse Lehtinen for a very comprehensive report, which contains an enormous amount of extremely significant ideas. As the Commissioner said earlier, to enable consumers to become better informed and more confident and to exercise that critical choice, we want innovative and safe products and services. All of those things will come from support for consumers and enhancing their rights.
I say this to Lasse particularly because I am disappointed that he has allowed all this good work to be overshadowed by one single issue. The problem with this issue about collective redress is that our colleagues in the Socialist Group seem to have already jumped to a conclusion that they want some new European legislation. I was delighted to hear you confirm, Commissioner, that you have two studies - not just one - looking at this issue in depth. We on this side of the House want to await the report before we jump to conclusions, but it appears that our colleagues on the Socialist side think that this is already a great thing and that, because we do not support it, we are some anti-consumer. You only have to read some of the press releases - the colourful releases, the red-coloured releases - that have come out on that side of the House. I just want to reject emphatically the fact that this side of the House is against consumer rights because we are not committing an advance to a proposal for which we do not even have the information. I say this to all our colleagues here: wrapping yourself in red tape and potentially adding great cost to consumers is not pro-consumer. Let us wait and see the conclusions.
I say to Alexander Lambsdorff that he has allowed himself to be hijacked by this, but all he has to do tomorrow for us to unanimously support Lasse Lehtinen's report, is to vote for our Amendments 5 and 6, which keep the door firmly open. We will wait for Mrs Kuneva's report and we will look at it and study it with an open mind, but, in the mean time, we will continue to be the great champions for consumers in the internal markets, for their effective rights that will be delivered by the existing legislation we have at the moment.
Joel Hasse Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Lehtinen report quite rightly considers that the needs of consumer protection can be satisfied by legislation only if it is better and simpler, and that a more coherent legal framework for consumer rights is needed.
I therefore call upon the Commission and the Member States to provide adequate funding for strong and independent consumer organisations. Such funding is absolutely essential for progress to be made in constructing a true internal market for consumers.
Collective redress, meanwhile, deserves the closest attention and my support, given the positive experience recorded in various Member States.
I would also like to say, as Mr Lehtinen stresses, that a strong consumer protection system will also benefit competitive producers and sellers, creating incentives for businesses to produce and sell more durable goods, resulting in more sustainable growth.
The report goes further than this, however, and I applaud Mr Lehtinen when he states that consumer protection should be an integral part of the planning and design of products and services.
Finally, I would like to say that I share his conclusion that effective and improved consumer protection is necessary in order to achieve a better functioning internal market. I would like to thank him and say that I believe we now have the best conditions for a good strategic understanding with Mrs Kuneva in this area.
Małgorzata Handzlik
(PL) Mr President, there is no need to stress the importance of customer satisfaction for businesses. Each of us as a consumer knows that dishonest business practices - deliberately misleading information or unsatisfactory after-sales service - effectively makes us disinclined to purchase any more goods or services from the company concerned. It is important, however, that consumers should always have the possibility of real choice, of changing the service provider or seller. Without a doubt, such choice creates a competitive market in which it does not pay market players to discourage consumers. In a competitive market the entrepreneur knows that he risks losing his market position, and with it his profits and prospects of further development. I believe the European Union internal market has such potential. I am pleased that the possibility of creating the internal market exists, that it exists thanks to consumers, and that that fact has been noticed. Obviously, I am not saying we are already operating in such a market. Consumers still lack the knowledge needed in order to seek out the most advantageous offers, and some entrepreneurs withhold that information from them. Moreover, service providers themselves often take insufficient account of consumers' interests.
It is therefore important to ensure that consumers' rights are respected, that they have the right to full, intelligible, simple and easily comparable information, and that that right is respected by companies and law-makers. It is no less important that consumers should be informed about their rights and made aware of the tools that exist to help them in taking decisions in a free market. In this respect, consumer organisations have a large part to play. Nor should we forget that the defence of consumers' rights, and the possibility of effectively enforcing them, are immensely important for the proper functioning of the market. As the rapporteur points out, however, defence of the consumer must not serve as an excuse for market protectionism. Our task is to strike the right balance in consumer protection so as not to create a barrier to business development.
Zita Pleštinská
(SK) I welcome the Commission's report on the EU consumer policy strategy and I also appreciate your efforts, Commissioner Kuneva, to promote a consumer culture based on consumer awareness and better access to information.
I believe that strong and independent consumer organisations are the backbone of an effective consumer policy and I am happy that Mr Lehtinen's report included the changes I proposed in article 7, where Parliament calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide sufficient finance for consumer organisations. This concerns primarily financial support for intensive training programs aimed at those working in consumer organisations. Consumer organisations are best informed about consumers' needs and should therefore be consulted on all areas of consumer policy that will affect consumers.
I fully support the two amendments proposed by my political group, the PPE-DE, to Article 40 of the report dealing with collective redress. Only if such a need is identified by the impact study should the Commission propose a European framework, which would give all consumers in all the Member States easy access to various redress mechanisms in cross-border complaints.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) In the context of the European Union consumer protection strategy, I would like to mention the importance of quality of services and products. If consumers are already used to resorting to consumer protection offices in relation to products, this does not happen when it comes to services. Many times, consumers sign contracts for the supply of services without reading the contractual provisions carefully and if they do read them carefully they believe they cannot propose any amendments thereof. In fact, they do not have the same power of negotiation the suppliers of services have, although some observations from consumers could improve the content of contracts and increase their confidence.
I would like to draw attention to the need to protect tourists and passengers as regards compliance with their rights which, unfortunately, many of them do not know and claim. Special attention should be given to electronic services as well. The consumers' confidence in digital services is essential for the European Union's competitiveness and, especially, for the development of economy based on knowledge.
In conclusion, I would like to mention the fact that we also have to speak about the quality of public services and, in this context, about consumer protection.
Magor Imre Csibi
(RO) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Lehtinen for the consistent report. Nevertheless, I would like to make an observation regarding Paragraph 35 of the report. This paragraph refers to the creation of a European Consumer Ombudsman in the European Ombudsman's office. This proposal seems to be a very complicated and not very efficient procedure to me.
First of all, the creation of such a position requires financial resources. We would have a redistribution of funds between the European consumer protection centres and the potential new Ombudsman. Secondly, bureaucracy would increase at the level of the European Union. Last but not least, we would have an overlapping of the newly-created Ombudsman's tasks and the European consumer protection centres. I don't believe that a new instrument would bring more efficiency in solving the complaints filed by European consumers. But I do think that an efficient and thorough implementation of the legislation would reduce the dissatisfaction related to the internal market operation.
In conclusion, I request the European Commission representatives to take into consideration Paragraph 7, by which we request the allocation of adequate funds to the consumer organizations across the European Union.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Mr President, globalisation of our market requires strong, clear and easily enforceable consumer rights and I am happy to see the Commission making very successful efforts in this area. In my report last year I pointed out that consumer confidence in e-commerce would be enhanced by sample consumer contracts and by better mechanisms for dealing with complaints, as well as by the European trustmark and the consumer charter. However, I do not think that a European Consumer Ombudsman will help us a great deal. We need instead to increase financial support for the existing consumer organisations and supervisory bodies in the Member States, because they are the bodies that are increasingly identifying the unsafe products from Asia, namely toys, children's shoes and sports equipment. The citizens expect us to come up with a more successful means of dealing with cross-border complaints, as has already been said here many times. That is further justification for harmonising the rules in the Member States. However, collective redress is problematic; it may be good for the lawyers, but it is often very costly for consumers or providers. I therefore welcome the Commission's intention to assess the results of the German or British model first and only then to consider the possible way forward, not being pushed into a blind alley by the Socialists. I would like to express my appreciation of the work done by our rapporteur and that of the Commission on the reform of the consumer policy.
Evelyne Gebhardt
(DE) Mr President, I intend to make my fellow Member Malcolm Harbour happy tomorrow by wearing my red suit to show him that the red corner really does know what it wants. That, in fact, is the difference between what we on the Left are seeking and what those on the Right are up to, namely creating a big blue smokescreen to hide the fact that they do not actually want consumer protection at all but are committed first and foremost to the defence of industrial interests. It is only right that this should be made clear for once.
Meglena Kuneva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I understood I have only two minutes, but I wish this talk could be much longer. I very much hope that I will continue with all of you, whenever you have time and interest, to discuss together consumer issues. I would be more than delighted, because I receive a lot of incentives - even in this late session.
I would like to make my political commitment, that I will continue to tackle the issues with sustainable development, working on CEE and GPSD (the General Product Safety Directive) and they how could they be complementary to each other. Of course I will continue with the digital guide, which was one of the very first talks which I had with Ms Roithová. I am, of course, working together with my fellow commissioners; this portfolio is becoming more and more wide-ranging and evolving other portfolios, but I believe that this is part of the beauty of this portfolio.
So, there are many things. Let me agree with all of you in saying that if we would like to have a complete internal market, we need to stress the rights of consumers. This is really the only way to fulfil and to square the second phase of the internal market. I believe that if we are making good progress with our scoreboard, this scoreboard will be part of the internal market's bigger picture, and then we will have already quite a full understanding of how the European internal market is going on.
I was specially touched by Mrs Dahl - I am sorry that she is no longer in the plenary - who said that this was the first time that she had taken the floor. But, referring to the so-called race to the bottom, if we have common rules everywhere in the European Union and not just protecting, in the best way, the national consumer, I think that we should not pick the winners, except one: if the winner is the consumer.
We started, years ago, making a good environment for business, and this was the right thing. But if you want to develop European business, business needs consumers, and we cannot deny that consumers need the same tackling of bottlenecks, so that they can feel comfortable everywhere, as a Swede living in Brussels, for example - we need to have the same rights, we need to have the same rights when we are shopping and enjoying e-commerce and other distance selling.
Let me focus for a while on collective redress. I carefully listened to all of you. Let me mention that, in our 10 benchmarks, which we distributed, discussed and received more than 300 opinions about, half of these collective redress benchmarks were related not to having punitive damages compensated and not to being an expensive procedure. So at least five of these benchmarks are related and address the issue of not having additional costs.
I believe that the best thing is to open our minds and not to make dogma, and this is my plea for support in this aspect. So I would also like to tell you that what we are preparing is communication: this is why we do not have a study on economic, social and environmental impact, as is done for all our legislative proposals. But we are doing something much more in preparation, and this is to have two really very thorough studies, comparative studies.
Let me invite you: before the end of the month we will have three big stakeholders' conferences: with businesses, with consumers and with academics, and our services will provide four places in the workshops for European Parliament representatives. All the outcomes of these three events will be absolutely public, put on our websites and communicated in the best manner, and of course I am around and always open to continue to discuss your hopes and your fears.
I would like to end by thanking you and saying that maybe for the first time, almost nobody mentioned that Europe is going to do a class action. I believe that this is a positive sign.
Lasse Lehtinen
rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to thank all my colleagues who spoke here tonight and, of course, Commissioner Kuneva for her constructive attitude that we have become familiar with since she came into office.
I have a couple of remarks. Mrs Kauppi mentioned financial services. The growing area of cross-border banking, insurance sales and wealth management which has some very sophisticated instruments is a growing problem. The rules still confuse consumers even at a national level. So I think that in this area we need a cross-border collective redress system as well, because it will make financial institutions more responsible and careful when they explain the rights and risks to the customer.
We all know the sad figures that tell us how citizens in Member States are afraid of buying goods and services across borders, which is completely due to a lack of confidence. But I trust that, when we proceed in the good mood in which we have discussed this report among ourselves and with the Commission, we can only succeed in building more confidence among European consumers.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 20 May 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Gábor Harangozó
, in writing. - We welcome the ongoing efforts to further incorporate the level of consumers' awareness as the necessary basis for the effective implementation of the existing consumer protection legal framework, especially with regard to the most vulnerable groups of the population.
Not only is there a need for a more comprehensive legal framework for consumers' rights, but also we ought genuinely to take into consideration consumers' interests when completing the internal market standardisation. It is obvious that a stronger, unique consumer protection system effective all over the Union is in the interest of all citizens. The completion of the internal market is an opportunity to implement harmonisation measures so as to target the problems faced by consumers in their everyday life. Specific attention should therefore be given to sectors related to the new digital environment.
A good consumer is a consumer aware of his or her rights and how rightfully to enforce them. We ought to develop in the Community a genuine consumer culture as part of our education system and to systematically involve consumer organizations in the consultations and the dialogue with industry. We welcome therefore the call to establish a special European Consumer Ombudsman in the European Ombudsman's office on a country-by-country basis.
Roselyne Lefrançois
in writing. - (FR) I warmly welcome Mr Lehtinen's report, which puts consumer protection at the heart of efforts to complete the internal market.
The report points out that a high level of protection for all consumers in the European Union can be achieved only through a horizontal approach - in other words with the help of sector-based directives aimed at harmonising national laws - and it also underscores the need to strengthen confidence among those same consumers. That depends particularly on ensuring the safety of all products in circulation and the security of all transactions both in the realm of cross-border trade in services and in electronic commerce.
I am also pleased that the report proposes research into the implementation at European level of rapid and effective means of redress for consumers. The establishment of non-judicial systems of dispute resolution would be one means of meeting expectations in this regard, as would the adaptation of certain forms of redress such as collective action - which already exist in certain Member States - to the Community legal context.
At the same time, I believe it would be useful to explore in greater depth, and in the light of different national experiences, the advantages and the limitations of such arrangements.
Vincent Peillon
, in writing. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to see that the European Commission has made the protection of Europe's consumers one of its priorities with its proposed EU Consumer Policy strategy for 2007-2013.
I should also like to thank my Finnish Socialist colleague Lasse Lehtinen for his excellent work and the significant contributions he makes in his report.
I welcome his vision of a horizontal approach at European level, for it is essential that the interests of consumers should be taken into account in all the Union's policies. At the same time I support his wish to give consumer associations a greater role in drafting European rules, and his proposal to improve protection for the most vulnerable consumers, particularly young and elderly people, through more information campaigns aimed specifically at them.
I also strongly support the introduction of a European system of collective redress that would enable consumers in different Member States to take their complaints jointly to the courts and seek redress, while avoiding the pitfalls of the US model. So I hope that, despite opposition on the conservative side, this House will vote in favour of a European 'class action' system.
Katrin Saks
, in writing. - (FI) I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lehtinen, for the work he has done in compiling this report.
One of the most important objectives of the consumer policy strategy proposed by the Commission is to make consumer protection the focus of the EU internal market.
I would like to stress that this is the very means by which we will be able to establish the best possible conditions for our consumers, and take an important step closer to attaining the objectives of the European Union.
How can we achieve this? Consumers must have access to accurate information on which to base their decisions. An informed consumer is also a more active consumer! An internal market which is working well must provide the EU's citizens with good options as well as reasonable prices and the opportunity to purchase high-quality goods and services.
Another important issue is class actions, which cannot be brought in Estonia, unlike some of the countries which are our neighbours. I do not believe, however, that this has been to the benefit of our consumers. Quite the reverse.
It is important to learn from the experiences of others: claims for damages must be related to the actual harm suffered. Similarly it is important for consumers to be able to rely on their rights; they should not have to waive them because they do not have the resources to take the providers of goods or services in other countries to court.
Our clear wording protects the consumers' interests in that regard and I believe that the need for class actions has become a key cross-border issue.


Explanations of vote
President
We shall now proceed to the explanations of vote.
Ilda Figueiredo
We voted for this final agreement because Parliament secured a EUR 40 million increase above the amount provided for in the Council Common Position. The budget for LIFE+ now stands at around EUR 1 894 million.
Part of the LIFE+ budget is earmarked for 'nature and biodiversity' projects. Parliament has ensured that at least 50% of budget resources of LIFE+ will be dedicated to project action grants to support the conservation of nature and biodiversity. In its common position, the Council had proposed earmarking 40% of the whole budget to such projects.
Lastly, as mentioned in the final report, Mr Dimas read out a statement during the Conciliation Committee meeting saying that before the review of the Financial Framework, the Commission would carry out a review of committed and planned spending at national and EU level on the management of the Natura 2000 networks. This overview will be used with a view to adapting Community instruments, in particular LIFE+, and to ensuring a high level of cofinancing.
To conclude, the outcome is far more satisfactory than any agreement that could have been concluded at an earlier stage of the legislative procedure.
Duarte Freitas
I warmly welcome the outcome of this conciliation procedure, with its accent on a centralised approach in which the Commission continues to manage the programme, thereby ensuring value added for Europe as a whole, equal criteria and excellence, and reducing extra spending on setting up national level management bodies.
I should like to highlight other positive elements such as the EUR 40 million increase in the general budget and the award of 15% in funds for transnational projects.
I shall therefore be voting in favour of the common project adopted by the Conciliation Committee on LIFE+.
Hubert Pirker
(DE) Mr President, we have been equipped with yet another instrument fit for combating the trafficking in human beings and their sexual exploitation, in the shape of the Daphne III programme, but the fact of the matter is that, since over 100 000 women in the European Union are victims of people-trafficking and of violence, this sort of programme needs to be properly endowed.
I am very glad to see that the budget has been topped up by 50 million, bringing it to over EUR 114 million, which will enable us to mount information campaigns in the countries from which those women and children originate who are enticed into the European Union, there to become the victims of sexual violence.
Such information campaigns enable us to prevent this by informing women and offering them protection from exploitation. If that is combined with aid provided under programmes for improving the position of women at risk, then we are, by means of Daphne III, taking a quite vital step in combating violence, people-trafficking and sexual exploitation.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Gröner report on the grounds that it has certainly succeeded in achieving progress in the fight against the violence suffered by women, and there is no doubt about the role that the Daphne programme has played in that.
It has to be said, though, that violence against women is more widespread in cultures in which patriarchal power still has deep roots and in which hardly anyone regards it as a problem. Violations of women's human rights such as genital mutilation and forced marriages are happening among us, too, as a consequence of the waves of immigration over recent years, and I believe we need to do more, in order to address this, than to raise awareness of the problem or make forced marriages punishable in the EU. There must also be no acceptance of exceptional court rulings justified by reference to cultural considerations; when criminals are punished, be they from the host community or from Western cultural backgrounds, the same law must apply to Muslim immigrants. This is where Justice must be neither blind nor dumb.
Bogusław Liberadzki
I am voting for the adoption of Mrs Gröner's report on the Council's common position with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women, and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme) as part of the General Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice'.
The Daphne programme was set up in 1997. It has served to fund over 350 projects providing support for non-governmental organisations and institutions and associations involved in protecting children, young people and women against violence. I offer my strong support to the third stage of this project, to which Mrs Gröner's report refers.
The main aims of Daphne III are supporting the development of the Community's policy relating to public health protection, gender equality, combating domestic violence, protecting children's rights, combating gender violence in situations of conflict and combating human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
These ambitious aims for 2007-2013 will be supported by a budget of EUR 116 850 000. A comparison with the Daphne I budget - EUR 20 000 000 and with the Daphne II budget - EUR 50 000 000 is testament to recognition of the programme's importance and achievements.
The report also rightly highlights the need to open up the programme for cooperation with non-governmental organisations by ensuring greater transparency, reducing bureaucracy and providing assistance for applicants seeking funding.
David Martin
I supported these Amendments to Daphne III, the EU's specific programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women. I am pleased that the third phase of Daphne (2007-2013) has an increased budget of EUR 116.85 million. In addition, I am pleased that the bureaucracy will be reduced so that NGOs have easier access to the programme.
Catherine Stihler
I fully support the work of the rapporteur in combating violence against women. The DAPHNE programme helps in tackling this issue across the EU and those who fail to support this report today should be condemned.
Margie Sudre
in writing. - (FR) The extension of the Daphne programme for 2007-2013 demonstrates the European Parliament's desire to ensure that this plan, which was implemented in 2000, continues.
Violence against children, adolescents and women is a tragic social phenomenon. Some groups that are particularly vulnerable to violence must be better protected, but we must not forget about domestic violence and female genital mutilation. In Réunion, for example, the number of offences against women has doubled in 20 years, and more than a fifth of women have suffered at least one form of violence in a public space during the last 12 months. I would therefore like it if the European Commission devoted a European year to this type of violence.
I welcome the commitment made by the Commission, which has increased the budget to almost EUR 117 million, even though this amount is lower than the one requested by the European Parliament. The twofold increase in the resources testifies, however, to a real ambition in the objectives.
This effort must still be accompanied by transparency in the programme and must make the programme more accessible to civil society, which lacks technical assistance when it comes to preparing draft proposals, particularly in the outermost regions. I hope that, in future, assessments are conducted by a committee of experts.
Richard Corbett
Instead of some of the more far-reaching proposals suggested to us, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs proposed a modest revision of Rule 47 (which would be renamed 'Procedure with associated committees'). This more modest change would require the chairmen and rapporteurs of the committees concerned to meet and jointly identify areas of the text falling within their executive or joint competences. The chair of the committee responsible would have to take account of any such agreement when ruling on the final responsibility for different parts of the text. The rule would also allow the parties to agree, if they so wish, on more precise arrangements for their cooperation, which opens the door to possibilities such as a joint working group. The rule change also would guarantee that associated committees are represented in any Parliament delegation in a conciliation procedure.
Bruno Gollnisch
We abstained from voting on the reports by Mr Corbett and Mr Leinen on enhanced cooperation between committees and practical arrangements for the codecision procedure.
Admittedly, from a practical point of view, these reports aim at simplifying the work done by this Parliament in its institutional and legal framework. However, they are symptomatic of a parliamentary practice where, ultimately, everything is more or less decided in advance, in small committees, by means of the interinstitutional or intergroup compromise, and in the name of effectiveness and rationality. They are also symptomatic of a parliament in which the 'large' groups - at least those that are recognised as such - call the shots and in which the individual rights of Members are reduced to their most basic expression, and are even non-existent when it comes to producing legislation.
By imposing order on its procedures, this Parliament, which already suffers from a lack of national and political representativeness and from a lack of proximity to Europeans, is going to lose once and for all the characteristic that ought to define it: that of being a parliament that is elected by the people, for the people.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Mr President, I also voted in favour of the Laperrouze report on the grounds that it is of course better, where water is concerned, to sort things out in advance than to have to spend a great deal of money on repairs later on. Being an Austrian, and thus a citizen of a country with very considerable water reserves, I do believe that a sustainable and environmentally conscious water policy means that we must no longer give financial support to intensive agriculture, which brings in its train such problems as over-fertilisation. Instead, support should go to those farmers who use traditional methods of cultivation. In forestry, too, we can play a part in determining which and how many pollutants get into the groundwater and at what rate, while also helping to protect against flooding.
Edite Estrela
I voted in favour of the Laperrouze report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC. I feel that the EU should continue to play a fundamental role in protecting the environment. Furthermore, the purpose of this proposal is to protect and promote environmental quality in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.
These are much needed measures that follow up the proposal contained in the Water Framework Directive and will help to end the chemical pollution of water, which disturbs aquatic ecosystems, causes biodiversity to be lost and makes human beings increasingly exposed to pollutants.
Ilda Figueiredo
This fresh proposal for a directive on environmental quality standards in the area of water policy follows on from the Water Framework Directive, adopted in 2000. The proposal sets out environmental quality targets for surface water to be achieved by 2015, albeit without any formal appraisal of the various existing laws or an integrated approach to water policy.
This is therefore a series of separate measures with some positive aspects. I welcome, for example, reference to the need to take account of the scientific and technical data available, the different environmental conditions in the different regions, balanced economic and social development and the polluter pays principle. Yet this is presented in a framework of fostering neoliberalism, with the proposed measures playing second fiddle to 'maintaining uniform competitive conditions in the internal market'.
It also introduces vague concepts such as 'best available techniques', which may be used to make it compulsory to use patented technology and equipment. This will engender dependence, and may serve to deprive workers of production resources given the price of hi-tech equipment.
Although Parliament has made some improvements on the Commission's text, it rejected most of the proposals tabled by our group, which is why we abstained from the final vote.
Diamanto Manolakou
in writing. - (EL) The title about environmental quality standards in the field of water policy does not really correspond to its content, in that it focuses on harmful substances in surface waters and on sediments which come solely from pesticides.
Other contaminants, such as industrial waste water, urban waste water, landfill leachate, thermal pollution from corresponding sources, the pollution of lakes with air pollutants from incineration units which are brought down with the weather etc., are left out of account. However, the chemical pollution of surface waters may cause disruptions to water ecosystems, destroying biodiversity, or contaminants may accumulate in the food chain from poisoned fish. Moreover, it is clear that the Commission's intention is to target and blame agriculture as being the sole factor responsible for the chemical contamination of surface waters. Moreover, the 'polluter pays' principle does not stop pollution, but it does legalise the inconsiderate actions of industry and other monopolies.
No specific measures are proposed for controlling the sources of the disposal of 'priority substances', both dangerous and harmless, the concentration limits of which are dealt with in the proposal for a directive.
Nonetheless, the report does expand the limited content of the directive in order to achieve more effective protection of waters. Ultimately, however, both the content and the orientation are a long way from contemporary needs for protection of the social right to high-quality water, which must be complete and not partial and fragmented.
Catherine Stihler
Water quality is essential to our environment and I am pleased to see that through European action we have witnessed improvements. I believe that the proposal of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to look at the effectiveness of all Community legislative acts with a direct or indirect impact on water quality is a step in the right direction.
Agnes Schierhuber
(DE) Mr President, although the rapporteur, Mrs Marie-Hélène Aubert, has worked very hard at producing a good report, the delegation of the Austrian People's Party in the European Parliament has today voted against it, on the grounds that we still find many things in it that we find highly problematic. We still believe that the limit value for GMOs in organic agriculture must be 0.0%, and that imports from third states must meet the same criteria as products from EU Member States and must therefore be subjected to controls.
Likewise, the labels that we have in the EU must not be used for products from elsewhere, so that consumers may not be misled and that their traceability may be assured.
Françoise Castex
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the motion that the Aubert report on organic production and labelling of organic products be referred back to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
As far as I am concerned, it is necessary that the threshold for accidental contamination by GMOs should not be the same as in conventional agriculture, that is to say around 0.9%, for one would thereby be making the de facto admission that contamination can no longer be prevented and that it cannot be guaranteed that a product is GMO-free even if certified 'organic'.
I supported the proposal in this regard from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, according to which the presence of GMOs in organic products would have to be limited solely to unforeseeable and technically unavoidable amounts to a maximum of 0.1% and that the term 'organic' was not to be used to describe products contaminated accidentally by GMOs in excess of a detectable threshold of 0.1%.
Finally, I endorse the motion that a different legal basis be found for this matter relating to organic farming. Having hitherto been a consultant, the European Parliament intends to become a codecider where problems such as this are concerned, and that will constitute progress.
Ilda Figueiredo
We abstained from the final vote in view of what has happened throughout the process. On the one hand, we object to the Commission's position. It proposed a regulation authorising the presence of up to 0.9% of GMOs in organic products, among other points with which we disagree. We still feel that this is unacceptable, particularly as regards organic farming. To tolerate the 0.9% of GMO contamination proposed by the report would mean accepting GMO contamination of organic products. This will undeniably have an impact on consumers, and constitutes a serious, unacceptable threat to the survival of the organic food industry.
Consumers choose to buy organic products because they are produced more sustainably and without pesticides and are completely GMO-free. To accept the introduction of GMOs, even in very small quantities, is tantamount to hoodwinking consumers and will have serious consequences for the environment and for people's health in general.
On the other hand, given that it has been possible to improve the Commission's proposal in plenary - even though the Council has not yet given a positive response and has not accepted the amendment to the legal basis - we abstained from the final vote in the hope that it will be possible for further concessions to be made on the proposals that improve on the initial position.
Glyn Ford
I will be voting in favour of Mrs Aubert's report on organic production and labelling of organic products. I believe that consumers have the right to clear identification of products they intend to purchase. Nevertheless, regulations on labelling have to reflect day-to-day realities. We cannot specify requirements that lie beyond our ability to operate in a meaningful way reflecting the best practical means available at the time. To do otherwise is to collude in limiting the availability of products many consumers might choose to purchase.
Ambroise Guellec
in writing. - (FR) Organic farming now represents 1.4% of the agricultural production of the 25 Member States and 3.6% of the utilised agricultural area (1.8% of the agricultural land in Brittany). Consumer demand continues to increase, and the arrival on the market of these products, which have all manner of labels and which are produced even outside the EU, presents new problems where control, certification and labelling are concerned. Furthermore, the subsidies and standards in this area are very disparate from one country to the next, and this creates distortions of competition for those organic producers who receive the least assistance.
I therefore welcome the adoption in plenary of the opinion of the European Parliament addressed to the Council calling on it swiftly to adopt the regulation on organic farming. This new regulation must make it possible to clarify the Community framework relating to organic food production, which dates back to 1991. Parliament requests that the national inspection systems be strengthened so that products can be traced at every stage of production. If it is compulsory to use the European logo (for foodstuffs containing 95% organic ingredients) and the 'EU-organic' indication, then it must remain possible to add other private logos. Finally, the use of GMOs must be prohibited in organic farming.
Diamanto Manolakou
The much-vaunted upgrading of agricultural production and improvements to agricultural products through organic farming risk turning into a colossal scam at the expense of producers and consumers.
The few multinationals trying to control the global food chain through modified organisms for the sake of their profits have won through and all the political groups of the EU, including PASOK and New Democracy, are to blame.
The admissible presence of GMOs and the addition of supplements (vitamins etc.) from GMOs to organic foods are the back door for using modified organisms in countries and areas resisting their use, which they recognise as dangerous.
Setting a limit for admissible levels of modified organisms in organic products, however low it may be today, means it can be increased without control, given that even the European Parliament was not allowed the right of codecision. This limit will now be set by the multinationals in line with the natural contamination which will be caused by the permitted coexistence of conventional, genetically modified and organic crops, however many protective measures are taken.
Thus organic farmers will see their products downgraded, while consumers buying 'organic' products with GMOs will be deceived.
Unfortunately, our proposals to ban modified organisms in organic food were not accepted; but the fight continues with the workers for healthy crops and healthy food.
David Martin
I supported the resolution on organic food products which builds on the report in March to introduce stricter rules governing organic food products. I believe that this can increase consumer protection.
Carl Schlyter
in writing. (SV) I am voting in favour of the report because, unlike the Commission's proposal, it retains the option of national labelling. I regret, however, that, in spite of everything, it recommends that EU labelling should be the dominant form of labelling.
Kathy Sinnott
I voted for the report on organic labelling because it still allows for national labelling. This means that, although the proposed EU label recognises a diluted version of organic foods, particularly in terms of GMO content, national labelling can still signal the absence of GMOs in organic products in an EU Member State's own market.
Alyn Smith
Mr President, I am delighted today to support my group colleague in her report's assertion that organic production and labelling represent a crucial area of EU production in need of protection. As the market for organic food grows it is vital that consumers feel safe in the definition of what is and what is not organic. We in Scotland have a thriving organic sector and I want to see that flourish. A stable labelling and definitions framework will assist that.
Duarte Freitas
The European Community and Greenland have had fishing relations for a long time, but the 1985 framework agreement expired on 31 December 2006.
The new protocol in place as of 1 January 2007 for a period of six years lays down the fishing opportunities for Community vessels, the financial contribution, the categories of Community vessels that can operate in the Greenland exclusive economic zone and the conditions under which they can operate there.
The main objective of the new agreement is to retain and strengthen fishing ties between the Community and Greenland Home Rule following the establishment of a partnership and dialogue framework aimed at improving sustainable fishing policy and at the sensible exploitation of fishing resources in Greenland fishing areas in the interests of both parties.
Portugal has a particular interest in the fishing sector and is therefore in favour of the conclusion of this new agreement.
Pedro Guerreiro
In spite of our vote in favour of the report before us - which approves the proposal for a regulation in question - we are concerned about Article 3(2) of the regulation, which allows the Commission to consider license applications from any Member State when Member States covered by this agreement have not exhausted the fishing opportunities to which they are entitled.
We feel that in the event of the under-use of fishing opportunities granted to a Member State as part of quotas and licences, the Commission should consult the Member States in question with a view to ensuring the optimum use of fishing opportunities, including the possibility of transferring unused fishing opportunities to other Member States.
We believe, however, that this possibility should not undermine the principle of relative stability; it should not, in other words, have any influence on the future award of fishing opportunities to Member States in the context of these partnerships.
As such, we support the amendment clarifying this point.
Catherine Stihler
As Amendment 7 was not carried, the EPLP was left with no option but to vote against the report. This report could jeopardise the historical fishing rights of the Scottish fleet and sets a dangerous precedent for future fishing agreements.
Andrzej Jan Szejna
I am voting for the adoption of the report on practical arrangements for the codecision procedure. I should like to begin by thanking Mr Leinen, the rapporteur, for a very well prepared report.
Every effort should be made to ensure that the European Union functions as efficiently as possible and to simplify the system of interinstitutional cooperation. Our aim must be to make decision taking and the development of European legislation by the three Union institutions, namely the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, as transparent as possible for the citizens of Europe.
The codecision procedure is an important element of the European Union's legislative system. It ensures that new EU legislation is adopted in a more democratic manner. The proposals for improving this procedure contained in the report are apt and should help to simplify the functioning of this decision-making system.
Ilda Figueiredo
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 is something that should be supported as a matter of principle. Appropriate measures are therefore required. Species and ecosystems need space to develop and recover. Accordingly, the maintenance of ecosystems should become a fundamental goal of all EU horizontal and sectoral policies. Healthy ecosystems play a vital role in prosperity and well-being in the EU and worldwide. If urban and rural development goes on overlooking nature, our landscape will be dominated by cement and pollution.
Given that biodiversity is a cornerstone of sustainable development, biodiversity concerns need to be integrated into all areas of policy-making.
Although there are contradictions in Community policy, the Member States must take up all available opportunities under the CAP, the CFP, cohesion and structural funds, LIFE+ and the Seventh Framework Programme to support biodiversity targets. Furthermore, it is imperative that greater consideration be given to financial needs in the 2008-09 Community budget review, during which there should be an assessment of the sufficiency (or otherwise) and availability of EU financing for biodiversity, especially for Natura 2000.
Duarte Freitas
I voted in favour of the Adamou report because I feel that the loss of biodiversity will have a serious impact on the future of the EU. Furthermore, the Action Plan before us will prove to be a vital tool for implementing the measures needed to halt the problem by 2010, although I do feel that this deadline will be decidedly difficult to meet.
I agree that the consequences of climate change will be such that ecosystem services and the specific roles played by the CAP and the CFP should be taken into account, given their importance in meeting targets and in ensuring the long-term existence of biodiversity.
Diamanto Manolakou
in writing. - (EL) The EU's interest in halting the loss of biodiversity is superficial and hypocritical, because it does not take substantial measures or provide the necessary funding.
At the same time that it appears to be fighting for biodiversity, its basic priority is to promote GMOs. The report quite rightly refers to the dangers from genetically modified fish. It does not refer to the huge threat from resistant, genetically-modified plants which shrink plant biodiversity and harbour dangers to public health.
There is already a plethora of data about the mass disappearance of species; the rates of loss are 100-1000 times higher than natural levels, with tragic consequences for the genetic flow between populations of flora and fauna.
The main causes of the loss of biodiversity cited are climate change, environmental pollution, intensive farming methods and inappropriate management of forests and water resources. These, however, are the result of the plundering exploitation of nature by the monopolies for the sake of their profits. Even the 'polluter pays' principle acquits the polluter, legalising the downgrading of the environment and making it the subject of haggling, for the benefit of the profits of capital.
Basically, the responsibility of governments and of the EU is being passed to the citizens, by strengthening education and raising awareness. The people must acknowledge that the anti-environmental policy of the EU and of the governments of the Member States is to blame and must condemn and overturn it.
Alyn Smith
Mr President, I am pleased that this important report gained the majority it did, because the gradual loss of biodiversity should concern us all. The implications of the moves to biofuels should in particular be kept to the forefront of our attention. While nobody would deny that we need to move away from fossil fuels, the knock-on effects of major shifts in production to monocultivation of (often GM) biofuels could have long-term effects that are even more detrimental, and this report does well to keep this issue on our agenda.
Catherine Stihler
The fact that 52% of freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction whilst cod and other fish stocks are at worryingly low levels should be a wake-up call for action. I agree with the rapporteur that biodiversity loss is as important as climate change and that Member States must show greater political will to prevent the loss of biodiversity. I am also pleased to see that the amendment condemning deep-sea bottom-trawling and other unsustainable fishing practices was carried.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, the creation of a single market within our community, a very extensive market and one that has gradually enlarged, has brought benefits to all its participants. The aforementioned enlargement was preceded by the creation of a single market, the introduction of new legislation and by a whole process of adjustments. In short, conditions were approximated, thus ensuring genuine competition.
Opening the market is a condition of globalisation. For this to be beneficial to everyone, however, a process that involves not only negotiation but also adjustment, including educational and information activities for interested social groups must precede opening. The creation of a global market must be founded on similar principles to the ones we adopted when creating the European market. The experience was a good one. Setting standards and conditions to be met by the interested parties is particularly important. These include environmental standards, conditions relating to work and pay, and the principles of innovation. A so-called road map should be drawn up for this process, laying down the various stages and allowing for development. Full monitoring by the interested parties should also be arranged.
Françoise Castex
in writing. - (FR) This report commits the European Union and its trade partners to the path towards triumphant liberalism, liberalism that goes against the tenets of European trade policy.
I regret that the MEPs are renouncing what they have defended until now: a trade policy that consisted in subordinating the trade agreements to social and environmental requirements by respecting the sovereignty of developing countries when it came to the management of a number of sectors vital to their development (public services, investment, public contracts and competition rules). This vote has replaced this policy with a strategy aimed at the wide-ranging liberalisation of services and of investment in developing countries, one that will meet the expectations of European manufacturers, to the detriment of economic development needs. The principle of free trade must be a tool used to promote development, not an objective in its own right.
I deplore the fact that the Singapore issues, which had been excluded from the Doha multilateral negotiations, have been re-introduced by the MEPs in this report as priorities for future bilateral negotiations.
Edite Estrela
I voted in favour of the Caspary report because, although it is not perfect, I feel that most of the socialists' objectives were met, which were as follows: preference for multilateralism and the conclusion of the Doha Round, special treatment for countries with development problems, mutual recognition of standards, compliance with social and environmental minimum standards, the fight against current dumping, protection of intellectual property, the adoption of codes of conduct and best practice by European firms and increased involvement for Parliament.
I warmly welcome an active and constructive role for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament in bilateral negotiations with emerging economies such as Korea, India, China and Russia, in which wide-ranging, well-balanced reciprocity is required. At the same time, support for the least developed countries must, as a matter of urgency, be stepped up and the conditions created for enabling them to play an active role in world trade.
The final text, in my view, dealt adequately with these issues and offered much-needed opposition to the unilateral review of trade defence instruments.
Elisa Ferreira
in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Caspary report because, although it is not perfect, I feel that most of the socialists' objectives were met, which were as follows: preference for multilateralism and the conclusion of the Doha Round, special treatment for countries with development problems, mutual recognition of standards, compliance with social and environmental minimum standards, the fight against current dumping, protection of intellectual property, the adoption of codes of conduct and best practice by European firms and increased involvement for Parliament.
As shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I warmly welcome an active and constructive role for our group in bilateral negotiations with emerging economies such as Korea, India, China and Russia, in which wide-ranging and well-balanced reciprocity is required. At the same time, support for the least developed countries must, as a matter of urgency, be stepped up and the conditions created for enabling them to play an active role in world trade.
The final text, in my view, dealt adequately with these issues, and offered much-needed opposition to the unilateral review of trade defence instruments. I should also like to highlight the fact that the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs enjoyed a willingness to compromise.
Bruno Gollnisch
On reading the new report by this House on the benefits of globalisation - 'benefits' despite the growing number of unfair practices damaging European businesses, the relocations and unemployment - I thought of the new President of the French Republic.
In his electoral speech on Europe, he spoke of necessary 'protection'. He even dared to use the term 'Community preference'!
I do not know what Mr Sarkozy has been doing over the last five years, but he has certainly not been reading the reports by this Parliament, or the records of the Council or the speeches by Mr Mandelson and his predecessor. They never mention 'preference', except when it comes to encouraging an even greater liberalisation of our markets. They never mention protection, even though the EU's trade defence instruments are manifestly inadequate and randomly used. They mention only the pursuit of globalisation and risk management. Yet, the European Union manages absolutely nothing, and especially not the millions of unemployed, the devastated industrial sectors and the near-devastated agricultural sector. In Mr Sarkozy's eyes, these losses are included among the acceptable risks.
I ask the question: is Mr Sarkozy deceiving his public on these issues, or is he himself being deceived?
Pedro Guerreiro
Free trade and global liberalisation are presented here as panaceas, alongside the sacred cows of price stability, increased competition and tax cuts that facilitate the exploitation of workers.
I should also like to highlight the fact that the report states that 'bilateral and regional FTAs' are a 'sub-optimal' solution and as such should be launched only when necessary 'to improve the competitive position of EU exporters on crucial foreign markets'. They 'should be WTO-compatible, comprehensive, ambitious' and should ensure far-reaching liberalisation of services and investment, going beyond both existing multilateral commitments and those expected to result from a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda'. In other words, with the WTO negotiations deadlocked, the order has come to press ahead whenever and wherever possible with the liberalisation of trade, to the delight and the profit of the large economic and financial groups in the EU.
What the report fails to mention are the disastrous consequences of capitalist liberalisation - with its 'structural reforms', the end of customs duties and the imposition of so-called 'intellectual property rights' - such as the glaring increase in inequality across the world, rising unemployment, unstable work, poverty and the appalling impact on the environment and biodiversity.
We therefore voted against the report.
David Martin
While this report had some negative elements, such as its call for a delay of the Trade Defence Instrument Review and the unprecise nature of the language on liberalisation (which has opened up the possibility that certain aspects of liberalisation may be negotiated upon which were controversial at the WTO level), I felt on balance it was a report to be supported.
The introduction at Committee stage of paragraphs on the need for Core Labour and Environmental Standards to be integrated into the EU's trade deals, and of additional references to development considerations, made the report more rounded. While it could have gone further in its considerations of development issues, it is my view that during the current generation of bilateral trade deals the targeted countries (South Korea, India and ASEAN - given that in ASEAN there will be special and differential treatment to take account of developing countries) will be well placed to defend their interests during negotiations.
Luís Queiró
In a globalised world, the concerns raised in this report are extremely important. Although I do not agree with some of the points made, I can see in this list of problems and potential solutions an approach that is, in essence, a realistic one. To my mind, this is one of the most important aspects.
The debate on the external competitiveness of the EU, or on the EU and the global economy, must be based on realism. It is an extremely dangerous mistake to foster the illusion that it is possible to seal the borders, to impose rules identical to our own throughout the world and to ignore the social impact of competition.
I feel therefore that the right strategy is to derive maximum benefit from this new reality, whilst keeping to a minimum its detrimental effects. That means investing in both the cutting edge and the traditional and in what is specific and non-transferable as opposed to what is attracted by the living standards in the European area. The fashionable idea that the Eurocentric world (or simply a world in which Europe is economically and strategically important) died with the advent of the global economy is not a cast-iron truth, it is an opinion that may be contradicted by the facts; and facts are shaped by political will.
José Albino Silva Peneda
I support this report and the idea of adapting the EU's trade policy to future challenges.
Europe's leading position in the world market enables us to prepare for change in such a way that we can respond to globalisation without abandoning our interests or the social model.
The increased liberalisation of trade must be accompanied by better use of defence instruments to combat unfair trade practices.
Without wishing to call for protectionism, which would not reduce the effects of globalisation, it is vital for Europe to adopt a strong stance on scrupulous compliance with its international trade agreements.
We cannot allow our competitors to use state aid policies for exports, to implement artificial currency devaluation and to violate basic environmental rules. It is also unacceptable for these countries to use child labour and forced labour and not to honour workers' rights.
The opening up of international trade and market access must be global and reciprocal. Furthermore, the inclusion of minimum social and environmental standards in our trade agreements must be safeguarded.
The European project must always be based on solidarity, on respect for human rights and on sustainable development.
Thomas Wise
I support the call to reject this proposal, thus making the review unnecessary.