Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Friday, 27 October 2000 - Strasbourg OJ edition
1. New EU/Morocco fisheries agreement
 2. Rights of language teachers
 3. Adjournment of the session
 ANNEX


  

IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)(1)

 
  

(1) Approval of Minutes of the previous sitting – Membership of committees – Documents received – Referral to committee – Hughes procedure/reinforced Hughes procedure: see Minutes.

1. New EU/Morocco fisheries agreement
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the oral question to the Commission (B5-0546/00) by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries on the state of negotiations for a new fisheries agreement with Morocco.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must begin by lamenting the fact that the Commissioner for Fisheries, Mr Fischler, cannot be here today. I have been talking to him in person this week in connection with a fisheries event taking place simultaneously in Brussels, which we have already criticised in our Committee on Fisheries: a seminar on control over fisheries is being held, to which MEPs were invited during a week in which we also have a plenary sitting in Strasbourg, the timetable for which was known a year in advance. This is therefore doubly serious. I have made this known to Mr Fischler and I am now repeating it publicly here.

Faced with this situation and the imminence of negotiations which might begin next Monday in Brussels, I do not think the Commission will give us much information today, due to the fact that it will do this – we hope – on Monday 30 October. The logic of not unveiling here – as the Commissioner himself said to me – the strategy that is to be revealed at the said negotiations, is justified and worthy of respect.

So, as chair of the Committee on Fisheries, I would like to use our oral question and this debate to talk to both sides – since our motion for a resolution is addressed to both sides – about a few issues, and I would like to do so very calmly.

First, I would like to emphasise the great concern of the Committee on Fisheries over the huge delay in negotiations – almost a year from the end of the previous agreement – which is the reason behind our oral question, which was formulated in September.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise the agreement reached within our committee – and I would remind you here of our powers regarding an assent which is necessary for a fisheries agreement with Morocco – an agreement to convey the unequivocal message contained in our committee’s motion for a resolution which all the political groups have negotiated and presented together and upon which we are voting today.

On the subject of the said motion for a resolution, I would like to highlight our firm support for the European Commission to continue negotiating with Morocco, and our call for Morocco to negotiate and find the best, most beneficial solution for both parties, as this is possible and must be found. As stated in our proposal, it is impossible that within the context of close relations of every kind (political, economic, commercial, financial, cultural, etc.) between two parties who have signed an association agreement for there to be no room for the fisheries cooperation that the European Union is asking for. There is plenty of room for cooperation in the field of fisheries, and with willingness on both sides, it can, and must, be achieved. There need only be one yardstick for the conservation of fish stocks. The European Union applies to its common fisheries policy the fundamental principle of responsible fishing and the conservation of resources, which are essential conditions for everyone, for the Moroccans, for the Europeans and for the non-Europeans who fish in Morocco.

On the other hand, having said this, we also maintain that not just any agreement will suffice. It must be an agreement which provides an impetus for fisheries cooperation and the Moroccan fishing industry, but which also fully satisfies the fisheries interests of the European fleets. It would be a pity for so much effort not to lead to a solution that we all want so much, or for our relations with the sovereign people of Morocco to be obstructed or clouded at a time when the new young monarchy is initiating a stage of progress that inspires hope and when relations with the European Union must play a decisive role in supporting such hope. I repeat, it would be a pity to dash so much hope for the future and so many possibilities for mutual understanding.

We also tell the Commission in section 8 what we expect from it should it be unable to reach a satisfactory agreement.

From this rostrum and with the weight of representing European democracy on our shoulders, I call for good sense and wisdom from both parties, who will meet in Brussels on 30 October at the highest level – the European Fisheries Commissioner and the Moroccan Minister for Fisheries if, as I hope, his attendance in Brussels is confirmed, and the technical delegations, with the Moroccan Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Morocco, if this too is confirmed, with the Director-General for Fisheries of the European Union as chair – so that serious dialogue may take place and solutions be found.

I will end, Mr President, by saying that there are many ways of reaching this agreement and there is still time, although unfortunately not much. This is what the people of the European Union, whom we represent here, are demanding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Busquin, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission has maintained a constant position throughout the contacts it has had with Morocco, a position which reflects the mandate approved by the Council in October 1999. It is now appropriate for us to initiate a new phase in our relations with Morocco, in a spirit which is best exemplified by our practical proposals concerning the aid that can be given to encourage growth and development in the Moroccan fishing industry, in line with the priorities set by the Moroccan Government in its five-year plan. All the efforts we have achieved over the last few months whenever the parties concerned have had meetings at a technical or political level, have essentially focused on outlining a new partnership in the fishing industry, a partnership which must be well-balanced and to our mutual advantage.

Following the last visit by Mr Fischler to Morocco on 16 October, when he was received by His Majesty, King Mohammed VI, and was able to talk with the Moroccan Prime Minister, Mr Youssoufi, as well as with the Minister for Fisheries, substantial progress seems to be within our grasp. We may quite rightly assume that the discussions held resulted in the actual initiation of talks on the content of a new partnership in the fishing industry. We agreed that the new form of cooperation thereby established must take account of the interests of both parties and we took note of the fact that Morocco considered the potential spin-offs of a new partnership in terms of jobs to be an important element of our cooperation.

The Commission emphasised on behalf of the Community that it was ready to provide Morocco with assistance in developing its fishing industry, but that achieving this objective must not make us lose sight of European interests linked to the possibility of sustainable fishing activities in Moroccan waters. From our standpoint, it is of vital importance that Community fishermen resume their activities at a level compatible with the obligation to guarantee sustainable resources. Consequently, we have reached a consensus to work together with a view to achieving a responsible partnership, and Morocco will give its views at a meeting to be held, as you have already pointed out, in Brussels, on 30 October, that is, on Monday.

Finally, let me stress that, if the European Union and Morocco hope to cooperate in the future, flexibility is needed on both sides, as extremist demands will lead us nowhere. It is clear that all our efforts are currently directed towards seeking an equitable agreement with Morocco. But the Commission, in consultation with the Member States primarily concerned, is also considering measures that could be taken to help the industry in question if no consensus is reached on a new partnership. The Commission is optimistic that it will be possible to establish a balanced partnership with Morocco. It states that it is, in any event, too early to predict the exact nature of the measures that would be taken if Morocco were to adopt a negative stance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Langenhagen (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow it will be exactly a year since our last debate here in Parliament on the subject of Morocco. It is hard to believe that a whole year has gone by. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since, and yet the agreement has expired and not been replaced. We hear talk of extremely difficult discussions and tough negotiations. So, here we are a year on, and we could almost be having the same debate. But that would get us nowhere. I had hoped that reason would prevail, apparently in vain.

Now we have the Commission's press release and Mr Busquin's announcement this morning. A Moroccan delegation will present its position in Brussels on 30 October. Commissioner Fischler has also confirmed this to me. Mind you, we are talking here about the Moroccan position. That will not bring the negotiations to an end. My question is, have they even begun? Or are we clutching at straws here? We held a special meeting of the Committee on Fisheries this week and passed a joint resolution intended to back up our oral question this morning and underpin our concern. My problem with the committee meeting and with the resolution itself is that we may be intervening in an ongoing procedure and, so far, we have not exactly learned anything new. Would we have done better to postpone? But then, do we have enough time? I understand full well the concerns of the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen who are affected. As a Member of the European Parliament from the German coast I can comprehend what the fishermen and their families, who have literally been high and dry for months, are going through.

A few weeks ago, I myself was in Algeciras on the southern coast of Spain, which is not far from Morocco. The boats were tied up in the harbours and the fishermen were reduced to idleness. They are dissatisfied and disappointed with Europe. The fact that the agreement has still not been renewed is having huge social and economic repercussions because it affects both the fishermen and over 20,000 employees in the processing industry. There is, however, one piece of good news: financial compensation has been extended to the end of this year, although it is just a drop in the ocean. Of course the agreement with Morocco is a political issue. And sensitivity and diplomacy do, of course, have their place in politics. Now is not the time, with hardly any light at the end of the tunnel, to start banging our fists on the table and making demands. I think we banged our fists on enough tables last year and should proceed with caution. Caution is the watchword. But do we still have enough time? Unfortunately negotiations are dragging on.

I would like to see the Commission and Parliament working together to get things moving. Would it be totally unreasonable here to call for the European Parliament to be directly involved in the negotiations? The importance of the agreement and its financial repercussions on the Community budget justify our involvement. If this is self-evident, why have we done nothing about it? Do things need to be hidden behind closed doors? I am most curious as to the latest developments, as to how the next few crucial days will turn out and as to what can or must be done to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. I am tentatively expecting a fast and satisfactory outcome. I wish the Commissioner all the luck in the world and bid a very warm welcome to the Moroccan delegation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguélez Ramos (PSE).(ES) Mr President, the absence of Mr Fischler from this debate is significant, but I consider the absence of Mr Smidt, the Director-General, to be even more so. I can understand the Commissioner’s reasons, but not those of the Director-General.

Mr Busquin, it is said that the Commission is a collegiate body. I, however, believe that if this really were the case, this difficult matter of the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco would have been addressed from the start with a global approach, involving all the Commissioners.

I doubt that until now you will have heard of this problem, which is to be presented in this debate in all its harshness. You will leave here today wiser and the only thing we would like is to leave more informed.

It is cold comfort that the European Union is financing compensation for fishermen and shipowners. From day one, what they have told us is that they wanted to fish. In any case, the aid will end on 31 December, the date planned for the conversion of the fleet.

What a beginning to the third millennium for the European Union: we are converting the fleet because we have been incapable of negotiating a new Fisheries Agreement with Morocco. Eleven months after the expiry of the previous agreement, nobody is assuring us that we will reach an agreement before 31 December. What has not been achieved in eleven months will be difficult to achieve in a few days.

Mr Busquin, I have sometimes, as a member of this Parliament, had the feeling that the European Commission, the Commissioner, and in particular the Director-General for Fisheries were acting as if they were ashamed of the sector and even of those Member States that they were called upon to represent in this negotiation. We all knew from the start that it was a difficult negotiation. Time has taught us that this could turn from being difficult to being impossible. Because contact cannot begin by turning our back on the demands of the sector and agreeing to Moroccan demands without any discussions.

The Commission sent signals, not to the negotiators of the neighbouring country, but to European fishermen: too many cephalopod trawlers, a fleet with excess capacity, mixed enterprises, the need to negotiate by segments of the fleet, a ban on mentioning other types of trade and, of course, silence.

Who does this silence benefit? Does it benefit Parliament, which is accountable to the citizens of the European Union? Does it benefit a sector which, more enterprising than the negotiators themselves, is going to Morocco and seeing that what is impossible for Brussels is possible for them: speaking directly to the Moroccans, establishing close contacts, principles of trade, industrial and fisheries agreements? Does it benefit the Directorate General of Fisheries which, with all the Community apparatus at its feet, still thinks that our fishermen are the bad guys and wonders why they do not do something else?

We are left, Commissioner, not with the sentiment, but with the certainty that the sector would by itself have been capable of reaching an agreement which the Commission has still not reached today. This sentiment does not sit square with negotiations with a country that has an association agreement with the European Union and in whose development we are involved. And it fits in even less with a European Union that feels able to negotiate the accession of 13 new Member States.

The Moroccan Government is requesting privileged relations with the European Union. It is right to do so and we should feel proud of this. We are the main importers of Moroccan fisheries, agricultural and industrial products. Moroccan agriculture enjoys special treatment when exporting to Europe. At each negotiation of fisheries agreements, when these were seasonal, Morocco systematically obtained permanent agricultural concessions. We could say that, eleven months after the docking, we are still paying for the previous agreement and the one before that.

The European Union wants to continue its association with Morocco in the field of fisheries because we are convinced that a cooperation to the advantage of both parties is possible, for the same reasons that make the European Union the largest investor in Morocco. The first, the second and the third. Or that thousands of young Moroccans study at Spanish or French universities. Or that Morocco benefits from substantial European aid. Or that we share our Mediterranean policy with Morocco.

If employment is truly one of the European Union’s priorities for action, an economic sector such as fisheries cannot continue to be sidelined. At least 40 000 direct or indirect jobs in the European Union depend on this agreement, in areas with no possibility of conversion. We are not dealing in intangibles . The Commission is well aware of the importance of fisheries agreements for certain regions that are highly dependent on this activity: European regions of Denmark, Ireland, Scotland, Andalusia, Portugal and, Galicia, with extremely high unemployment rates and no industrial activity, that have exchanged their potential competitiveness for a marginal activity that the Commission seems to want to marginalise still further – and I am sorry to be so harsh. For these regions, the last return of the fleet will, in the absence of any other alternative, constitute a fatal blow from which they will find it difficult to recover.

The European institutions must ensure that citizens and fishermen do not see Europe as a panacea, but as a suitable framework for the defence of their interests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Busk (ELDR).(DA) Mr President, Commissioner, the fisheries agreements play a very important role in the fisheries sector. The agreements with third countries have very great significance for the European Union and especially for those regions with large fishing harbours. I am thinking here of employment in the sector. I am thinking also of the many subsidiary businesses and service trades which are wholly or partially dependent upon fisheries. By means of the fisheries agreements, the European Union is able to engage in fishing operations and exchange fishing rights with third countries. Those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party therefore support the fact that the EU’s fisheries policy embraces these many agreements with third countries.

The negotiations concerning a new agreement between the EU and Morocco have made slow progress. They have been under way since the agreement expired on 30 November 1999, and the European Union has paid compensation to the Spanish and Portuguese ship owners and fishermen. Commissioner Fischler has stated that this monologue cannot continue. I very much agree with the Commissioner about this. The fishermen in particular cannot be blamed for not understanding the situation and for being very disappointed about the fact that the negotiations concerning the Morocco agreement have dragged on. Those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party are in favour of as big an effort as possible now being made to bring the long-winded negotiation procedure to a conclusion. We therefore support the wording of the motion for a Resolution from the Committee on Fisheries. We nonetheless propose an amendment to the paragraph concerning the arrangements designed to mitigate the effects of a failure to renew the fisheries agreement with Morocco. We propose adding the words: ‘which are to be co-financed to an appropriate degree by the EU’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  McKenna (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we had a similar debate a year ago and the fact that it has taken a year before negotiations even get under way shows how difficult it is becoming to find fish stocks for our massive EU fleets to exploit.

The EU is ever more dependent upon the goodwill of other countries to let us fish. We knew five years ago this situation would arise. When Morocco signed the last agreement, it said it did not want another agreement of the same type and it has kept to that position.

In the five years, what has the Community done? It adopted a multiannual guidance plan which was far weaker than what was recommended by the scientists and the Commission. The Commission recently highlighted the implications of this. Then it adopted a structural fund, which will continue to pay for new vessels and the enlargement of existing ones, albeit with some controls. Yet, once again, the Council watered down what the Commission had bravely proposed. Consequently we are left with a problem of excess capacity and dwindling fish stocks. There will need to be further cuts in TACs this Christmas. The Commission is forced to look further and further afield to find fish.

The Moroccan case is a special situation in that many of the vessels involved are relatively small and fishing close to home. We agree that the lack of this agreement has had a severe impact. But while we have plenty of vessels that cannot find fish in European waters, or even in areas where they have traditionally fished, at the same time we have some businessmen, or even business conglomerates, in northern European countries that are building enormous new vessels, which will be forced to depend on fishing far away from Europe.

Given the difficulties in accommodating these vessels in the normal agreements, their owners are making private agreements with the governments of third countries. Since these are private agreements with no Community involvement, there is no transparency, no access to information, no public accountability. This is a very serious situation. Who is to control these vessels?

I would like the Commissioner to give us a detailed account of its activities and their impact. We will support the resolution, but we have to make it clear that nobody has any given right to exploit the resources of another country if it does not so wish. That should be taken into account. We must look at solving our own problem here.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL).(SV) Mr President, I think it would be constructive if a new fisheries agreement with Morocco could be concluded, but I nonetheless think that there are major weaknesses in the text of the Resolution which is now being proposed. This especially applies to paragraphs 3 and 4, in which it is assumed as a matter of course that the EU should be allowed – in fact, be almost entitled – to fish in Moroccan waters. There is no such self-evident right. Rather, it is a question of negotiating with another nation. One can imagine how it would be received if Morocco were to make similar demands to be allowed to fish in EU waters and saw itself as being entitled to do so as a matter of course. Nor do I think it goes without saying that the EU should finance compensation for fishermen who have fished in waters outside the European Union.

If the EU’s fisheries policy as a whole is looked at, and not just this agreement, a large proportion of the fishing done by EU fishing fleets outside the European Union is unsustainable in the longer term, seen from ecological and resource management perspectives. Fundamental changes are needed so that there is a reduction in global fishing and so that a smaller proportion of the fisheries budget is used for agreements with third countries.

It is, of course, mostly Spanish and Portuguese boats which fish in Moroccan waters, but boats from northern Europe fish there too. For example, a number of Swedish boats have fished off Morocco. I was reading in a Swedish fishing trade journal about how one of these boats lands its catch in El Aaiún, described as a Moroccan harbour. El Aaiún is not, however, situated in Morocco but in Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco. I find it odd that boats fishing in terms of the EU’s quota are able to land their catches in an occupied country.

I should like to ask the Commission whether these matters are being discussed in the negotiations with Morocco. What approach is adopted towards Western Sahara’s fishing waters? And how is it possible to land catches in an occupied country under this agreement?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Martinez (TDI).(FR) Mr President, we are debating the third agreement with Morocco, which above all concerns French and Portuguese fishermen, who make up the bulk of the fleet, even though a small number of French and Swedish fishermen are also concerned. It is clear that, together with Morocco, Mauritania a little further to the south, and Senegal, we are dealing with some of the richest fishing regions in the world.

With the second agreement, things were very clear. Our Moroccan friends and I were in no doubt that this was going to be the final agreement.

Now we have reached the moment of truth for all concerned, first of all for Morocco, which has a right to permanent sovereignty over its natural resources. But that is not what I heard just now, when talk was of fishing off the coast of an occupied territory, the Western Sahara in this case, which will be of great assistance to us during the negotiations. The Moroccans have the right to sustainable development and to a major small-scale industry, just as they have the right to create a food industry based on their fisheries and their fish.

On the Spanish and Portuguese side, I understand they are invoking a certain historic right. The Spaniards have put forward the case of an established practice and presence, and of an economic and human problem affecting 20 000 people who work in the fisheries and supporting industries. I understand all that.

And on the European side, we have the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which is being put to the test. In fact, all our fishing agreements are being called into question not just those with Morocco, as there is also Mauritania and soon there will be Guinea among others to consider.

As for our Socialist Members, what a delight! Champions of generosity and of the third world, they are discovering what Chairman Mao called ‘the difference between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions’. They have to reconcile defending jobs with their universalist and globalist convictions, which are being put to the test. It is actually easier to defend the suburbs than it is to defend Morocco.

So do we really need a third-generation agreement with mixed enterprises involving a significant return for Morocco and privileged relations? I think we should first of all pay a fair price for the resource. By paying one franc, or less than one euro, for a litre for oil, we have acquired bad habits as far as oil and for that matter, cocoa and the other natural resources are concerned.

But we must also understand that nothing lasts forever, not even fish stocks. Morocco is a great nation, but it also has major demographic and economic problems. His Majesty, King Hassan II, is no longer there. Let us add, in conclusion, the problem of their natural and historic province, the Western Sahara, which has not been completely resolved. Today, Morocco is faced with factory ships which are coming to pillage its natural resources, and which the small vessels and small Moroccan industries are in no position to resist.

There comes a time in life when we must learn to give in. This must not stop us from protecting our own resources. I am thinking of the tree growers and the market gardeners that we have sold out and also of the interests of southern Europe.

To the Spanish and Portuguese Members of the House, I would say that in life everything has to come to an end, even fisheries agreements with the third world.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, I think the most important thing at the moment is that for almost a year we have been starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel and that in three days time – next Monday –, we will know what to expect, whether the fisheries cooperation with Morocco will continue and what type of cooperation this will be.

This House has been quite rightly criticised along with the Commission regarding the agreement with Morocco, which from the outset has been addressed with tremendous hesitation and naivety. It has taken eleven months to arrive at the inflexible positions that we have today and the meeting on the 30th, and in this respect we should value the latest measures from Commissioner Fischler, the results of his trip to Morocco on the 26th of last month and the high level meetings that took place, including the one with the King himself.

From this trip we can deduce that the meeting on the 30th will not just be one more and that finally, a Moroccan delegation will be present in Brussels with negotiating and decision-making powers. At least, that is what we can hope for at the moment, and from this alone we can be confident that fisheries relations with Morocco will be re-established as soon as possible and in the best possible conditions for both parties, because a fisheries scenario for southern Europe is unthinkable without satisfactory relations between both sides of the Mediterranean, while the needless sacrificing of a fleet that has contributed so much to the development of fishing in Morocco is unthinkable too.

The resolution upon which we are preparing to vote does not, and cannot, contain anything new, since it is being voted on just three days before a key date for negotiations. As this key date is so close, I believe that we must be extremely careful with what is drawn up. There is one point in the resolution that has been interpreted in very different ways, some of which are truly ridiculous and false and have been published in certain sectors of the media.

I am therefore particularly keen to make it clear that if there is anything that sets the PPE-DE Group apart, it is not only in supporting, defending and fostering fisheries agreements, but also in firmly promoting their extension. However, in no way can this mean that the PPE-DE Group is opposed to private fisheries agreements, simply because opposing them would mean condemning half of the Community fleet. I would very much like to know if anyone is really opposed to this solution, and how, and on what grounds, this will be explained to the fishing sector.

I believe we are here to clear the way for the future of Community fishing, not to block it. Private agreements – of which there are many in the Member States and with many third countries – have yielded excellent results, both in maintaining Community employment and in providing fisheries products to the European Union. For example, we only need look at the case of Namibia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, Iceland, Mauritania, Morocco itself and many others.

Furthermore, when we complain day after day about the fact that negotiations seem to be falling by the wayside, both the existing agreements and new ones, and the lack of interest that both the Commission and sections of the Council seem to be displaying – and here we have the recent cases of Angola, Cape Verde and Kiribati –, it is quite simply suicidal to block a path which is a solid base for the fisheries activities of the Community fleet, and could be even more so in the future.

The two approaches are therefore completely justifiable, as both are based on the fundamental aim of conserving resources. We are therefore defending the responsibility that lies with us in the bilateral agreements and in private agreements, where the activity of the fleet is regulated – and will be even more so in future – by regional fisheries organisations such as ICCAT, NAFO and Camelar.

I have nothing more to say, Mr President, except to express my hopes for the best before the meeting on the 30th.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Medina Ortega (PSE).(ES) Mr President, the absence of Mr Fischler, which is justified, as the chair of the Committee on Fisheries made clear earlier, prevents me from going into too much detail. However, I would like to convey a few brief messages to the Commission, which is worthily represented today by Commissioner Busquin.

The first message is the Commission’s inability to renew the most important fisheries agreement that the European Union had. I believe that this fact should be noted and made clear and doubts raised as to whether the Commission is capable of negotiating international agreements, especially having heard President Prodi request an international remit for the Commission.

Secondly, I am concerned about Mr Busquin’s comment regarding support for developing the fishing capacity of Morocco. We are talking about a territory that does not belong to Morocco, but that is being administrated by Morocco. If we help Morocco to over-exploit this territory, which is awaiting a UN-supervised referendum, if we develop a Moroccan fishing fleet to exploit the fish in this territory, what will happen when this territory becomes self-governing and what will we do with the Moroccan fleet?

Thirdly, since the fisheries agreement came to an end, Community and non-Community fleets that are not subject to the control of either the Commission or the Member States have continued to exploit the Saharan fishing grounds, in particular a substantial Dutch fleet. What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent at least the Community fleets from continuing to over-exploit these resources?

Fourthly, as Mrs Miguélez emphasised, when the previous fisheries agreements were signed, the European Union made significant concessions to Morocco on all points. Last year, Morocco withdrew from the negotiating table and, like a good player who has won, ended up with all the cards and did not forfeit a single concession. Is the European Union going to continue making concessions, if Morocco does not show the slightest desire to relieve the situation?

And finally, the Commissioner has spoken of the Commission’s measures to help the fisheries sector directly affected. But the fisheries sector is only part of the activity generated by fishing. At the moment, various Spanish regions, the Canaries, Andalusia and Galicia, and some Portuguese regions, are directly affected by the cessation of fishing activities. This means the end of shore-based activities, boat repairs, the provisioning of vessels, canning factories and oil factories, which is to say that a whole economic sector is currently paralysed as a result of this.

My question to the Commission is this: if an agreement is not reached with Morocco, or if this agreement is concluded under the terms indicated by the Commission, an agreement that stimulates Moroccan production, is the Commission planning to adopt structural measures to compensate for the losses that will occur in the regions affected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE).(PT) Mr President, I rise to speak in order to express our support for a resolution with which my Group and I, as Member for Galicia, agree.

However, after a wasted year, and at a time when we are trying to put budgetary appropriations that were earmarked for the agreement under other headings, I must also express my deep suspicion about the Commission's commitment to protecting the legitimate interests of the shipowners and fishermen affected, and state my scepticism about the real will of the Union and of many Member States, amongst them Spain, to negotiate the agreement in the “general field of political and economic relations between Morocco and the European Union” as we propose in the resolution.

I nevertheless hope, of course, that I am mistaken and that the treaty will finally be signed without further delay.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Meijer (GUE/NGL).(NL) Mr President, this is not the first time that the right to fish in Moroccan and Saharan waters has been an item on Parliament’s agenda. Spain and Portugal took it for granted that Morocco was obliged to allow European fishermen to fish in its waters, and it was a shock when this came to an end last year. I can well understand why, because this type of fishing was a source of revenue and employment for what is by European standards a poor region.

In the past, it was deemed quite natural for the economy to be prized more highly than the protection of the natural balance, and for the poorest people in Europe to try and pinch a few crumbs from Europe’s domination over the third world. We have now reached the stage where parts of the oceans are being fished to the point of exhaustion, and stocks of certain types of fish have declined to such an extent that they are at risk of extinction. Morocco has every right to afford its waters sustainable protection against over-fishing. Europe cannot lay claim to rights in other parts of the world any longer. In future, we will have to learn to live without fishing concessions bequeathed to us by our colonial past. The proposed resolution will not lead to the restoration of fishing rights, but, at best, to Spain and Portugal having a more solid claim to compensation subsidies.

I would urge the Commission not to persist in bringing pressure to bear on Morocco, and to be more understanding of Morocco’s complaints. Incidentally, I agree with Mrs McKenna that the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen are not the only villains of the piece. The fishermen in the North, including my country, the Netherlands, must reduce their catches too.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bastos (PPE-DE).(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union has had fishing agreements with Morocco since 1992. The agreement currently in force expired at the end of November last year. Under this agreement, around 500 boats from the European Union, 50 of which are Portuguese, have had access to Moroccan waters at an annual cost of around EUR 125 million. As we imagined, the difficulties in negotiating with the Moroccan authorities have been considerable. Morocco values its fishing resources very highly and it is constantly besieged by the great international fishing powers such as Japan, South Korea, and Russia to allow them to fish even more in its waters. It should also be pointed out at this juncture that the fishing agreement with Morocco is part of a broader partnership and cooperation framework under which the European Union also grants Morocco considerable trade concessions and considerable support for its development. I wish to highlight four points in this speech.

Firstly, it must be emphasised that the fishing agreement with Morocco is by far the European Union’s most important agreement, representing more than 30% of all catches by the Community fleet in third-country waters. The 30 000 jobs directly or indirectly dependent on this agreement may seem few in terms of the European Union as a whole, but because they are concentrated in small fishing communities, mainly on the Spanish and Portuguese coasts, where there is no tradition or potential for economic conversion, the loss of these jobs would spell disaster.

Secondly, I must stress, with considerable bitterness, the lack of openness on the part of the Moroccan authorities involved in the negotiations. I do not understand their position for two reasons. Firstly, in the meantime they have been granting private licences to various shipowners from other countries, which contradicts their argument that their difficulties in negotiating with the European Union are to do with the need to conserve fish stocks. Secondly, Morocco’s inflexibility is also incomprehensible given our willingness to open up our markets to Moroccan products, and the aid that has been provided under the general cooperation agreement with Morocco.

Another aspect that I wish to highlight is the fact that at the end of this month, temporary aid paid to fishermen and shipowners in compensation for this year of inactivity comes to an end. This situation is unsustainable, since they would all rather work than receive aid. The Commission and the Council of Ministers must shoulder their responsibilities, which involves not merely extending aid until the situation is resolved, but also reviewing the general framework for cooperation with Morocco in the event that this situation drags on.

Finally, as the body responsible for conducting the negotiations, the Commission must keep Parliament properly informed about what is going on, since we find the current situation quite incomprehensible. Equally incomprehensible is the passivity of the Fisheries Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lage (PSE).(PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, “blue” Europe, as it is metaphorically called, is in crisis. Our seas are being abused, our fish stocks are dwindling, and our fishermen, who are forced to remain idle, are finding it hard to accept the cruel fate that threatens the survival of a traditional activity and a particular way of life. On Tuesday, we debated in this Chamber the alarming breach in the Irish Sea of the ban on fishing for cod, that dish that is the very essence, by the way, of Portuguese cuisine. Today we are debating a fisheries agreement with Morocco. We are about to see another harsh blow dealt to fishing in the European Union. I say in the European Union and not just in two of its constituent parts, as some Members have insinuated: European solidarity must be more than empty words or just a one-dimensional idea that simply evaporates when the problems happen to be concentrated chiefly in Portugal and Spain…

Unfortunately, the Commission was not able to reach new agreements in the negotiations with Morocco held before the expiry of the fisheries agreement on 30 November 1999. Almost a year later, it seems that we are back to square one. The little information that is available is unclear, despite the fact that negotiations have continued – or so we are told – with various complicated ups and downs. In spite of everything, the Commissioner has given us a guarantee today that negotiations will reopen next week and that progress is being made. He said this in very vague terms. He told us that there is a possibility of achieving a balanced partnership with Morocco. Is this true, or is he saying what he thinks we want to hear? Scepticism and confusion are widespread and legitimate. Does the European Union then not have sufficient weight and influence to convince its partner, Morocco, of the mutual advantages of signing the new agreement? What is actually going on here? Is the problem the rather unhelpful attitude of the Moroccan Government, which prefers to negotiate with companies on an individual basis, instead of negotiating with the European Union, with which it shares important and long-standing interests in several areas? Has the European Union lost all its diplomatic and economic influence? I think not! My view is that the European Union has underestimated the problem. What happens if the agreement fails? What attitude will the Council and the Commission adopt? Surely it will not be to wash their hands of the matter, given that they are the institutions with the power and the responsibility for conducting these negotiations.

Lastly, in the undesirable event that negotiations should fail, the Union has a political and moral duty to support the fishermen and shipowners with a reasonable amount of aid that will ensure that they have the means to live. That is the minimum requirement, but by itself it is not enough. The Union must prepare a programme for conversion of activities carried out by the operators affected, in order to give them a stable future. Switching this problem to the Structural Funds and to the Member States would mean discrediting the Union in the eyes not only of those affected, but of the general public too.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE).(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I am not going to repeat what has been said this morning in this plenary sitting and has been being said for almost a year. Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is that the Community fleets in Andalusia, the Canaries, Galicia and Portugal are in dock due to the lack of a fisheries agreement. Nor do I want to blame the Commission again for its lack of success in the negotiations or for the delay in beginning to put pressure on Morocco. This has already been done.

This Andalusian MEP has been negotiating and proposing initiatives for a year in corridors, in offices, in the Committee on Fisheries and in the hearings with the Commissioner so that the highly specific idiosyncrasies of the Andalusian fishing fleet working in Morocco would be taken into account. We need a practical fisheries agreement. We do not want an agreement in which the interests of this large coastal fishing fleet are not reflected.

Extremely important fishing towns in the south Atlantic zone – Huelva and Cadiz – and the southern Mediterranean – Malaga, Granada and Almeria – depend on this agreement. They have no alternative to fishing.

Furthermore, the social repercussions of this fleet lying in dock are extremely serious and are, in some cases, related to drug cultivation and trafficking by the Kingdom of Morocco.

I will end by saying that if the European Union was currently negotiating with the real owners of the Saharan shoals, the Saharan people, we would already have a valid agreement and we would not be being subjected to blackmail by the Alaouite Kingdom as a result of which failure to reach an agreement, or the sealing of an ineffective agreement, would have serious repercussions on the special relationship between Morocco and the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, everyone knows that Jean Monnet was one of the founding fathers of the EU. He used to tell a joke about the Norwegians. The joke was that the Norwegians always talk about fish. It is a bad joke. It is as bad as Jean Monnet’s idea regarding how the European Union should develop. According to him, the EU should always have a management group, by which he probably meant Germany and France. It would have meant there would not have been democratic equality among the countries in the EU.

But let me turn now to the question of fish. I would defend Norway, which is not a member of the EU, because the EU wants to bring Norway’s resources of fish under the auspices of the Community without giving it anything in their place other than Jean Monnet’s political management group. I would also defend Morocco against the fishermen plunderers of the EU countries. The world’s seas are now being emptied of its fish protein in a way that resembles plundering. We must protect the world’s fish stocks. We have to resolve the overcapacity situation in the EU fisheries industry. Let people fish with EU money in EU waters only!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Posselt (PPE).(DE) Mr President, a Czech bishop, Bishop Koukl, to whom I am very close, has a rather nice saying: “Loving thy neighbour would be so simple if only one’s neighbour were not right on one’s doorstep”. This saying aptly describes relations between numerous neighbouring countries. Historically, it is neighbours that seem to have so much trouble with each other and the idea of the European Union is to resolve problematic relations with neighbours. I should like here to take my hat off to Spanish foreign policy. Spain has done a magnificent job in turning round the difficult neighbourly relations which Europe and North Africa and Spain and Morocco have suffered during the course of history.

I had the honour of attending the twentieth jubilee of former King Hassan of Morocco at the beginning of the 1980s, while I was working as a journalist. I watched from the front row, as it were. It was an impressive sight when the Spanish king came to Marrakech and drove with the Moroccan king in an open car through streets lined with over a million people. It reminded me of scenes from our history and from my childhood, when Konrad Adenauer and Charles De Gaulle drove through German towns in exactly the same way, demonstrating that the problems between the two neighbours had been overcome and that France and Germany would together form the core of European integration.

Spain and Morocco have a similar opportunity to become the core of integration in the Mediterranean. I think that Spain and Morocco have done a great deal in order to avoid what many see as unavoidable, namely the clash of civilisations, the conflict when different cultures collide. Spain has developed a marvellous bridging function here, as has Portugal, and I think that we should look at this fisheries agreement in this light. The Spanish and Portuguese fishermen deserve our undivided support. This is not a local phenomenon; these are European fishermen and even though we are not perhaps directly affected, we must fight their corner.

In doing so, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that relations between the European Union and the transit countries around our borders, and I am thinking in particular here of North Africa, Turkey and Russia, which act as bridges on the borders of the European Union to other parts of the world and to other countries – that these countries deserve our particular support. That is why we need to forge close economic and political relations with Morocco as quickly as possible, while at the same time defending our European fisheries interests. That is why I am in favour of everything that has been said here about forcing the agreement. However, I should like expressly to criticise the anti-Moroccan undertones that have also been heard in this debate because they do nothing to help neighbourly relations and because they do nothing to help the fisheries agreement. We must be critical and open, but we must say to the Moroccans that we are keen to forge a close and permanent partnership with Morocco and to stabilise Morocco's position in the Mediterranean, while at the same time safeguarding our own interests.

I think that if we manage to persuade Morocco to take a European outlook, then Morocco will do what it should have done long ago, i.e. it will discuss the question of natural resources, of common resources with us and will stop giving preference to ships from third countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, the tender fruit negotiation will be opened up in three days’ time, and we will then know if it is ripe or green, or sufficiently ripe for us all to feel calm and for both the parties concerned, the European Union and Morocco, to start sounding out methods of cooperation and agreements in a manner that is flexible, Commissioner, but also serious and rigorous, so that the Community fishing fleet may recommence its activities in those waters.

As a Spanish and Andalusian MEP, I assert the rights of thousands of Andalusian and Spanish families to maintain and defend their jobs, which have been endangered for almost a year, and for us also to defend these jobs here in Parliament.

But I would also like to appeal to the intelligence of the Kingdom of Morocco, which time and again has knocked on the door of the European Union and this Parliament in search of understanding and assistance in resolving its economic, social and political problems, of flexible cooperation and, I emphasise, also seriously, of arriving at an agreement that satisfies both parties.

Commissioner, agriculture, immigration – a field with regard to which we approved a new budgetary line yesterday for assistance to Morocco –, industry and the economy form part of the set of mutual relations between Morocco and the European Union. It would be senseless to exclude fisheries from this and, precisely, the association agreement that links us to Morocco consists of not excluding any aspect that affects our interests, as the alternative would be to dull the impetus with which the European Union wants to, and can, promote the wholesale development of this country.

This is the clear message which should also be sent to the Moroccans.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Busquin, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would simply like to add that there are clearly agreements between the two parties to establish a timetable for negotiations and that Morocco has spent months preparing its five-year plan. Following Mr Fischler’s visit to Rabat on 18 May 2000, negotiations entered a new, more active, phase with a meeting on 25 July in Rabat of the Directors-General of Fisheries, another meeting on 28 and 29 September in Brussels and, finally, Mr Fischler’s meeting on 16 October with the Prime Minister and with His Majesty, Mohamed VI of Morocco. Mr Fischler, may I add, reported back to the Commission on his discussion. He had gained a favourable impression from his meeting, which augurs well for the negotiations, due to start on 30 October, being conducted in a constructive spirit.

That is why the Commission is working on the basis of a new partnership aimed at an interesting development between the two parties involving, on the one hand, the development of the entire Moroccan fishing industry, the fleet, aquaculture, commercial processing and research and, on the other, providing European fishermen with fishing opportunities.

I think we must therefore wait for the results of the meetings of 30 October. Mr Fischler will, of course, inform the European Parliament of these results immediately and I hope, as you all do, that the negotiations will be productive and will lead to the establishment of a fruitful association between Morocco and the European Union. It is therefore too soon to broach this issue.

As regards the appropriate measures to be taken if the agreement does not succeed, the Commission is bearing these in mind but, as you well understand, we think and we hope that it will be possible for the negotiations to move forward on Monday in a more decisive way.

These are the replies that Mr Fischler could have made in my place and I will not fail to convey to him everything you have said.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

We shall now proceed to the vote.

Motion for a resolution (B5-0823/2000) by the Committee on Fisheries on negotiations for a fisheries agreement between the EC and Morocco

(Parliament adopted the motion for a resolution)

Explanation of vote

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE).(IT) Mr President, I would like to thank my friends and hope that they are listening carefully to my explanation of vote, the contents of which are extremely serious even it may not appear so on the surface. I am very familiar with the problems of Spanish and Portuguese fishermen, problems which are shared by fishermen in Sicily. However, a few days ago, I discovered that a when a Moroccan fish bumped into a Spanish fish in the Mediterranean one day, he remarked (in his own language, of course), “I have heard that Mr Fatuzzo is fighting so that we fish will be able to become pensioners too”.

(Laughter)

This gives me great pleasure, but I have another desire: I am a Moroccan fish and I would like to be caught by a Moroccan fisherman, not a Spanish fisherman. I have established a trade union. The other fish, the Spanish one, says: 'I would like to be caught by a Moroccan fisherman, not a Spanish one ...

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – I would remind the honourable Member that the order of business allows one minute's speaking time and that applies to all honourable Members. Nonetheless, thank you for your most interesting contribution.

 

2. Rights of language teachers
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is the oral question to the Commission (B5-0541/00) by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the rights of language teachers: maintenance of the rule of law.

Mr Wieland has five minutes' speaking time on behalf of Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wieland (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has been unexpectedly called away and has asked me to stand in for her. I therefore only had a short time to prepare to present the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs. What is at issue here? It is not in fact language teachers. Many will perhaps say that the issue is far too detailed and far too complicated. But it is not about language teachers; it is all about an example, in this case about a citizens' Europe. It is about a story that was first brought before the European Court of Justice in 1989. An almost 12-year old story full of false hopes, stalling tactics, hopes and personal need, about placatory measures for those involved and tough defence of old rights against citizens seeking no more than their due. Let us name names, to coin a phrase: it is about the case of the Union citizens Allué and Coonan versus the University of Venice, it is about the case of the Union citizen Allué again versus the University of Venice and it is about the case of the Union citizen David Petri versus the University of Verona.

The European Court of Justice returned a clear verdict. The European Court of Justice handed down three judgements vindicating these citizens who, before the first of these judgments, were employed to lecture in Italian universities as lettori. The tenet of these judgments is unequivocal: the rights of the persons affected to the free movement of labour and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality had been violated in that Italy did not offer the lettori the same terms of employment and job security as Italian nationals lecturing at a similar level in universities.

Unfortunately, nothing was settled after the first judgement. The amendments made to the law in its wake in 1995 are still unable to guarantee full protection of the rights of lettori lecturing in universities. In the end even the ombudsman backed these citizens. I am not sure if this play on words works in the other languages. In German we say, “having a right is one thing, being allowed to exercise it is another”. The Committee on Legal Affairs has formulated a clear position here and thrown its weight behind the Union citizens whose rights have been restricted.

Now a number of proposed amendments have been tabled which, to put it mildly, I find somewhat irritating. I only intend to refer to two examples which are an attempt to improve or, in one case, to reverse Parliament's position at the eleventh hour: the original recital H proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs reads: “Whereas the persons affected, who are Union citizens, have suffered losses, stress and uncertainty over this period of several years, as the result of being involved in protracted and repetitive litigation in hundreds of court proceedings over 12 years and have had their legitimate expectation of being able to exercise their profession with reasonable career prospects has been dashed”. Now an amendment has been tabled, proposed Amendment No 8, which deletes a few words and adds a few, thereby not only watering down but almost reversing the meaning. The text would then read: “Whereas the persons affected, who are Union citizens, have been involved in protracted and repetitive litigation and have seen their legitimate expectations dashed.” It is not only in German that this makes a clear difference.

But now to what is, in my view, a much more serious process. Proposed Amendment No 9 suggests that “Whereas the Italian government takes the view that it has fully satisfied its obligations vis-à-vis the lettori pursuant to Law 236/95, which complies with the principles of the Treaty”. Apart from the fact that this was not discussed in the Committee on Legal Affairs, we would be maintaining here that the legal basis in Italian law corresponds to the principles of the Treaty and yet the Court of Justice said exactly the opposite! I consider this action to be dubious. If we take the view that these practices are legally acceptable and politically desirable then, as legislators, we should go ahead and change the principles, but if this is an attempt to use Parliament to conceal a position, then all I have to say is that the PPE wants no part of it!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Busquin, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the case of non-Italian foreign language assistants in Italian universities is well known in the Commission and in most European institutions. This affair has been ongoing for more than a decade and, as a result of intervention on the part of the European institutions, in particular the Commission, the situation of the assistants has improved.

As you know, the issue is very complex and concerns some seven hundred people working in more than 25 Italian universities. Throughout this decade, the Commission has worked assiduously to resolve the problem of foreign language assistants in Italy in respect of the free movement of workers, which is guaranteed by the Treaty. As you have highlighted, the Court of Justice has already delivered three judgments concerning language assistants and, with the case pending in Luxembourg, the Commission has taken action aimed at further improving the situation.

More particularly, following the decisions of the Court of Justice of 1989 and 1993 – the Allué case – which ruled that the limitations on the duration of employment contracts of foreign-language assistants imposed by the Italian government were discriminatory, the Commission took a number of steps. It initiated an infringement procedure, which was dropped in 1995 following an Italian law bringing the legislation into line with the Court ruling.

As regards the language assistants' subsequent claims concerning their acquired rights, the Commission launched another infringement procedure on the grounds that, in a certain number of Italian universities, the assistants' acquired rights were not being duly safeguarded. In fact, the Commission mobilised a lot of its resources in order to examine this case. In fact, the services of the Commission put together hundreds of pages of documentation on specific cases in a number of universities. We exchanged a great deal of correspondence with the players concerned and went to a great deal of trouble to select from among piles of irrelevant documents the elements that proved conclusively that the former lettori had in fact been the victims of discrimination by certain Italian universities in respect of their financial acquired rights such as salaries and contributions to pension schemes.

In July 1999, the Commission brought this infringement procedure before the Court of Justice. It is now waiting for the Court to rule on this new infringement and on this new procedure, which was initiated by the Commission.

The assistants not only invoked the lack of protection of their acquired rights, they also deplored the new legal system set up by the Italian legislation of 1995. They believed that the Italian state should have integrated them into the category of members of the academic teaching staff or, failing that, it should have created a specific category for them among the teaching staff. In the opinion of the assistants, this right would follow directly from the right of workers to free movement. On this point, however, the Commission was not in agreement with the assistants.

It is our view that freedom of movement enables European citizens not to be the victims of discrimination under national systems of law. It does not give them the right to a special legal status. Each Member State is fully within its right to establish the provisions governing its own public service. Community legislation cannot prevent Italy from amending the provisions governing the status of former lettori and from transforming them into linguistic experts with partially different attributions. If the Italian legal system is reformed and modified, as it was in respect of academic teaching staff, we do not think that the Commission can intervene given that every European citizen has equal access to all categories of professions. Indeed, any European citizen may become a permanent member of the teaching body by taking part in the appropriate concorso.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lisi (PPE-DE).(IT) Mr President, I would just like to ask the Members to reflect a moment. If the matter is a legal one, we should proceed along legal avenues and the Court should pass judgment; those who need to appeal should appeal and those who demand justice must have it. If the matter is of a political nature – and therefore a matter for Parliament – it is a pity that we do not approach matters of this kind with due caution. I fully appreciate the Commission's position and, indeed, as Parliament, we must be very careful. I am not defending my government out of solidarity – it is not my government, I belong to an opposition party – but I am trying to clarify the matter.

We make every endeavour to ensure that the citizens enjoy the same rights in all the States, but they also have to respect and face up to the same responsibilities in all the States. It is intolerable for European citizens to have some sort of privileged access in a State other than their own and not to have to undergo the same tests and bear the same burdens as the citizens of that country, in the case in the point the citizens of Italy.

In the European Union, education and teaching is structured according to the principle of subsidiarity, with the result that the laws of the Member States differ. Under Italian law, you do not become a university lecturer automatically by virtue of experience, you have to pass a public examination. Therefore, until we manage to harmonise the laws – which we hope to do – respect for the principle of subsidiarity for the moment means that it is impossible on the grounds of discrimination to do away with something which is in all probability a request for a privilege. I repeat: there must be the same rights but also the same responsibilities for all. Otherwise, this problem, which is political, not legal in nature, will arise again and could occur in other States of the European Union where laws governing university career paths and education are different from elsewhere. I therefore advocate caution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miller (PSE). – Mr President, I rise to give my voice to this injustice that we have heard about, an injustice, as we have also heard, that has been going on now for 12 years. It has taken not one, not two but three court cases and it still has not been resolved. So why are we back here today debating this injustice in this Chamber? It is because of our failure to resolve the issue that we are back here. We have to continue to publicise this issue until it is resolved.

What is this injustice? Mr Wieland started to highlight it when he spoke on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs. The injustice is about two people doing the same job, working side by side, but on different pay and under different conditions. If we truly believe in the single market and the free movement of people, that should not happen.

I disagree with my colleague, Mr Lisi, who spoke earlier. He talked about these people wanting a "privileged" position. They are not asking for a privileged position, they are just asking for the same. Until they get the same as their equivalents in Italy this matter will rumble on.

I listened carefully to what Mr Busquin said on behalf of the Commission. Some people say there is a whiff of hypocrisy from the Commission. Some even go further and say there is a stench of hypocrisy from the Commission. I will go as far so to say there is a small smell of hypocrisy coming from the Commission. If the Commission were truly serious about resolving this issue it would have been resolved years ago. We can perhaps accept that the previous Commission under Mr Santer was not the best, so that is why it went. But I have to say we are looking at this Commission: the President of this Commission is fully aware of this case, is fully aware of the facts, and yet nothing has been done to resolve it. We have to ask why. That is why this Parliament today is again debating this issue, highlighting this issue, to put it back before the Commission and say: get this sorted out.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Attwooll (ELDR). – Mr President, politicians often have the difficult task of telling constituents that no matter how heartfelt their grievance, or how strong its moral base, there is no legal remedy. Sometimes they have the even more difficult task of having to admit that because of problems of access to justice or because of the law's own delays, the road to vindicating their legal rights will be long and arduous. Worst of all, I believe, is having to issue a warning that a court judgment in their favour may just be a set of comforting words and make no real difference in their lives.

Fortunately, in a democratic society this is rare. The rule of law means just that. No-one can place him or herself outside its ambit just because of who they are or what they do. The American jurist, Lon Fuller, warned us that one of the ways in which something can fail to be a legal system is if there is no congruence between legal rules and official action.

In the last eleven years we have seen three European Court of Justice judgments in favour of the lettori. On 13 September this year the European Ombudsman sustained a complaint by them and a number of individual cases have been upheld in the Italian courts.

I am well aware that the circumstances have not been easy for people on both sides of the argument. But if in this Parliament the rule of law is important to us, we must ensure that it is upheld. If in this Parliament we genuinely believe in a citizen's Europe, we must strive to secure one.

As has been said, this is the third time that this issue has come before Parliament in the form of a motion for a resolution. I hope and trust that there will be no need for it ever to do so again, unless it is to thank all those involved for the fact that effective action has now been taken.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – We are a small House because it is a Friday morning but it needs to be noticed and recognised that this is an all-party issue and an all-Union issue. Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market from all over the Union and from all the parties have come together to say that it is no use talking about rights, advocating charters of rights if you do not, in real cases when people's rights are denied, take effective action to get them recognised and to get them enforced, and that is the problem in this case.

I was sorry to see, for example, one of the amendments taking out the reference not only to an appeal to the Ombudsman but the fact that the Ombudsman answered it affirmatively. That is a critical point because the Ombudsman said that the Commission acted wrongly in failing to communicate with the language lettori the fact that they were changing pleadings on an important and significant article, and the article on which the Commission changed its pleadings is the very point that Commissioner Busquin mentioned. The point is that the lettori claim the right to continue as teachers, not to be changed into something else.

Nobody disputes that the Italian Republic is fully within its entitlement, in 1995 or at any other time, to say for the future we will not hire people as lettori, we will bring in people for a new kind of appointment. They can say that to anybody who applies in the future, but they cannot in respect of the past change the rights of people whose rights have upheld by the Court.

I remind the Commission that I hope it will reply to the point that in the Allué case the ruling of the Court is as follows: 'Hereby rules, it is contrary to Article 48(2) of the EEC Treaty for the legislation of a Member State to limit the duration of employment contracts of foreign-language assistants in any event to one year, with the possibility of renewal where in principle no such limit exists with regard to other teachers.'

If that is so, then the people whose representatives are in the gallery today, are entitled to be recognised as teachers in Italian universities of similar standing to those holding ten-year appointments in the university. We do not say they should be made Italian civil servants. We say Italy should make its law conform with the decision of the Court and give these teachers the right to be such.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Meijer (GUE/NGL).(NL) Mr President, there is clearly something wrong with the policy governing the appointment of foreign teachers in Italy, if they are only granted temporary appointments as technical administrative employees. This leaves them in a precarious legal position, and means that they receive lower pay than their Italian colleagues for the same work. This has already been established by the Court of Justice and the ombudsman.

What is important is whether this came about by unhappy accident, or whether a quite deliberate decision was taken to maintain this distinction on a permanent basis. I assume that the Italian educational authorities are already fully appraised of the criticism, but the impression I am getting is that this has not convinced them of the need to do things differently from now on. Even though I am an advocate of national autonomy and the right to diversity, I endorse the motion for a resolution because there must never be discrimination on the basis of nationality.

If we adopt the proposed resolution, will it bring about any changes in the situation, or is there nothing the European Union can do about it at the end of the day? Is Italy to receive a fine by way of punishment? Are we going to carry on complaining, with our hands tied, or are other Member States going to follow suit and start discriminating against Italian teachers?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tannock (PPE-DE). – By coincidence, this very afternoon I am off to Italy, a country that I love so much, to lecture about the benefits of the Mediterranean diet, which has been exported so successfully to the rest of the world, and therefore it saddens me all the more to make this speech criticising its government and its rules in this area.

However, some of my British constituents who wish to lecture and reside in Italy are not so fortunate as I am today. In 1989 foreign lecturers working there won a case before the ECJ requiring their contracts not to be limited to six years. After the Italian universities had responded by saying that the judgment did not specifically require them to offer open-ended contracts, a second judgment of the Court in 1993 spelt out clearly that the length of the contracts could not be fixed. The universities responded by downgrading the status of foreign lecturers to support staff and no longer members of the academic teaching staff.

These dismissed lettori, as they are known, took their employers to the Italian Supreme Court, which ruled in their favour and demanded their immediate reinstatement. The universities ignored the rulings, denying them the rights associated with teaching staff, including the twice-yearly pay rises so generous in the academic system in Italy. In a Kafkaesque style the universities even went as far as to remove their names from the internal telephone books, the doors and the university websites.

This is quite unacceptable in a modern Europe. Some of you will be aware of my support for the right of the male descendants of the exiled Italian royal family to return to their homeland. They are subject to a medieval article in the constitution of Italy which prevents all male descendants of the family from entering Italian territory, in clear violation in my view of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Shamefully, in this very House the left-wing and Liberal groups have conspired to block the two princes' access to the Court of Justice although a ruling is expected shortly from the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Governments must understand that if they sign treaties then they must either abrogate them as sovereign states or abide by their terms in a rule of law. The Italian Government, which comprises left-wing parties who constantly extol the virtues of European laws, rights and treaties, must act soon on both these issues if its commitments to the values for which it claims to stand are not to generate widespread cynicism in other Member States about Italy's commitment to uphold European law.

So far the European Commission has proven unwilling to enforce the Treaties when the number of people affected are few. In the instance of my motion on the royal family this was even described by the Liberal rapporteur in this House on human rights as an exotic motion of no interest.

Well, I believe that these matters go to the very heart of the fundamental principles of the freedom associated with European law, particularly the freedom of movement, and no exceptions can be made to these principles. There must be non-discrimination for EU citizens wherever they come from and wherever they want to go to within the Union. These issues are vital to uphold European freedom and in my view there is no national issue of vital interest to the security of the Italian State which is being threatened by either the royal family or the Italian foreign lecturers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Karas (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy's omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up.

When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don't take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other.

Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy's conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere.

We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today's debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Busquin, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I believe that all the speeches have contributed specific elements to the debate. Nonetheless, I think that I have already answered a certain number of the points raised. I would like to recall once again that these mechanisms contain a time factor and that we are talking about facts going back ten years, different aspects of which must be taken into consideration.

As regards the conformity of the Italian system to the decision of the Court in the Allué case, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure, which was dropped in 1995 when Italy adopted the law abolishing this restriction. Italy then adopted a new text in 1996 eliminating the discriminatory elements that existed before. But there is a second aspect to the problem: the question of acquired rights.

In this area, we analysed all the processes, as I have already explained and the Commission launched a new infringement procedure against Italy in July 1999. We are waiting for the European Court of Justice to rule on this aspect of the problem. There are thus two things, which I would not describe as being different, but which are linked together slightly differently over time. It is therefore necessary to make a distinction between the two elements. As regards the equal access of all European citizens to all professional categories, it is clear that each European citizen may become a member of the Italian teaching body by taking part in a competition intended for Italian teachers.

In this context, it can no longer be a question of discrimination. It is therefore necessary to look at the previous situation, which was manifestly discriminatory. The Commission did its job in bringing the infringement procedure before the European Court of Justice and the Italian State changed the law. It is clear that the entire problem of acquired rights still remains unsolved. We are once again in the middle of an infringement procedure and we hope that the Court of Justice will give its opinion as soon as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

We shall now proceed to the vote.

Motion for a resolution (B5-0824/2000) on the rights of language teachers: maintenance of the rule of law

After the vote on recital H:

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I hereby suggest that we insert the word "unconvincingly" between "government" and "claims" in this amendment. I have no objection to its being drawn to our attention that the Italian Government has made a certain claim, but especially since the Commissioner has disgracefully shown that he perhaps believes the claim, let us put the word "unconvincingly" in or reject this amendment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – As there are no objections to this oral amendment, we shall vote on it.

 
  
  

(Parliament adopted the motion for a resolution)

Explanations of vote

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE).(IT) Mr President, I will not excuse the Italian government or the Italian courts for condemning many pensioners to a low pension, but in this case I voted against the report because I consider the judgments of the Court of Justice to be erroneous. The root of the issue is that it is impossible to grant a language assistant, a person who is well versed in English and comes to an Italian medical university to explain to the students what the Italian terms are for heart disease, operation, liver disease, and so forth, to have the same rights, on the basis of their having the same status, as someone who teaches medicine. Mr President, would you go for treatment to somebody who knows all the surgical terms in Italian, English, French and German, or would you go to a surgeon?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lulling (PPE-DE).(FR) Mr President, I have a great deal of sympathy for language teachers in Italy who do not have Italian nationality. As a citizen of a very small country, I am a great advocate of the free movement of workers and self-employed people and also of the freedom of establishment. As an old suffragette, I have spent 40 years on the barricades, fighting against all forms of discrimination, whether based on gender or on nationality. But the free movement of workers must not result in discrimination against nationals.

Coming from a country whose active population is more than 50% non-Luxembourgeois, foreign residents or people who cross the border every day to work, I know what I am talking about. In my country, for secondary school teachers we have very strict and very hard recruitment competitions. We cannot, and I say this as a matter of principle, discriminate against nationals by making access to employment easier for non-nationals.

This said, I hope that our debate will go some way to promoting an equitable solution for language teachers in Italy. I feel bound to say, however, that we could easily fill up Friday’s agenda, if we were to deal with all existing similar cases of discrimination in this Chamber, especially those based on gender.

(The President cut the speaker off)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Purvis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am pleased that the Liberal amendments were defeated and that I was therefore able to vote for this report but I would like to query one point made by Mr Busquin. He said that everyone working in Italian universities has to pass the same exams as Italian teachers have to pass. I do not see why that should be the case. We are supposed to have mutual recognition of qualifications across Europe so that you can qualify in your own country and then move to others. That is a basic issue in Mr Busquin's response which needs to be questioned and I am sorry to see that he has now left the Chamber.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Mr Purvis, that was not a point of order. Unfortunately, Mr Busquin has already left. I would advise you to speak to him directly.(1)

 
  

(1) Terrorism in Spain – Written declaration for entry in the register – Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting – Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes.


3. Adjournment of the session
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned and wish you a pleasant weekend.

(The sitting was closed at 10.56 a.m.)

 

ANNEX
Questions to the Council
Question no 17 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0733/00)
 Subject: Infringement of the Schengen Agreement
 

On recent Olympic Airways flights from Athens to Germany, on Saturday, 2 September to Munich (flight OA 175) and on Wednesday, 6 September to Frankfurt (flight OA 165) I witnessed a breach of the Community’s principle of the free movement of persons and in particular the application of the Schengen Agreement in the European Union: German police officers were stationed at the aircraft exit and requiring the passengers to show their passports before allowing them to leave the aircraft. In response to my efforts to explain to them that this action was a breach of the Schengen Agreement they replied provocatively that they were carrying out the orders of the airport police authorities and they were not concerned about any consequences.

What action does the Council intend to take to remedy this situation, which is an affront to the dignity of the European public and will undermine its belief in European unification?

 
  
 

Until very recently, Greece, which has been a member of the Schengen group since 6 November 1992, has not been a fully functioning member of the Schengen area of free movement. The 1990 Convention applying the Schengen Agreement distinguishes between the entry into force of the Convention and its application (the effective waiver of internal border checks). On the basis of a new report drawn up following a monitoring mission in Greece, a decision on waiving border checks at its borders within the Schengen area met with political consensus at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 2 December 1999. Checks on persons at internal borders were officially waived, as anticipated, as of 26 March 2000. Since that time, the situation of Greece has been exactly the same as that of its partners.

According to Article 2(2) of the 1990 Schengen Convention, the elimination of checks on individuals at internal borders is not limiting upon the competent Member State authorities’ policing of their own territory. This provision does not exclude the possibility of carrying out spot checks. In practice, spot checks can take the form of checking a small percentage of passengers, or even all the passengers on one flight, carried out for practical reasons on leaving the aircraft. The remainder of flights would, however, not be checked.

In both the cases mentioned by the honourable Member, the German authorities have encountered a number of specific and repeated instances of passengers entering their territory without the necessary travel documents. This explains their decision to carry out spot checks.

The German authorities do not therefore appear to have exceeded the prerogatives to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Schengen Convention.

 

Question no 18 by Astrid Thors (H-0737/00)
 Subject: Ratification of Europe Agreements
 

According to a letter of 31 August 2000 from the Finnish government to the Finnish parliament, of the Europe agreements concluded with the accession countries, only those with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia have entered into force. Ratification has not yet been completed in the case of the other Europe agreements. What is the reason for this? Have the delays occurred in the ratification process in the Member States or in the applicant countries? What has the Council done to speed up the ratification process?

 
  
 

The definition of Europe Agreements applies to the association agreements signed between the Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and ten Central and Eastern European countries, on the other hand, namely Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia. All these were signed and came into force between 1994 and 1999.

It must, however, be pointed out that the first six Europe Agreements (with the exception, therefore, of those signed with the three Baltic countries and Slovenia) were signed prior to the latest enlargement of the European Union. Consequently, protocols adjusting the institutional aspects of the Europe Agreements have proved necessary in order to enable Austria, Finland and Sweden individually to become contracting parties to the Agreements, even if these agreements are already binding on the three most recent Member States under the terms of Article 5 of the accession treaty.

These protocols of adjustment are probably what the honourable Member’s question is referring to. The six protocols were signed in 1999. Ratification procedures are still in progress; only a few Member States and one of the six associated countries have notified ratification. The Council is, of course, well aware of the importance of ensuring that the protocols enter into force quickly, but it can do no more than appeal to the Member States and the accession countries to do all they can to expedite the national ratification procedures, which lie entirely within the national remit and vary from one country to the next.

 

Question no 19 by Mihail Papayannakis (H-0739/00)
 Subject: Operational difficulties of Greek minority schools in Albania
 

In a few days, the school year will begin for Greek pupils in Albania, though essential books for Greek lessons and, in particular, the history of the Greek nation will not be available. Moreover, the Albanian authorities have not yet replied to the minority’s long-standing request for the Greek school at Chimara (closed since 1946) to be re-opened. The Albanian Government’s position in this respect is in breach of the Greek minority’s constitutional right to education in their mother tongue, as upheld by the court at The Hague, and ignores the constitutional law on human rights adopted by the Albanian Government in March 1993.

Will the Council intervene to resolve the above problem, given that the Albanian Government’s position on this matter is in violation of the democratic rules and human rights on which the principles of international and European law are based?

 
  
 

One of the European Union’s prime objectives in the Western Balkans is to establish a region of political stability and economic prosperity, by virtue, in particular, of respect for human rights and minority rights.

The European Union is aware of the claims put forward by the Greek minority in Albania in the field of education, including the right to study and be taught through the medium of the Greek language at all levels and in all areas of education.

Internal issues, including human rights issues, are on the agenda at each of our meetings with Albania, and the EU continues to monitor these matters with the utmost vigilance.

Since Albania is a country eligible for a stabilisation and association agreement, the way it conducts itself with regard to respect for democratic principles, human rights and minority rights is a significant indicator for the future development of its relations with the European Union. Given that approximation with European Union structures is one of the strategic objectives of the Tirana Government, the Union can exert considerable leverage in order to contribute to improving the situation of minorities in Albania. I can assure you that the Albanian authorities are well aware of this.

 

Question no 20 by Proinsias De Rossa (H-0740/00)
 Subject: Stable currency markets
 

In the light of unwarranted speculation against the Euro and other currencies, what plans does the EU have to stabilise currency markets and make them accountable for their actions?

 
  
 

The Council calls the attention of the honourable Member to the conclusions drawn by the European Council in Cologne, notably on the need to step up work to establish more effective rules on private sector involvement in the costs of turbulence in the financial markets. Those conclusions also underline that all efforts to improve the functioning of the international financial system should remain within the framework of the existing Bretton Woods institutions.

A great deal of work at Community and international level has already been done on these issues. A report prepared by the Economic and Financial Committee in an ad-hoc Group under the chairmanship of Mr Henk Brower, deputy governor of the Dutch Central Bank, took stock of new developments which could have important implications for the stability of the financial system and outlined a number of recommendations endorsed by the Finance Ministers of the European Union. This report is available from the Council website.

Meanwhile, the IMFC (International Monetary and Financial Committee of the Board of Governors of the IMF) Spring meeting reached an agreement on the framework of principles and tools by which private sector involvement in the resolution and prevention of financial crisis is to be obtained. The Council welcomes this agreement as a step forward to adoption of a broad and comprehensive approach to the most obvious regulatory loopholes of the international financial system.

 

Question no 21 by Efstratios Korakas (H-0751/00)
 Subject: Provocative remarks concerning Cyprus by UN Secretary-General
 

A serious issue has been raised by a written statement made by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the launch of the fourth round of negotiations on Cyprus in New York, in which the two sides are represented as being political equals. By making this statement, Kofi Annan indirectly yet clearly accords de jure recognition to the self-styled Turkish-Cypriot state, puts it on a par with the Republic of Cyprus and essentially disregards and subverts all previous resolutions and decisions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly concerning the invasion and occupation of part of the territory of an independent state.

What is the Council’s position on the statement by the UN Secretary-General and what will it do, in the light of the accession negotiations with Cyprus and the existing legal framework for accession, in order to ensure that the abovementioned resolutions and decisions are observed?

 
  
 

The Council has taken note of the statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 12 September at the launch of the fourth round of indirect unification talks in New York, and also of the clarifications relating thereto given by the UN Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Cyprus, Mr de Soto, on 13 September 2000.

The Council further notes that the indirect unification talks went ahead and that the representatives of the UN Secretary-General considered that qualitative progress had been made.

The Council unreservedly endorses the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to arrive at a global, fair and lasting settlement of the conflict. In the opinion of the Council, the United Nations continues to be the appropriate forum to bring about a settlement. The Council has every confidence in the UN Secretary-General’s ability to bring this undertaking to a successful conclusion. The Council expects all parties to build on the discussions which have been initiated at the forthcoming round of talks in Geneva.

As it pointed out at the 55th General Assembly of the United Nations, the Council considers that any settlement of the Cypriot conflict must comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

 

Question no 22 by Alima Boumediene-Thiery (H-0752/00)
 Subject: European citizenship
 

What steps does the Council intend to take in order to move away from the current category­based approach to European citizenship (rights laid down according to status: workers, students, retired persons, etc.), in particular as regards freedom of movement and residence? Is the Council willing to accept, in principle, the forthcoming proposal by the Commission, supported by Parliament, to overhaul the various texts governing freedom of movement and residence, bringing the provisions under a framework directive based on the fundamental right of European citizens to move and reside freely throughout the territory of the Union (pursuant to Article 14(2) of the TEU)? Is the Council willing, furthermore, to begin the necessary work to ensure greater coordination in the assessment of public policy and public security, in order to put an end to the all too frequent abuse by Member States of public policy as a ground for expulsions, which results in unjust situations such as double penalties?

 
  
 

1. In accordance with the conclusions of the European Council in Tampere in October 1999, the French Presidency has made the integration of foreign nationals, with a view to their access to Member State citizenship, one of its top priorities. A seminar was therefore held in Paris on 5 and 6 October. The results of this seminar will enable the Presidency to present a draft text to be used as a basis for the Commission’s initiatives on harmonising residence permits in the long term.

Moreover, in order to make progress in implementing European citizenship and freedom of movement, four European Union countries decided, outside the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28 and 29 July 2000, to do away with the requirement for residence permits for citizens of the three other countries residing in their territory.

2. In its Work Programme for 2000, the Commission declared its intention to present a proposal for a framework directive to replace the category-based approach to the subject of the rights derived from European citizenship. This directive is a reworking of several separate texts dealing with the various categories of person (workers, students, pensioners, etc.).

As this proposal has not yet been duly submitted by the Commission, the Council has clearly so far been unable to discuss it. It would therefore be premature at this stage to express any sort of assessment of it.

In any event, it can be noted that Article 45 of the draft Charter currently before the three institutions for their approval with a view to being formally proclaimed at Nice enshrines the right of every citizen, male or female, of the European Union “to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States”, and Article 45(2) stipulates that, “Freedom of movement and residence may be granted, in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, to nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a Member State.”

3. The question on public security and the abuse of public policy by using police forces for expulsions refers, in all probability, to the issues covered by the Commission Communication on the application of the ‘public order’ directive.

 

Question no 23 by William Francis Newton Dunn (H-0753/00)
 Subject: Echelon
 

Has the Council ever discussed Echelon?

 
  
 

The Council informs the honourable Member that, at its meeting of 29 May 2000, its members had an exchange of views on telecommunications interception not covered by a legal framework. On that occasion, the Council adopted conclusions to the following effect:

The Council has had an exchange of views on the debates of the European Parliament concerning telecommunications interception not covered by a legal framework.

The Council reaffirms its commitment to the fundamental principles of the protection of human rights and individual freedoms, for both natural and legal persons and as recognised by the Treaty on European Union.

While telecommunications interception can be an important instrument in fighting crime or the defence of national security, it must in no circumstances be used for purposes of obtaining commercial advantages.

The Council has noted the Commission’s intention to proceed to the rapid submission of suitable proposals with a view to ensuring greater security in the information society.

The Council has asked the Presidency to ensure that the Council working groups concerned see to it that the principles mentioned above are respected and encourage, in particular, all measures aimed at preventing abuse of new technology and protection against such abuse.

 

Question no 24 by Olivier Dupuis (H-0763/00)
 Subject: International Criminal Court
 

Does not the Council find embarrassing the fact that, more than two years after the conclusion of the Plenipotentiary Conference in Rome, and with the EU claiming that it wants to spearhead the campaign for the opening of the International Criminal Court, only four of the EU’s 15 Member States are among the 20 countries which have, to date, ratified the Statute of that Court?

What initiatives has the French Council Presidency taken, or does it intend to take, vis-à-vis both the Member States and third countries with a view to accelerating the ratification process in the Member States which have not yet ratified the Statute and in the larger number of third countries so that the 60 ratifications required for the Court to begin its work may be secured at the earliest possible date?

 
  
 

The European Union considers it of the utmost importance to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which is dedicated to ruling on the most serious of crimes and violations of humanitarian law. The entry into force of the Statute, which is subject to its ratification by the requisite number of 60 States, is a priority for the European Union. The Presidency recently stressed this priority when addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations on behalf of the European Union. It should be pointed out that the future and efficient operation of the ICC are subjects highlighted in the annual document stating the European Union’s priorities within the United Nations Organisation. Acknowledging that there is still a great deal of work to be done before ratification by the sixty countries is achieved, the Presidency was, nonetheless, able to observe a degree of progress given that, by the end of September, 113 States had signed the Rome Statute, and these included 21 States which had already completed the ratification process.

The Presidency regularly includes the subject of the International Criminal Court on the agenda of the meetings of the Council working party on public international law. These meetings are an opportunity for consultation between Member States on substantive issues and for assessing the progress made in signing and ratifying the Statute. At the last meeting, on 14 September, the Presidency noted that four EU Members, Italy, France, Belgium and Luxembourg were now among the 21 States which had ratified the Statute. It was also possible to envisage significant progress in the near future, as eight other Member States declared that they were relatively confident about being able to ratify by the end of the year. The three remaining countries repeated their intention to ratify but stipulated that they still had procedural or constitutional problems to resolve.

It should, however, be pointed out that the promotion of matters related to the ICC cannot be limited to the albeit very important matters of signing and ratifying the Statute, for, as it showed at the June meeting of the UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, the European Union has restated its commitment to the integrity of the ICC Statute, and has consequently refused to amend the Statute in order to satisfy the demands of some third countries to withdraw the requirement to hand nationals of states that are not party to the Statute over to the ICC. This is clearly a position which will be upheld at future meetings.

 

Question no 25 by Ioannis Theonas (H-0764/00)
 Subject: Provocative interference in the internal affairs of an independent state in the form of a statement by the fifteen Foreign Ministers of the European Union
 

The statement issued unanimously by the fifteen Foreign Ministers of the European Union has provoked strong reactions. It addresses a message to the Serb people, calling on them to seize the opportunity offered by the elections on 24 September to reject Milosevic and his policies, in return for which sanctions would be lifted, economic aid provided and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia reintegrated into the international community.

As an EU institution which proclaims itself a guardian of democratic principles and values, does the Council not think that actions of this kind represent crude and blatant interference in the internal affairs of an independent state and threaten the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to blackmail and bribe voters in order to secure a pro-European outcome? What will it do if Milosevic secures a fresh mandate from the people and is re-elected?

 
  
 

The message addressed to the people of Serbia which was adopted by the General Affairs Council on 18 September, on the eve of the ballot in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is not, as the honourable Member suggests (and as the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations, Mr Jovanovic, remarked in his letter of 20 September to the President of the Security Council), “blatant interference in the internal affairs of an independent state”, but merely reiteration of the European Union’s well known and well established position, as expressed on many occasions at various levels.

I refer, in particular, to the conclusions of the European Council in Santa Maria da Feira on 19 and 20 June 2000 (“A democratic, cooperative FRY living in peace with its neighbours will be a welcome member of the European family of democratic nations. The European Council supports the civil society initiatives as well as the democratic forces in Serbia in their struggle to achieve this goal and urges them to stay united and reinforce their cooperation. The Union looks forward to the time when the FRY will be able to participate fully in the Stabilisation and Association process.”), and to the conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 10 July.

If the honourable Member will permit, I shall add that the election results seem to indicate that the majority of the Serbian population has received the message sent out by the European Union most favourably.

 

Question no 26 by Ioannis Marinos (H-0768/00)
 Subject: Respect for minority rights in Albania
 

The European Union has provided assistance for the reconstruction of Albania, a country which, for many decades, suffered the negative effects of a centrally planned economy and the denial of its people’s democratic freedoms.

Could the Council of Ministers say what level of economic cooperation currently exists between the EU and Albania, how the human rights situation in the country is monitored, what main conclusions it draws and whether the European Union is concerned about the level of respect for the minority rights of the ethnic Greek minority living in south Albania?

 
  
 

Current economic cooperation between the European Union and Albania is conducted under the 1992 Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Albania on trade and commercial and economic cooperation. The level of economic cooperation between 1991 and 2000 totals approximately EUR 1 002 million in commitments.

Between 1993 and 1999, the European Community funded projects promoting democratisation and human rights in Albania or in a regional context encompassing Albania up to a total of EUR 18.8 million

Since March 2000, Albania has been one of the countries in receipt of funds allocated under the European initiative in favour of human rights and democracy under the Stability Pact. Projects include campaigns to raise awareness of the part played by human rights in creating a modern civil society, the production of radio and television programmes promoting tolerance and mutual understanding, and support for journalists’ associations, etc.

The European Union supports the promotion and defence of human rights in all regions of the world. In its dialogue with third countries the European Union regularly raises these issues, including minority rights issues. The most recent political dialogue held with Albania was on 25 May in Brussels. Since Albania is a country eligible for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, its conduct in terms of respecting democratic principles, human rights and minority rights is closely monitored by the European Union.

The latest assessments made by the European Union of the situation of human rights in Albania are given in the relevant sections of the Action Plan for Albania and the neighbouring region adopted by the Council on 13 June 2000 and currently being examined by Parliament’s Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.

 

Question no 27 by Bernd Posselt (H-0770/00)
 Subject: Visa requirement for Macedonia
 

What is the Council's position on the visa requirement for citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, and will that visa requirement be abolished not later than on conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with that country?

 
  
 

According to the terms of Regulation (EC) No 574/99 of 12 March 1999 (determining the third countries whose nationals must have visas when crossing the external borders of EU Member States), nationals of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM, need a visa to cross the external borders of Member States. In its amended proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the list of third countries whose nationals are required to have visas and the list of those whose nationals are exempt from this obligation [COM(2000)577 final of 21 September 2000], the Commission proposes maintaining the requirement for a visa for FYROM nationals.

In the directives for negotiation which the Council has given the Commission, the justice and home affairs section of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (for which negotiations are reaching their conclusion, with the agreement due to be signed at the Zagreb Summit of 24 November) provides for establishing sound cooperation between the Community and FYROM with regard to visas, border control, asylum, readmission, and combating illegal immigration.

The European Union and FYROM will be able to examine the possibility of simplifying and expediting visa procedures, in the context of the Stabilisation and Association Council. The decision to maintain or waive the requirement for visas with regard to FYROM, however, is not a matter for the Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations, or the joint bodies arising therefrom, but rather the European Union’s common policy on visas, which lies within the sole jurisdiction of the Council of the European Union.

The Stabilisation and Association Agreement will provide a sound framework to enable FYROM to step up its justice and home affairs policy, bringing it up to a level which will be enough to justify, when the time comes, a request to waive the obligation for visas, since the conditions for this have not yet been achieved.

 

Question no 28 by Pedro Marset Campos (H-0772/00)
 Subject: Referendum in the Western Sahara
 

There is currently deadlock in talks between the US negotiator, James Baker, as the delegate of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the parties in dispute, the Moroccan Government and the Polisario Front on holding a referendum under a UN mandate on the autonomy of the Western Sahara.

Given the importance to the EU of the need to find a just and definitive solution to the dispute in accordance with international rules and agreements, does the Council intend to play a more active and encouraging role vis-à-vis the parties with a view to having the referendum held as soon as possible, so as to eliminate the threat of armed conflict and the instability which this entails?

 
  
 

The Council wholeheartedly endorses the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, his special representative for the Western Sahara and his Special Envoy, James Baker, to look into ways of quickly arriving at a lasting settlement of the dispute by mutual agreement. The Council supports the direct negotiations between the parties, in the conviction that the current deadlock can only be overcome through frank and open dialogue on all aspects of the conflict between the parties concerned. In this respect, the Council is hopeful that the meeting organised under the auspices of Mr Baker will make it possible to resolve differences on the ways to implement the settlement plan approved by the parties and to reconcile divergent viewpoints in order to reach a mutually acceptable political solution.

The Council is willing to contribute to this process and to assist in establishing a climate of confidence between the parties in order to arrive at a solution acceptable to everyone in the region, based on respect for human rights and for democratic principles. The lead role in this, however, falls to the United Nations.

 

Question no 29 by Joaquim Miranda (H-0775/00)
 Subject: Loïzidou case
 

In July 2000 the Council of Europe adopted a second resolution requesting Turkey to comply with its earlier resolution, in which it had called upon Turkey to pay compensation to Titina Loïzidou, a Greek Cypriot, for violation of her property rights by the occupation authorities of Northern Cyprus. Does the Council intend to include this issue in the forthcoming discussions with Turkey on partnership, and in the EC-Turkey Association Council’s discussions?

 
  
 

On 18 December 1996, the European Court of Human Rights recognised that Turkey had contravened the property right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On 28 July 1998, the Court ruled that compensation of over 450 000 Cypriot pounds (5.2 MF) had to be paid to the plaintiff. The interim resolutions adopted by the Council of Europe on 6 October 1999 and 12 July 2000 noted that the ruling had not been complied with and urged the Turkish authorities to pay the required sum.

The Council deeply deplores the fact that Turkey has not yet fulfilled its obligations arising from the Court ruling. The Council expects Turkey, just like any other Member State within the Council of Europe, to comply with the rulings of the Court and, in this instance, to pay Mrs Loïzidou fair compensation. This is an issue that affects the credibility of the whole institution. The Council trusts that the Council of Europe will remind Turkey of its obligations as a member.

Compliance with binding judicial rulings is a basic element of the rule of law. This concept cannot be dissociated from respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, an area whose importance was stressed at the Feira European Conference, and one in which the Council has asked Turkey to make substantial progress.

 

Question no 30 by Richard Howitt (H-0777/00)
 Subject: Retrial of Alexander Nikitin, former Russian naval officer
 

In response to concerns raised by one of my constituents, would the Council please indicate what action is being taken to support the case of Alexander Nikitin who was charged with treason, was subsequently acquitted, and is now, after further investigation, awaiting a hearing in the Russian Supreme Court, most recently rescheduled for 13 September 2000. What action has the Council taken to highlight European concerns about the treatment of Mr Nikitin, an acclaimed ‘whistleblower’ in the West, to President Putin?

 
  
 

May I first of all express my delight at the final acquittal of Mr Alexander Nikitin, as pronounced on 13 September 2000 by the Russian Supreme Court.

This decision brings to a close the legal procedure instituted against the former captain of the Russian navy, which had dragged on for over four years.

Mr Nikitin was arrested in February 1996 on charges of high treason (espionage and betrayal of state secrets). He was accused of transmitting information on the risks of nuclear pollution of the Baltic caused by Russia’s northern fleet to a Norwegian environmental organisation.

The EU has kept a close watch on this case from the beginning, particularly at the examination stage. Throughout the trial it has expressed its concern over Mr Nikitin’s predicament (he was first arrested for ten months, then allowed conditional freedom pending his trial). The Russian authorities responsible were approached several times and asked to guarantee him a fair trial in accordance with the law. In addition, diplomats from the Member States and the Commission were present at the trial as observers.

Certainly, the mobilisation of the Union and of international opinion also contributed to the happy outcome of this case.

In more general terms, it can be said that President Putin and the Russian government are displaying a fresh commitment to reform, which the Union wishes to support. Particular attention will be paid to consolidating democracy, the rule of law and the public institutions, including the judicial apparatus; these are among the main priorities of the joint strategy for Russia and the French Presidency’s action plan for its implementation.

These subjects will be included on the agenda for the forthcoming EU-Russia summit, to be held in Paris on 30 October 2000.

 

Question no 31 by Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (H-0779/00)
 Subject: Oil prices
 

The worsening oil crisis is not only leading to several structural problems in the economies of EU countries, but is also endangering lives in the poorer sections of society in Member States. Various statistics reveal that very large numbers of elderly people die each year from the cold. For example, it is reported that in London over 26 000 people die each year from the cold. This applies to every country, since the shameful pensions many elderly people receive are not even adequate for their basic survival needs, let alone for heating. Small children are also doomed to die of cold when their families have been condemned to live in poverty by their countries’ policies.

What measures does the Council therefore intend to take to ensure that the most vulnerable sections of society do not suffer from the rapid rise in oil prices?

 
  
 

The Council would remind the honourable Member that, given this new ‘oil crisis’, at the informal Ecofin Council at Versailles on 9 September, the Council asked OPEC to implement measures guaranteeing market supplies that were better suited to the worldwide economic situation. On this occasion, the Council urged the Commission to look into ways, along with the Member States, to increase the level of competition in the energy sector.

Moreover, at the Council meeting on 20 September 2000 (Transport), the Presidency adopted conclusions to the effect that the delegations “consider that the European Union, as a major customer, ‘should ask OPEC to introduce measures to supply the market in a manner better suited to consumer demand’” and “call on the Commission and the Member States to take further steps to facilitate appropriate action in support of energy saving and promotion of alternative fuels in the areas of research and innovation, using suitable economic and regulatory instruments.”

Furthermore, at an international level, the Council is advocating that the forum of the International Energy Agency be used to the full in order to ensure the best possible coordination of national policies.

If one focuses on the measures to be taken to benefit the most disadvantaged sectors of the population, the Commission intends to publish, in the context of completing the internal market, a communication on public service obligations within the energy sector.

The Commission has furthermore already published a communication on the European Union’s oil supply, stating in particular: “The increase in oil prices strongly affects those levels of the population which are on the threshold of poverty and so risk to be further excluded in economic and social terms. The Commission intends to facilitate the exchange of experience on the appropriate means of alleviating the effects of the oil price increase for those who are most dependent on it and to reduce the risk of social exclusion in line with the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit.”

At the most recent General Affairs Council, on 9 and 10 October, the Council heard Mr Prodi present the main thrust of this communication, and suggested that the informal European Council meeting in Biarritz should look into the main questions raised in this text. This was, in fact, done on 13 October.

 

Question no 32 by Nuala Ahern (H-0784/00)
 Subject: Membership of the Expert Panel on Atomic Energy Questions
 

Can the Council explain why the Expert Panel on Atomic Energy Questions consists entirely of nominees with direct interests in the nuclear industry? Will consideration be given within the Council to broaden the membership to include experts from non-government organisations active in the sphere of the environment?

 
  
 

The wording of the honourable Member’s question does not make it possible to identify the ‘expert panel’ referred to. In any case, it is for the Member States to nominate their own delegates to the committees created by the Commission or the groups set up by the Council.

 

Question no 33 by Mark Francis Watts (H-0788/00)
 Subject: Protection of animals during transport
 

A number of recent reports by the Commission and investigations by non-governmental organisations show that many Member States are failing to properly enforce Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC(2)) on the protection of animals during transport. In particular, many Member States are failing to enforce the Directive’s provisions on route plans. Its prohibition on the transport of unfit animals and its requirements that animals must be unloaded and given food, water and 24 hours’ rest after being transported for the maximum permitted journey time. Many also do not enforce Council Regulation 411/98/EC(3) which lays down additional standards for vehicles carrying animals on journeys over 8 hours.

What steps is the Council taking to ensure that all Member States rigorously enforce the provisions of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (as amended) and Council Regulation 411/98/EC?

 
  
 

As the honourable Member notes in his question, the Council has, via Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC, instituted binding Community rules for the protection of animals during transport.

In application of this directive, the Council has also, via Regulation (EC) No 411/98, introduced additional rules concerning road vehicles used for the transport of animals for journeys exceeding eight hours.

Article 8 of Directive 91/628/EEC lays down rules which the Member States are expected to follow in monitoring compliance with the directive, concerning, in particular, animals being transported, at the place of departure and the place of destination, as well as the means of transport and the accompanying documents.

The same article obliges Member States to submit an annual report to the Commission on the inspections carried out over the previous year, their results and any follow-up action taken.

The same provisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to legal acts in application of the Directive (namely Regulation (EC) No 411/98).

In addition, Article 10 of Directive 91/628/EEC lays down the conditions under which the Commission may carry out inspections and checks in the Member States with a view to the uniform application of the measures decided by the Council.

Outside the sphere of the above legislation, the honourable Member will agree that it is not for the Council to interpret its own acts or to monitor their implementation by the Member States, since those functions are, under the Treaty, the responsibility of the Court of Justice and the Commission.

On 19 June 2000, the Agriculture Council discussed the subject referred to by the honourable Member. On that occasion, the Commission said that it would submit a report on the conditions of implementation of the ‘welfare in transport’ directive. The Member States are committed to applying the existing rules in intra-Community trade, and are acting to ensure that third countries exporting live animals to the EU observe our high animal welfare standards. They are supporting the efforts at achieving international regulation of this issue being made by the Council of Europe and the International Office of Epizootics.

 
 

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 56
(3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998, p. 8

 

Question no 34 by Alexandros Alavanos (H-0792/00)
 Subject: Safety rules and standards for passenger ships
 

The shipwreck of the SAMINA cost dozens of human lives. In view of this, does the Council intend to repeal Article 6(3)(g) of Directive 98/18/EC(1) on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, which gave a derogation from the safety prescriptions of the above directive to old ships in Greece?

Does the Council know whether all Greek passenger ships apart from the eight referred to in Decision 99/461/EC(2) had, on 1 July 1999, been surveyed as provided for in Article 10(2) of the above directive, and whether they have safety certificates for 1999 and 2000 pursuant to Article 11 and Annex II of the directive?

 
  
 

The Council would like to draw attention to the extensive debate currently developing within the Community institutions in favour of increasing maritime safety.

The Council would point out that Directive 98/18/EC can be amended only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission and must be subject to a codecision procedure involving the Council and Parliament.

With regard to the specific question of Greek passenger ships’ compliance with Directive 98/18/EC, the Council notes that monitoring the implementation of Community legislation is a matter that in fact falls within the remit of the Commission, which most certainly has access to more detailed information.

 
 

(1) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 180, 15.7.1999, p. 47.

 

Question no 35 by Niall Andrews (H-0796/00)
 Subject: Saving lives through the use of vehicle X-ray equipment
 

In view of the tragedy that occurred at Dover, will the Council outline its position with regard to the installation of vehicle X-ray equipment which could be used at sea ports for humanitarian reasons to identify clearly and save human cargoes from the risk of being suffocated in trucks or other forms of transport operated by organised crime?

 
  
 

Under the principle of subsidiarity, the installation of the type of equipment mentioned by the honourable Member is clearly a matter for the Member States. The Council is concentrating its efforts on tackling the underlying causes of the phenomenon referred to by the honourable Member as ‘human cargo’ - persons who run a serious risk of a horrific, inhumane death.

Following the Dover tragedy, the Feira European Council decided to accelerate the implementation of the Tampere conclusions, notably those concerning illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. This intention has been reaffirmed by the French Presidency.

The Presidency’s working programme includes a number of initiatives in this field, including, in particular, a draft directive on the penalisation of transports carrying passengers without residence documents for the country of destination, and a draft framework decision on strengthening the penalties for abetting irregular entry and residence (including the penalties for people smugglers). The French Presidency has also submitted a plan for the control of immigration, with a view to establishing broad lines for cooperation among Member States in this area. In July 2000, a seminar on the fight against trafficking was held in Paris.

These measures, taken together, are clearly a step forward in the direction advocated by the honourable Member.

 

Question no 36 by Gerard Collins (H-0797/00)
 Subject: Halting the rise in car crash fatalities
 

Statistics in Ireland reveal that young male drivers now account for most car crash fatalities. Has the Council detected a similar trend in other EU countries and, if so, is it aware of any new and really innovative measures that Member States can take, in addition to road safety strategies already being pursued by national governments, to halt the carnage on our roads?

 
  
 

Over the last fifteen years or so, the Community institutions have adopted various measures aimed at the creation and adoption throughout the Community of rules and standards on road safety, to be applied to users, vehicles and infrastructures. In this connection, the Community institutions have consistently taken the problem of young drivers into account.

On the matter of road accident statistics, the Council draws attention to those annexed to the Commission communication of 11 April 1997 on the second action programme for road safety in the EU, relating to the period 1997-2001. These statistics reveal a high percentage of deaths among young people (both drivers and passengers), with no differentiation by gender emerging. Should the honourable Member wish to approach the Commission, which is responsible for the CARE database, he may obtain more recent and detailed statistics on fatal accidents, broken down by age, gender and Member State (where the accident occurred).

The Council believes that, as things stand, the majority of those involved in road accidents in the Community are young drivers (aged between 18 and 25), and that male drivers predominate in this group. This is partly explained by the fact that there are more male drivers overall. Nonetheless, the proportion of accidents involving women drivers is on the increase; this no doubt reflects an increasing proportion of women drivers in general.

In its resolution of 26 June 2000 on reinforcing road safety, based on the Commission communication of 28 March 2000, the Council called upon the Commission to follow a number of guidelines in the implementation of the second action programme, concerning both the legislative proposals which it intends to submit and the research and information actions which it proposes to promote.

The Council’s guidelines refer to road safety measures aimed at protecting all drivers and passengers irrespective of gender. Some of these measures are genuinely innovative but are still at the experimental stage. Time will show whether they are feasible and whether they will lead to a real reduction in the numbers of road accident victims.

 

Question no 37 by Brian Crowley (H-0798/00)
 Subject: Charter of Fundamental Rights
 

Will the Council state whether any consideration has been given to the carrying out of a cost analysis of the implementation of those elements in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which relate to industry and, in particular, small and medium-sized undertakings and will it also indicate how the principles set out in the Charter for Small Enterprises, which was adopted at the June 2000 Feira Summit, can be accommodated in the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights?

 
  
 

The informal European Council held in Biarritz on 13-14 October 2000 adopted the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and forwarded it to Parliament, the Commission and the Council with a view to its being solemnly proclaimed at the Nice Summit.

Concerning the action to be taken on the European Charter for Small Enterprises, it should be recalled that the European Council held in Santa Maria da Feira on 19-20 June 2000 welcomed the adoption of the Charter and stressed the importance of SMEs for growth, competitiveness and employment in the Union. In accordance with this spirit, it called for the full implementation of the Charter to be part of a global package for business policy, to be prepared on the basis of the Commission’s working programme for enterprise policy 2000-2005 and the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship (2001-2005). It expressed the desire to see the first results of this work by the end of 2000.

Each Charter must be implemented in its specific field of application.

Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises the freedom to conduct a business, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices.

 

Question no 38 by James (Jim) Fitzsimons (H-0799/00)
 Subject: Declaration on voluntary service activities
 

In Declaration 38 attached to the Treaty, the Community undertakes to encourage the European dimension of voluntary organisations, with particular emphasis on the exchange of information and experiences as well as on the participation of the young and the elderly in voluntary work.

Is the Council satisfied that the commitments entailed in Declaration 38 are being properly followed up and will it outline what new initiatives should be taken for 2001 to give further support to the efforts of the young and the elderly in the field of voluntary work, particular those living in towns and rural areas?

 
  
 

On the subject of Declaration No 38 attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam on charitable associations and the encouragement of their European dimension, the Council recalls that it cannot pronounce on any initiatives to be taken in the future unless it receives a proposal from the Commission.

However, it should be pointed out that Parliament and the Council recently adopted the Community action programme ‘Youth’ (2000-2006). Action 2 of this programme, on a voluntary European service, is aimed at supporting transnational projects enabling young people to participate actively and personally in activities contributing to responding to society’s needs. In addition, the Council is currently examining three proposals for decisions to which the Presidency attaches high priority and which could influence the area concerned, given that they concern NGOs. These are:

- a Community action programme to encourage cooperation between Member States in the fight against social exclusion (2001-2005), to be adopted under the codecision procedure;

- a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006);

- a fifth programme concerning the Community strategy for gender equality (2000-2005).

These programmes are intended, inter alia, to finance projects organised by NGOs, which are otherwise financed by voluntary donations.

 

Question no 39 by Pat the Cope Gallagher (H-0800/00)
 Subject: Children in Romania
 

As the Council is aware, Romania has been criticised for not doing enough to reform its childcare institutions and, furthermore, the situation of over 100 000 children in Romania in institutionalised care is disturbing. Has the Council, under the French Presidency, urged the Romanian authorities to treat this issue as a matter of top priority and, if so, can it give details of any initiatives taken?

 
  
 

The Council is fully aware of the importance and the seriousness of the problem of child welfare in Romania. Since 1990 the EU has devoted over EUR 100 m to assistance to Romania aimed at helping it improve conditions in this area. This year more than EUR 25 m was allocated. Following the Commission’s second periodic report on the progress made by Romania towards accession, the subject has been included on the list of short-term priorities linked to compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria and the accession partnership adopted by the Council in December 1999.

The Council is reminding the Romanian authorities on all appropriate occasions of the priority which it accords to this question. It did so, in particular, at the sixth meeting of the EU-Romania Association Council, held on 21 March 2000. It will certainly also do so at the meeting of the Association Committee to be held on 27 October 2000.

On these occasions the Council also notes, on behalf of the EU, the progress made by Romania. This progress has included the creation in November 1999 of a national agency for the protection of children’s rights and the preparation of a ‘government strategy for children's rights 2000-2003’. The principles involved mark a step in the right direction: removal of as many children as possible from institutions; further decentralisation via the transfer of control over orphanages to the provincial authorities; and measures to prevent abandonment.

 

Question no 40 by Liam Hyland (H-0801/00)
 Subject: Building on the Commission’s Action Plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community
 

At its meeting of 30 May 2000, the Energy Council endorsed the Commission’s Action Plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community and called for the removal of market barriers which were preventing the spread of energy-efficient technology and the efficient use of energy. The Council also called on the Commission to come forward with early proposals for the SAVE subprogramme and the 5th Research Framework Programme which are due to expire in 2002. Given the enormous impact of recent OPEC oil price increases across the board, will the Council state what action it is now pursuing to ensure that the conclusions it reached at its May meeting are acted upon without delay?

 
  
 

In its conclusions adopted on 30 May 2000 on the above communication, the Council took the view (paragraph 8) that priorities and objectives should be fixed in close cooperation with the Member States and the other actors concerned and called upon the Commission to submit detailed proposals at the earliest possible juncture.

This dossier, which is a matter of priority for the French Presidency, is currently being examined in detail by the Council’s services. A detailed report on it is expected to be presented to the Council at its meeting of 5 December 2000, the objective being to propose a list of priorities to the Commission, thus enabling it to assess the issues on which the Member States either wish to see harmonisation at Community level or, alternatively, wish to see coordination of measures only. This should also make it easier for the Community to fine-tune the action plan to be submitted to the Gothenburg European Council, as announced by the Commission in its communication on the Union’s oil supplies.

These priorities should also take account of the actions relating to the Community’s strategy on climate change.

Moreover, the honourable Member will certainly be aware that the specific programme for energy, the environment and development under the fifth framework programme for research and technological development includes a key action aimed at achieving an economic and efficient supply of energy for a competitive Europe, the objective being to equip Europe with energy supplies which are reliable, non-polluting, efficient, safe and economic.

The Council cannot, at present, anticipate what actions will be taken in future concerning the future framework programme and its contents; it was only very recently that the Commission submitted its communication to the Council and Parliament on the guidelines for the Union's actions in the field of research for 2000-2006.

 

Question no 41 by María Izquierdo Rojo (H-0804/00)
 Subject: Absence of a fisheries agreement with Morocco
 

Should the negotiations on the fisheries agreement with Morocco fail to bear fruit, how will the effects be neutralised? What measures will be taken to prevent job losses and compensate those affected?

 
  
 

1. The honourable Member certainly cannot fail to be aware that the meeting which Commissioner Fischler had last week at the highest level with the Moroccan authorities seems to have finally resulted in the initiation of real negotiations for a new partnership agreement in the fisheries sector. This partnership agreement will have to reflect the interests of both parties, i.e. for Morocco, the development of its fisheries sector and, for the Community, the opportunity for Community fishermen to engage in sustainable fishing activities in Moroccan waters. We are all hopeful that the talks may be concluded within a relatively short timescale, enabling our fishermen to resume their activities.

2. The Council is aware of the social and economic problems, especially for regions highly dependent on fishing activities in Moroccan waters, which would ensue in the hypothetical case described by the honourable Member. It goes without saying that the Council would look most carefully into any measures the Commission might propose with a view to minimising the effects of a situation of this kind for the Community sectors of industry concerned.

 

Question no 42 by Ioannis Souladakis (H-0807/00)
 Subject: Civil war in Sudan
 

The long-raging civil war in Sudan has acquired an international dimension as the government and rebels have been joined by multinational companies and foreign governments with their sights firmly set on the rich oil deposits in the south of the country. Instead of contributing towards peace, US policy to date has helped sustain the violence and tension. During the Cold War, the USA supported the Sudanese Government, whereas following that period and owing to the rise of the Islamic movement, it supported the rebels who are concentrated in the south of the country. Recently, there have been signs from the USA of diplomatic moves towards a political settlement of the bloody hostilities surrounding the oil deposits, based on the model for peace tried in Sierra Leone, which is coupled with the embargo on diamonds from that country. Some circles in Washington have also come out in favour of such an initiative being taken in cooperation with the EU Member States.

In the light of the above situation, of the risk of armed conflict spreading on the continent of Africa and the ever-growing importance of oil for the Member States’ economies, will the Council say whether it is aware of Washington's endeavours in this respect and what measures it will take to bring about peace in Sudan and a definitive end to the civil war?

 
  
 

The Council shares the honourable Member’s concern as to the long-term nature of the armed conflict in Sudan. The breaking of the cease-fire in June 2000 and the resumption of hostilities threaten the humanitarian situation and the process of mediation undertaken by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). In a Presidency statement of 18 August, the European Union deplored the offensive launched by the SPLA and expressed its extreme concern at the bombing of civilian facilities by Sudanese aircraft. The European Union is continuing to support the mediation efforts made by IGAD. In addition, it is pressuring the Sudanese Government, particularly in the context of the renewed dialogue, as well as the other parties involved in the conflict, to adopt the path to a peaceful settlement of the country’s problems. The European Union considers that the parties should, as soon as possible, declare a total, unlimited cease-fire, to be effectively monitored. The Council considers that securing such a cease-fire must be one of the prime objectives of the negotiations as carried out in Nairobi under the auspices of the IGAD, alongside the implementation of an adequate monitoring system which would make any cease-fire agreed fully effective, and in order to avoid disputes.

The European Union is conducting very intense and regular dialogue with the United States on all matters relating to the situation in Africa, including the Sudanese conflict.

 

Question no 43 by Camilo Nogueira Román (H-0808/00)
 Subject: Enlargement of the EU and employment policy
 

In view of Germany’s experience, which led to an increase in unemployment in the East German Länder, and the German Government’s allocation of special funding to those regions, what kind of employment policy is the Council envisaging in preparation for the entry of new Member States into the EU? Does the Council not think that the ceiling of 1.27% of Community GDP which is laid down in Agenda 2000 for the Community budget will be insufficient (if not to say absurdly low) in view of the potential magnitude of the problem?

 
  
 

Membership of the European Union presupposes that the candidate countries have adopted the acquis communautaire and have demonstrated their ability to implement it and apply it effectively. Consequently, future Member States are required to ensure that all European Union policies and initiatives to do with combating unemployment should be in place and fully operational by the time they become Members. To this end, the European Union urges the candidate countries to move as far as possible towards the acquis communautaire as early as the pre-accession period. In this spirit, the candidate countries draw up national plans for employment following the model of those adopted by EU Member States.

 

Question no 44 by Francesco Enrico Speroni (H-0813/00)
 Subject: Referendum on self-determination
 

Whilst deploring the acts of violence associated with it, the Union approved of the referendum on self-determination for the eastern part of the island of Timor. Why is the possibility of a similar referendum being held about Northern Cyprus not being considered favourably?

 
  
 

The international community has never recognised Indonesia’s sovereignty over East Timor. UN Security Council Resolution No 384 of 22 December 1975 duly called for the territorial integrity of East Timor and the entitlement of its people to self-determination to be respected.

On the other hand, the Security Council has always considered that the Republic of Cyprus exercised due sovereignty over the entire island, and therefore called, in its Resolution No 367 of 12 March 1975, for the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus to be respected. On 18 November 1983, Security Council Resolution No 541 deplored “the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus”.

All States, with the exception of Turkey, have complied with this latter resolution and have refused to recognise the self-proclaimed ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’. When Resolution No 1283 was adopted on 15 December 1999, the Security Council reaffirmed its position that “a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship ... and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession.”

The Council therefore considers that the situations prevalent in the northern part of Cyprus and East Timor are not remotely comparable. There are therefore no grounds for considering holding a referendum on self-determination.

The Cypriot conflict must be settled within the framework defined by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

 

Question no 45 by Jean-Louis Bernié (H-0814/00)
 Subject: Budget
 

The European Union has deleted the budget line from which financial aid could be paid to Member States in the event of a disaster.

That possibility is still open with respect to third countries but no longer to Member States, which seems paradoxical.

This omission penalises the Union’s Member States, as was seen in France in 1999 after the floods, the oil spill and the gales.

Would it not be sensible to reinstate a line for the benefit of the Member States, even if an appropriation were to be entered against it only in the event of a real need?

 
  
 

The honourable Member asks about the possibility of reinstating a budget line from which financial aid could be paid to Member States in the event of a disaster.

The Council would point out that the Commission did not propose reinstating this budget line it its preliminary draft budget for the year 2001. Nonetheless, at the request of a number of delegations that presented a statement in favour of restoring a budget line intended to provide emergency aid to populations in the European Union that have been hit by disasters, the Council looked into this matter during the Budget Council of 20 July 2000, but at that stage did not adopt the solution of restoring this line.

At second reading, the Council will certainly devote the utmost attention to looking into any amendments on this subject adopted by the European Parliament.

 

Question no 46 by Inger Schörling (H-0816/00)
 Subject: EU Prosecutor
 

The Commission has submitted a proposal to the current Intergovernmental Conference on the introduction of a European Prosecutor. The proposal is based on an addendum to Article 280 of the Treaties and proposes that the European Public Prosecutor shall be responsible for ‘detecting, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of offences prejudicial to the Community’s financial interests and their accomplices and for exercising the functions of prosecutor in the national courts of the Member States’. The proposal does not specify any further practical details, e.g. what powers the Prosecutor should have or exactly which crimes he/she is to combat. These matters are to be decided at a subsequent juncture and under a different legislative procedure which only requires a qualified majority and not unanimity in the Council. What is the Council's view of the proposal? What is the Council’s view of the fact that a Member State may thus lose its right to determine the laws which apply within its borders?

 
  
 

In response to the honourable Member, I can only repeat the answer I have already given Mr Duff, to wit, that in accordance with Article 48 (ex Article N) of the Treaty on European Union, it is not the Council’s job to express an opinion on the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. Under the same Treaty Article, it is the task of those participating in the Intergovernmental Conference, i.e. the representatives of the Member State governments, to adopt amendments to the Treaties by joint agreement.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy