Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), held in Brussels on 23-24 April 2012 - Montesquieu Instituut

 

-

COUNCIL OF

Brussels, 27 April 2012

THE EUROPEAN UNION

9430/12 -

PE 185 BUDGET 8 CADREFIN 228 COMPET 228 EF 106 ECOFIN 379 ENER 147 ENV 320 FC 23 MI 280 PI 50 REGIO 51 TELECOM 79 WTO 160 -

NOTE

from:

General Secretariat of the Council

to: Delegations

2. Markets in financial instruments, and repeal of Directive 2004/39/EC (recast)

2011/0298(COD) COM(2011)0656

Rapporteur : Holger Krahmer (ALDE, DE)

Responsible : ECON

· Joint debate - consideration of draft opinion

The rapporteur, Mr Krahmer, reminded Members that the MiFID (Markets in Financial Instruments

Directive) was the central part of the financial framework. He proposed exemption of the non-

financial companies (such as commodities industries) from the scope as the systemic risks were not

relevant for them. Moreover, he considered that they should be subjected to position management

rather than position limits. He did not amend the proposal for the Regulation.

Members agreed with the Committee's focus on non-financial (commercial) companies, but were

divided over their exemption from the scope. Mr Goebbels (S&D, BE) advocated as few exceptions

as possible. Mr Kalfin (S&D, BG), supported by Mr Reul (EPP, DE) was also cautious, as he

considered the systemic risks might be accumulated by the commercial companies' counterparts.

Mr Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, DE) was against exemptions, but supported the rapporteur's position on

the position limits, but considered that they could not be applied in order to stop hedging on

commodity markets entirely. Mr Langen (EPP, DE) saw no need for extra position limits. Mr Kalfin

considered that positions should allow commercial companies to use financial instruments. Mr Reul

(EPP, DE) considered that electricity was not to any great extent the subject of speculation, but the

scope for that needed to be minimised. He was also concerned about the impact on SME operators

in this sector and their access to finances. He inquired about the classification of CO2 certificates.

Mr Krahmer emphasised that "excessive speculation" was difficult to define and considered that

regulatory measures should be in proportion to the risk. He reiterated that clarification of the

exemption for ancillary activity was necessary, giving the example of companies' pooling units. He

acknowledged the possibility of abuse, but was confident that the majority of the risks were covered

by the proposed legislation. With regard to the CO2 certificates, he did not understand their

inclusion, as to do so could attract speculation on this "politically" created market.

Timetable: deadline for amendments : 3 May 2012, 12:00

3. Common provisions on European Funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006

2011/0276(COD) COM(2011)0615

Rapporteur : Patrizia Toia (S&D, IT)

Responsible : REGI

4. Cohesion Fund (CF) and repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006

2011/0274(COD) COM(2011)0612

Rapporteur : Patrizia Toia (S&D, IT)

Responsible : REGI

5. Specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the 'Investment for growth and jobs' goal and repeal of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006

2011/0275(COD) COM(2011)0614

Rapporteur : Patrizia Toia (S&D, IT)

Responsible : REGI

· Joint debate - consideration of draft opinion

During the discussion which followed, Mr van Nistelrooij (EPP, NL) echoed the rapporteur's

position on the delegated acts. Members raised various issues, such as simplification (Mr Patricello

(EPP, IT), Ms Mazej Kukovic (EPP, SI)) and the multi-fund approach (Mr van Nistelrooij),

synergies and compatibility (Mr van Nistelrooij, Mr Cancian (EPP, IT)), efficiency of resources

(Mr Patricello) including housing (Ms Ulvskog (S&D, SE)), and the role of large companies

(Mr van Nistelrooij, Ms Mazej Kukovic). Members also mentioned the inadequate funding

available for COSME (Mr Patricello) and eligible projects not receiving funding due to shortage of

funds (Mr Patricello), demanded the extension of the use of CF to finance the housing sector

(Mr Enciu (S&D, RO)), commented on the ERDF's non-funding of infrastructure

(Mr van Nistelrooij), inquired about reasons and data regarding why several funds had remained

unused in the past (Ms Mazej Kukovic) and thought that incentives should be given to all low-

carbon generating technologies, such as nuclear technology (Mr Helmer (EFD, UK)).

The representative of the Commission was sceptical about the introduction of more detailed

elements and specifications to the investment priorities, as it could, in his view, hinder flexibility.

Concerning large enterprises, he assured Members that the Commission did not intend to exclude

them from support, but to target their support in the areas of research, innovation and energy

efficiency. Regarding the energy efficiency of housing, he saw no need to open up the CF as

considerable funding was available under the ERDF. As to the partnership contracts, he clarified

that it was a partnership agreement between the Commission and a partnership in the Member State

and that a code of conduct, as proposed by the Commission, played an important role in this

context.

• - 

  the need for a legal framework opening up a vibrant digital single market with rich online content

and embracing new developments (proposals on roaming regulation, the copyright regime, orphan

works, public sector information; on electronic identification, authentication and signature as well

as a Cloud-friendly network, including the European Cloud Computing Partnership);

• - 

  the need for network infrastructure, including reduction of the cost of investing in broadband

(proposals on the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) with innovative financing leveraging private

funds, cross-border e-Government services, etc.) and investment in future technologies (proposal on

Horizon 2020);

• - 

  the need for human capital with digital skills ("Digital Champion" for each Member State to boost

these skills).

Ms Kroes also highlighted the issue of security (against cut-offs, cyber attacks and malware). In this

context, the Commission would adopt the European strategy for Internet security in the third quarter

of 2012, containing ideas on sharing critical information, security breach notifications for all

sectors, requirements for computer emergency response teams, risk management, etc.

She concluded by giving a reminder of the annual Digital Agenda Assembly meeting on 21-22 June

2012, which was organised jointly by the EP, EESC, CoR and the Commission.

During the discussion, Members raised various issues. Concerning Cloud computing, Ms icu

(S&D, RO) thought that the strategy, together with an action plan, should be set out on paper and

should include issues of standards, security, data protection, governance, etc. Ms Merkies (S&D,

NL) considered that a more active input was needed in strengthening the security of Cloud

Members were interested in the estimated date of the e-signature package (Ms icu), internet

governance (Ms del Castillo) and the liberalisation of fixed broadband (Ms Merkies). They also

mentioned the importance of the CEF (Ms icu) and commented on roaming regulation

(Ms Merkies, Mr Prodi (S&D, IT)), the state of play regarding the "No Disconnect Strategy" and

the mandate of Mr zu Guttenberg (Ms Merkies, Mr Langen (EPP, DE)).

Ms Kroes considered that CEF, as an innovative tool, was necessary because the markets needed

incentives to invest in infrastructure, in particular in rural areas. With regard to broadband

infrastructure, she reminded Members that the structural funds would only support the less

developed regions. Concerning cost reduction in broadband, she said that the Commission was

planning to launch a public consultation and conduct an impact assessment (IA) for an EU initiative

(around the end of the year), with the objective of making better use of the existing infrastructure,

better coordination of new ones and a simpler and more transparent regime to speed up the granting

of the necessary permits. In this context, she found Ms Ford's proposal interesting. As to the

demands of investment, she specified that with the enormous growth expected for applications, the

infrastructure was an asset, but the transparency, predictability and consistency of the market were

essential attributes for investors. On ACTA, she shared Members' concerns, but was convinced that

ACTA was not undermining existing legislation and advised waiting for the judgment of the

European Court of Justice (ECJ) on its compatibility. Regarding the e-signature package,

Ms Kroes said that the proposal would be launched during the next month. Concerning Cloud

Computing, she said that the strategy was under preparation and should emerge during the summer.

The rapporteur, Mr Bütikofer, emphasised that the budget, with its synergetic potential, should

focus on European added value, make a substantial contribution to the revitalisation of sustainable

growth, address the issues of resource scarcity and climate change and strengthen the

implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Consequently, he thought that the EU flagship

programmes (Horizon 2020, COSME, and Connecting Europe Facility) should be allocated

substantial resources to boost the (green) economy as a driver of competitiveness. He considered

that the funding provided for the COSME programme was not sufficient and opposed the

redeployment of finances for the ITER project.

Mr La Via (EPP, IT), the rapporteur in the BUDG Committee, underlined that the budget priority

was growth and job creation, in particular for young people. Given that 85% of new jobs were

generated by the SMEs, he called for their full support to allow them to innovate and compete on

global markets. He also recalled that 2013 was the last year of the current programming period and

warned against cuts in payment appropriations. He also pointed to the general difficulty of assessing

negative priorities and saw a need to look into some budget lines.

Members in general supported the rapporteur's opinion. Ms Herczog (S&D, HU) underlined the

synergetic potential of the EU budget, but pointed out that the Member States should fulfil their

own role and engage in co-financing. She asked for clarifications on what had happened the

previous week regarding ITER funding. Together with Mr Rübig (EPP, AT), she was against the

redeployment of funds to the detriment of running programmes under the 7th Framework

8.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA

2011/0167(NLE)

Rapporteur : Amelia Andersdotter (Greens/EFA, SE)

Responsible : INTA

· Consideration of draft opinion

The rapporteur, Ms Andersdotter, welcomed ACTA's objective of tackling the trade in counterfeited

goods. Nevertheless, she believed that the agreement in its present form did not ensure a fair

balance between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business and was

creating a legal uncertainty. She therefore called on the Committee to reject it.

In the ensuing discussion, Members of the S&D group backed the rapporteur's proposal that the

agreement be rejected. They considered that ACTA was infringing the IPRs and working against

innovation and progress (Mr Gierek(PL)) and criticised the lack of transparency of the negotiations

and the vague definitions (Ms Trautmann (FR), on behalf of Mr de Angelis (IT), Ms Ulvskog (SE)).

Ms Ulvskog also pointed out that large developing countries were not its signatories. Ms Badia i

Cutchet (ES) made the point that the EP could only give or decline to give its consent.

Taking the contrary view, Members of the EPP group (Ms del Castillo (ES) on behalf of

Mr Caspary (DE), Mr Rübig (AT), Mr Hökmark (SE), Ms Niebler (DE)) argued that ACTA was not

changing any existing legislation (confirmed by the Legal Service of the EP) and pointed to the lack

of evidence that the IPRs were hindering internet freedom (Mr Hökmark). They also raised the issue

of IPRs and proper remuneration of content creators (Mr Rübig, Mr Reul (DE) and Ms Jordan (SI)).

9. Establishing a European Neighbourhood Instrument

2011/0405(COD) COM(2011)0839

Rapporteur : Konrad Szymaski (ECR, PL)

Responsible : AFET

· Consideration of draft opinion

The rapporteur, Mr Szymaski, focused on energy and highlighted the role of neighbouring

countries on the borders of the EU in the fields of transit and supply. He considered that the legal

framework was necessary and that it should relate to the EU's model of liberalisation of the energy

market.

Members raised the issues of simplification, with a focus on expanding and extending energy

networks, flexibility, coherence and territorialisation of aid, diversity of energy supply and

resources, transit, coherence of policies with the EU2020 Strategy and their complementarity, and a

greater degree of cooperation with neighbouring countries.

The rapporteur concluded that the energy and cooperation aspects of the report should be

strengthened.

Timetable: deadline for amendments: 25 April 2012; 12:00

further debate : 31 May 2012

10. Joint Public Hearing with the Committee on Transport and Tourism [Rule 51] on

CONNECTING EUROPE: Forms of Financing, Priorities, Synergies between the Sectors

During the discussion which followed, Members reflected in particular on the identification,

selection and evaluation criteria of PCIs (Mr Saudargas (EPP, LT), Ms Vlean (ALDE, RO),

Mr Jadot (Greens/EFA, FR)), including the cost-benefit analysis (Mr Gyürk (EPP, HU), Ms Ford

(ECR, UK)), and the timeframe for permits (Ms Vlean); and the definition and formation of

regional groups (Mr Saudargas, Mr Gyürk, Ms del Castillo (EPP, ES) Mr Vidal-Quadras (EPP,

ES)), with clarification of their rules of operation and methods of concluding agreements (Mr Sosa

Wagner (NI, ES)) and the role of project promoters and transmission system operators (Ms Vlean).

Members also highlighted smart grids linked to energy efficiency (Mr Jadot, Ms del Castillo),

emphasised the role of the electricity infrastructure (Mr Jadot, Ms Van Brempt (S&D, BE),

Mr Turmes (Greens/EFA, LU), Ms Ford) and questioned the relevance of including carbon capture

and storage (CCS) in the proposal (Mr Jadot, Ms Ford). Other issues raised were the greater

inclusion of security of supply, LNG and storage, better environmental IA and public consultation,

the EU relevance of some projects without a cross-border dimension and linking the energy

infrastructure policy to other EU policies.

The representative of the Commission considered that the CCS should start being dealt with directly

at EU level. He agreed with the rapporteur that the decision-making process needed greater

transparency and welcomed the latter's suggestions on cost-benefit analysis. With regard to the

regional groups, he drew attention to the need to reach a balance between the members of those, the

project promoters, the regulators and Member States, which had the right to veto any infrastructure

on their territory. He questioned the relevance of several amendments, including those referring to

the permit granting process for PCIs and those going into too much detail within the scope of the

proposal.

*** Electronic vote ***

• 12. 

  Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (recast)

2011/0187(COD) COM(2011)0402

Rapporteur : Angelika Niebler (EPP, DE)

First reading agreement text was adopted unanimously. The legislative resolution was adopted

(54 for, 0 against, 1 abstention).

• 13. 

  20 main concerns of European citizens and business with the functioning of the Single

Market

2012/2044(INI)

Rapporteur : András Gyürk (EPP, HU)

The draft opinion was adopted as amended (54 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions).

• 13. 

  Online distribution of audiovisual works in the EU

2011/2313(INI)

Rapporteur : Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D, ES)

The draft opinion was adopted as amended (47 for, 5 against, 0 abstentions).

• 14. 

  Health for Growth Programme, the third multi-annual programme of EU action in the

field of health for the period 2014-2020

2011/0339(COD) COM(2011)0709

Rapporteur : Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D, ES)

The draft opinion was adopted as amended (54 for, 1 against, 1 abstention).

• 16. 

  Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities

2012/2042(INI)

Rapporteur : Paul Rübig (EPP, AT)

· Consideration of draft opinion

Given the current recession, the rapporteur, Mr Rübig, emphasised the need for generating income

and creating well-remunerated jobs and training for workers and entrepreneurs. Given the

international activity of SMEs, he highlighted the Erasmus for young entrepreneurs programme,

which was encouraging young people to get involved in business exchanges and to bring their

knowledge back home. In this context, he stressed the international recognition of qualifications and

double taxation agreements as key provisions. He also emphasised that SMEs needed some

financial assistance, guarantees and collateral for the loans as many of them did not have enough

risk capital. Moreover, he saw a need to have an appropriate financial framework for exports.

Mr Rübig also looked into the possibilities of leveraging the effect of these instruments, as he

thought that the traditional banking sector was not entirely suitable for providing guarantees.

In the ensuing discussion, Members identified access to finance, access to markets and cutting red

tape as the main challenges for SMEs (Mr Johansson (ALDE,SE), Mr Creutzmann (ALDE, DE),

Ms Toia (S&D, IT), Ms Andrés Barea (S&D, ES), Mr Kelly (EPP, IE)). Concerning the micro-

entities, Mr Kelly and Ms Ford (ECR, UK) called for their exemption from EU legislation.

Mr Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, DE) was against this idea. Together with Mr Creutzmann, he also

called for more funds to be made available for the COSME Programme. Ms Ford, Ms Herczog

Regarding the best way to help SMEs to internationalise, the representative of the Commission

informed Members that the Commission was planning to issue in 2012 a study focusing on an

inventory of existing measures in the Member States to support the SMEs, and another one in 2013

to identify the gaps in support to businesses abroad. Concerning the Erasmus Mundus programme

for entrepreneurs, he pointed out the practical obstacles resulting from constraints of the legal base

of the CIP/COSME programmes which limited countries eligible to participate in the programmes.

He was surprised by the comments on the inconsistent application of the SME test by the

Commission, as strong measures had been taken to incorporate the test into impact assessments.

With regard to micro-enterprises, he specified that as of 2012 the Commission would a priori

exclude micro-enterprises from the scope of all future legislative proposals, unless the necessity and

proportionality of their being covered could be demonstrated during the IA phase. He concluded

that the Commission had no plans to establish any separate intermediate category (mid-caps) within

the framework of the SME definition.

Mr Rübig was interested in the role of Member States and SME envoys and inquired about the

support that could be given to SMEs, as only 1% was entitled to receive subsidies. He mentioned

the mid-caps in the context of export and warned against overlooking micro-entities with no

employees.

Timetable: hearing on SMEs : 8 May 2012

deadline for amendments : 10 May 2012; 12:00

17. Establishing a Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries

Ms Badia i Cutchet (S&D, ES) added that the focus should be on competitiveness and innovation in

order to respond to external challenges such as climate change and IPRs. She also highlighted

support for trade to enable EU companies to expand abroad.

The representative of the Commission reminded Members that only a limited financial envelope

was available for the instrument. Rigorous prioritisation would therefore be required.

Timetable: deadline for amendments : 25 April 2012, 12:00

• 18. 

  The industrial, energy and other aspects of shale gas and oil

2011/2309(INI)

Rapporteur : Niki Tzavela (EFD, EL)

· Consideration of draft report

In the presentation of her report, Ms Tzavela focused on three issues : energy aspects; industrial and

economic aspects of unconventional gas and oil; and public opinion and best practices. She stressed

that the EU should assess all existing shale gas and oil resources, as they could have an important

role in lowering global prices, could strengthen the position of customers, contribute to the security

of supply and could help in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. She therefore called on the

Commission to evaluate the impact and prospects of unconventional resources in the EU. She

pointed to the challenges of the licensing framework and highlighted the need for a one-stop-shop

approach to authorisation and licensing. She also mentioned the disclosure of information about the

use of chemicals prior to the drilling exercise and urged the exchange of best practices between the

EU and the US.

The discussion gave rise to two opposed groups. Members mainly from the new Member States

The Commission representative informed Members that a study on the assessment of shale gas

resources would be published before the summer break, a study on greenhouse gas performance

was to be finalised and would be available within a short time and a study on dialogue with citizens

and public opinion would be commissioned.

The rapporteur reiterated that the EU should exploit all available resources and should not ban shale

gas before examining its potential.

Timetable:

deadline for amendments : 8 May 2012, 12:00

• 19. 

  Establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

2011/0428(COD) COM(2011)0874

Rapporteur : Gaston Franco (EPP, FR)

· Consideration of draft opinion

The rapporteur, Mr Franco, focused on the concept of integrated projects, creation and restoration

of biodiversity, geographic coverage of the programme, co-innovation and cost eligibility. On the

latter, he underlined that staff costs should remain eligible for reimbursement.

During the discussion, Ms Van Brempt (S&D, BE) supported the idea of integrated projects,

whereas Ms Hall (ALDE, UK) questioned their added value. Regarding the eligibility of staff costs,

Mr Cochet (Greens/EFA, FR), supported the rapporteur's position. Ms Van Brempt thought that the

issue needed further clarification, together with reimbursement of VAT. Regarding geographical

coverage, Mr Cocher and Ms Hall advocated the association of the overseas territories (OSTs).

In the light of the MFF constraints, Ms Hall reiterated that the LIFE budget should be protected.

Mr Cocher opposed the promotion of CCS (carbon capture and storage) and Mr Helmer (EFD, UK)

was disappointed that the budget focused too much on climate change.