Brussels, 14/06/2016 (Agence Europe) - The first version of the compromise on the draft firearms directive, discussed by the European Parliament's internal market and consumer protection (IMCO) committee on Tuesday 14 June, would seem to advocate a particularly flexible approach and leave great scope for subsidiarity on issues as varied as medical examinations and authorising licences.
Some observers even consider the text to be less restrictive than the position adopted last week by the Council, itself peppered with numerous exemptions (see EUROPE 11570). A sure sign is that Filippo Segato, the secretary general of FACE, the European association of hunters, when contacted by EUROPE, welcomed the stance of MEPs and the work done by rapporteur Vicky Ford (ECR, UK). He said, however, that he regretted the overly restrictive general approach agreed by the Council and expressed fears that the flexibility would be lost in inter-institutional discussions.
Way of negotiating criticised.
The way chosen by Ford to move the negotiations forward came in for particular criticism from shadow rapporteur Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D, Italy), who complained in committee that, rather than go with a summary of the amendments, the rapporteur had opted for a novel system that puts additional amendments to the vote. The purpose here is to isolate the more restrictive amendments tabled by the S&D and Greens/EFA Groups which could be voted down by a bloc vote from the EPP and ECR Groups. Once the additional amendments have been defeated, all that would remain would be the proposals of the latter two groups.
For example, on the issue of medical examinations before granting a firearms permit, Ford proposes that a monitoring system be put in place before a person can buy and own a firearm, without any mention of a medical examination. Then the rapporteur submits two proposals, one offering the choice of including medical examinations or not, and the other including systematic medicals. This second option, which the S&D and Greens/EFA would support, would be defeated since these two groups would most probably not be able to command a majority, a source has indicated.
Several points to be clarified.
On the issue of how long permits should last, the compromise put forward by Ford stipulates a maximum of five years. This, however, could also go, EPP shadow rapporteur Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (Sweden) having spoken against it, deeming it unnecessary.
Similarly for storing arms and ammunition: the rapporteur's proposal offers great flexibility and sets conditions that are more or less restrictive depending on the type of arms, their key components and the ammunition concerned and also refers to transport. On this latter point, Corazza Bildt would like transport removed from the directive. She is very keen to avoid any increase in red tape. Here, the S&D want states to ensure that weapons and ammunition are stored separately to reduce risks.
A further problematic area regularly highlighted is that of arms collectors and museums (see EUROPE 11513). Here, Ford proposes systematically to remove collectors and organisations from the scope of the directive whenever they are engaged in cultural or historic activities that are recognised as such by the member states. Some MEPs, however, would like to include the definition of collectors proposed by the Council, which would be much more precise.
GUE/NGL and EFDD still uncertain.
With regard to the vote on the report, scheduled for 14 July, the positions of the GUE/NGL and EFDD Groups remain unclear. The position of GUE/NGL shadow rapporteur Jiri Mastalka (Czech Republic) is probably more in line with the proposals advanced by Ford but not necessarily with the stance of his group. The Czech Republic favours a very liberal directive and consequently voted against the Council general approach. The Five Star Movement, which belongs to the EFDD, is more likely to espouse the S&D position. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)