 |  |  |  |
 |
|
|
Brussels, 17 March 2005
 Growth and jobs the priority, Lisbon meeting is told |
|
|
The only way to preserve Europe's social model is to achieve higher levels of growth and employment, according to the main speakers at the concluding day of the first Parliamentary Meeting on the Lisbon Strategy. The gathering of members of the European Parliament and EU national parliaments debated the strategy, aimed at revitalising Europe's economy, with Commission President José Manuel BARROSO and former Dutch Prime Minister Wim KOK, who chaired the group which drew up a report for the Commission on the mid-term review of the 10 year plan. Mr Barroso told the meeting "The new Strategy must enable us to concentrate our efforts on growth and employment, and to get a commitment from all the main players, in particular the Member States, to get involved and take greater ownership of the Lisbon Strategy. The mixed results of the last five years are partly due to a lack of commitment and a deficit of dialogue with the European Parliament and national parliaments." He congratulated the European Parliament on having reached a consensus which was dynamic. There was no need to fear debate and exposing differences if this helped to reach such a consensus, rather than agreement to do nothing. "We are well aware of the central role and responsibility of the Member States in carrying through structural reforms. Without their commitment and determined action, nothing is possible. This is the decisive test of the Spring Summit - will there be real commitments to action, or will we go on as before?" Responding to points raised by the parliamentarians, Mr Barroso welcomed the suggestion that national parliaments should set up committees to follow the Lisbon strategy's progress. To those calling for more social cohesion, he said: "You need to get the message across to the Council when it comes to the Financial Perspective. Rhetoric is all very well, but paying money is harder." He insisted there was no contradiction between the economy, social protection and the environment: "Saying that jobs and growth need immediate attention does not mean the other goals are not important. If we want to protect our social model, we need more growth. If we want to protect our environmental standards, we need more growth. But too many priorities means having no priorities at all." On the proposed directive on liberalising services, the Commission President said he had already committed to taking account of concerns raised, among others, by French representatives. "We will keep the principle of a single market in services, but we will address the issues of the country of origin principle, services of general interest and social dumping - though I'm not sure if you can really talk of social dumping when you have an integrated market. We should not forget the freedom to provide services is a key element of the Treaty of Rome - this is not a new idea in the Constitution." Wim Kok said the Lisbon Strategy was needed more than ever. It should be revitalised, maintaining the balance between the three pillars - the economy, social cohesion and the environment: "But first things first. Without more growth and employment, you will have a hell of a time trying to make progress on the other two goals." The target of becoming the world's most competitive economy by 2010 was now unrealistic, he said, and it would not be credible to maintain that illusion. "It is much more important to take urgent action to improve Europe's position in the economic league." Some progress had been made, and some countries were doing well, but overall, he said, Europe was lagging behind. There was a great need to release potential through structural change. He said the proposed reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact were useful: "I sincerely hope the finance ministers will agree on this at their meeting on Sunday - if not the summit will all be about the Pact and not about the Lisbon Strategy relaunch." There were still obstacles to cross-border trade, most notably in services. While some review and delay to the services directive were inevitable, action was urgently needed "Europe does not have the luxury of not making the most of the internal market in services. We cannot abandon the whole idea and still hope to market work effectively." On the other hand, he said he was surprised by the harsh reaction of some representatives from the 'new' Member States: "You give the impression you are surprised at the sort of European Union you have joined. The EU does want economic strength, but it also values the importance of a cohesive society." Mr Kok said labour market reforms needed to strike a balance between flexibility and security, but there was a need to stop thinking about job security and to think instead about employment security. On the environment, he pointed out that some measures, such as becoming more energy efficient could positively benefit Europe's competitiveness. Adopting provisions for a European patent would be a vital boost to private sector research spending. He said he could believe more progress would now be made: "I can say this because it is vital, and time is running out. If we want to preserve and improve our social model, we need to act and adapt. The status quo is not an option. Change is painful, but it can also bring results and success. Those who are hurt by change are not immediately the individuals who benefit - so they understandably put pressure on politicians to slow things down. But we need to look at the broader context. Up to now, national parliaments and the citizens they represent have not been sufficiently associated with the strategy, and so there has not been enough pressure on governments to act." The meeting concluded with calls from both Mr Kok and Joseph Daul (EPP-ED, FR), who chairs the European Parliament's coordination group on Lisbon, for it to be repeated each year before the Spring EU economic policy summit. 17.03.2005 Parliamentary Meeting on the Lisbon Strategy Press enquiries: |
| Special visas to attract researchers from outside the EU |
|
|
For Europe to meet the Lisbon and Barcelona targets of increasing research investment and to offset the ”brain drain” of recent decades, much more must be done to bring non-EU scientists into the European research area. On Wednesday the EP Civil Liberties Committee gave its backing to plans by the European Commission to create a special residence permit for non-EU researchers, although MEPs called for greater protection of rights such as family reunification and direct access to social security systems. The aim of the draft directive is to make Europe more attractive to international researchers by offering them a renewable residence permit with some privileges which differ from a normal visa: once a scientist is invited by a host research organisation in the EU to conduct a research project for more than three months, this person would be entitled to obtain in less than 30 days a residence permit for the duration of the research project in the Member State in question, without needing to apply for a work permit. Parliament is only being consulted on this legislation and any amendments it adopts are non-binding on the Council of Ministers. The Civil Liberties Committee, in a report by Vincent PEILLON (PES, FR), is urging that mandatory provisions be added on family reunification so that direct family members (spouse or partner, children under 21 or dependent parents) will have the right to join the researcher. The Council wants these measures to be optional for Member States. MEPs would also like the researcher and relatives to have full access to the national sickness insurance scheme MEPs see mobility as an essential factor in the transfer of knowledge and formation of scientists’ networks, so they passed an amendment to allow the visa holder to conduct part of his/her research work in another Member State. However if the researcher wishes to stay there for more than three months, the second Member State may require a new hosting agreement. This new directive will be a small but crucial step in the achievement of the ambitious agenda set in Lisbon and Barcelona in 2002, where Member States committed themselves to invest 3% of the national GDP in research and recruit 700,000 researchers in Europe by 2010. 15.03.2005 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Parliament's 2003 budget spending approved |
|
|
The EP Budgetary Control Committee recommended on Wednesday that the President of Parliament be granted the budgetary discharge for 2003, when it adopted a report by Ona JUKNEVIČIENĖ (ALDE, LT) by a clear majority (28 to 3). The committee says that "as in previous years a very high level of budget implementation was achieved". In the resolution accompanying its report, the committee remarks that this was due largely to Parliament's consistent policy of buying rather than renting its buildings. MEPs note that, of the smaller institutions, Parliament was one of the few to have implemented the new Financial Regulation in good time, although they query "whether the degree of scrutiny and the complexity of the control apparatus currently in place is wholly proportionate", given that Parliament's budget is essentially administrative. Seat, Statute and smoking The committee also argues that Parliament has the right to decide on its own seat, which - on logical cost-effective grounds - should be in Brussels: "the vast majority of parliamentary activity already takes place in Brussels, where the other main EU institutions are based, (...) the most logical location for a single seat therefore would be Brussels." On the subject of Members' pay and expenses, the committee supports "the initiative undertaken by the current presidency of the European Union to reach agreement on the Members' Statute introducing a single remuneration for Members of the European Parliament" because of the discrepancy between Members' salaries since enlargement. However, the committee believes that, "even in the absence of a common statute, it should be possible to devise a system that is clear, transparent and fair". It adds that, as soon as the statute is approved, a new and separate pension instrument should be set up and that from that date all contributions from Parliament's budget to a voluntary pension fund should stop. MEPs also make a list of recommendations to Parliament's Bureau. They deplore the lack of clarity regarding social security obligations of parliamentary assistants. They also say it is unacceptable that smoking is allowed in Parliament's offices. They therefore demand "urgent action to reduce the level of smoke on its premises" and urge the College of Quaestors "to designate a clearly defined and well-ventilated smoking area". 16.03.2005 Committee on Budgetary Control Press enquiries: |
| Euromed assembly calls for "Alliance of Civilisations" |
|
|
The Mediterranean should become a region of dialogue between civilisations, and the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), whose first working session finished in Cairo on Tuesday 15 March, wants to play a central role in this dialogue. The 240 parliamentarians from the EU and the ten non-EU partners (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey) believe that the creation of EMPA should "encourage cooperation on democratisation and human rights ". This session of EMPA wound up with the adoption of resolutions drafted by the three standing committees and a final declaration. The delegates stressed the need to involve civil society in the Euro-mediterranean partnership so as to create an "Alliance of Civilisations" between both shores of the Mediterranean. The central role could be played by the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures, based in Alexandria. This body set up under the Barcelona process will promote understanding between peoples by combatting prejudices and stereotypes. The parliamentarians also want students from the partner countries to take part in the TEMPUS and ERASMUS programmes. The hardest compromises to reach were on the texts on the Middle East and Lebanon (Cf. News Reports of 14 and 15 March). On the Middle East, a compromise was reached with the aid of MEPs Luisa MORGANTINI (GUE/NGL, IT), Pasqualina NAPOLETANO (PES, IT) and Philippe MORILLON (ALDE, FR), who negotiated with their Palestinian and Israeli counterparts in turn. The final text recognises each side's concerns, including the problem of refugees for the Palestinians and the issue of security for the Israelis. But it calls "on both parties to refrain from any action which may undermine the process of achieving lasting peace". For its members, EMPA constitutes "a unique framework to foster dialogue as well as an opportunity to contribute to a peaceful, just and lasting solution" in the Middle East. "Peace and security in the region will constitute an essential factor in regional economic cooperation, integration and prosperity ", according to the resolution of EMPA's economic committee. The text says "reforms are no longer a luxury, but a necessity for the future in the region" and democracy is essential to these reforms. At the same time, the economic situation of these countries can only be improved if major efforts are made to "facilitate the flow of direct EU direct investment". A working group is due to be set up for this purpose. It will also "study the utility and the conditions of the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank". EMPA also calls on the EU to step up its efforts to ensure that the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective provides enough funding to help modernise the EU's partner countries. Immigration was dealt with in the resolution of the committee for exchanges between civil societies and culture. The delegates underline that this issue must be addressed "through a common European policy and an effective partnership with countries of origin and transit". They call for "a co-development strategy between partner countries". They welcome initiatives by the European Commission, including the Green Paper on the Management of Economic Migration, and stress that any initiative should comply with the rule of law and international conventions. The reception and integration of immigrants are the responsibility of the EU and its Member States, which "should be more flexible and human regarding granting visas". To aid the economic development of the partner countries, EMPA calls for programmes to be set up aimed at preventing a brain drain, and the return to their countries "of those who could contribute to the strengthening of societies and economies in the countries of origin" Press enquiries: |
| 'Roaming' charges: an obstacle to a Europe-wide mobile phone network |
|
|
Is EU legislation needed to stop exploitation of mobile phone users when 'roaming'? Telecommunications experts discussed the main issues with MEPs at a public hearing held on Wednesday by Parliament's Internal Market and Industry Committees. 'Roaming' means the use of mobile phones on foreign networks to make or receive calls or to transfer data. Among the problems: users may have to pay a large part of the cost of a call received from their home country when they are outside its borders. Since 1998, reports by the International Telecommunication Users Group (INTUG) on excessive charges for 'roaming' calls have bemoaned this 'major problem'. They say the system operated in the EU is a 'veritable cartel' in comparison to the continent-wide tariff system in the United States. Current EU rules date from the 1990s and are no longer suited to a complex market where companies can exploit dominant positions. Single market logic dictates that it should be possible to use a mobile phone anywhere in Europe without higher charges but this is far from being the case. Why do call charges rocket as soon as you cross a border? According to Dietrich BEESE, managing director of the O2 Group in Germany, it is foreign operators who set roaming prices and trigger higher charges. Profit margins for the operator in the home country are slim, owing to the costs incurred. Progress has been made since 2002, however, with agreements between operators and the introduction of new SIM cards. The 'preferred' operator in the foreign country is now selected automatically. That means that this obstacle to the 'mobility' of the European public has been reduced a little. But much remains to be done. The operators would prefer bilateral or even multilateral agreements in order to achieve the objectives set by the European Commission. In their view, pressure on the overall prices for services would make for a reduction in the prices paid by the consumer. An opaque system The European regulatory body COMREG (Commission for Communications Regulation) has nevertheless criticised the system's lack of clarity. Consumers are not provided with any information on roaming, and therefore have no choice but to put up with the system. Those familiar with the situation generally turn to alternatives, such as sending text messages (SMS), renting telephones in the foreign country or purchasing a second SIM card. David GUNNING, director of COMREG, stressed that roaming was all the more costly in cases of 'inadvertent roaming'. Small population centres close to borders posed a problem in terms of network coverage. In such cases operators were selected at random, regardless of whether they were national or foreign. The European Commission has two instruments for regulating the market and enabling consumers to make clear choices: compliance with competition rules and compliance with the Parliament and Council framework directive in force since 2003. Reform of the telecommunications market is a priority for the Commission as it fits into the rationale behind the Lisbon Strategy. In his concluding remarks, Philip WHITEHEAD (PES, UK), who chaired the hearing, said that this market had for a long time been "a bone of contention" and that there was a need to put a stop to what was out-and-out "extortion". While the operators favour bilateral agreements, experts recommend that EU rules be introduced. Another meeting is to be held in May to assess progress and decide what steps to take next.
|
| Terrorists to be judged by the International Criminal Court? |
|
|
In June the European Parliament will adopt a package of reports on the EU plan of action for combating terrorism and a European anti-terrorism strategy. Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee held a public hearing this Thursday to discuss one of these issues: whether terrorist offences should continue to be judged by national courts or by the International Criminal Court, which is already recognised by nearly 100 countries. Rosa DÍEZ (PES, ES) is drafting the committee's report on this subject. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was set up in Rome on July 1998 with the aim of ensuring that people who have committed particularly repugnant crimes - such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes - do not go unpunished. Terrorist crimes were never laid down as a responsibility of the ICC. However, the world has experienced in the last years a new form of international terror attack which goes beyond the national dimension: more than 2000 dead in New York (September 2001), 200 dead in Bali (October 2002) and almost 200 dead in Madrid as a result of last year's train bombings. Is this a new form of terrorism? Should it be seen as a "crime against humanity" and hence fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC? Although the European Commission has never delivered a formal opinion on this matter, Commissioner Franco FRATTINI told the hearing that he supported the idea: "In my personal and political opinion, the EU should indeed make the effort to declare terrorism a crime against humanity". Defining terrorism Most experts at the hearing argued that it was important to agree first on a harmonised international definition of terrorist crimes and the appropriate penalties. Gijs de VRIES (European Counter-terrorism coordinator) said it was "essential that a clear and accepted definition is agreed" at UN level but he added that "certain acts of terrorism could already be covered by the existing definitions of crimes against humanity" judged by the ICC. When defining the scope of terrorist offences we must not be tempted to leave out so-called 'freedom fighters': "The right of any country to resist occupation cannot justify deliberate attacks against citizens", he concluded. Jean-Paul LABORDE (Head of the Terrorism Prevention Unit of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime) thought such a common definition would be useful but added: "we must not run away from the current debate or get bogged down. In terms of policy we have everything we need to fight terrorism, we must fight it with the legal instruments we already have". During the commemoration of the victims of 11 March 2004 in Madrid last week, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called for a common definition of terrorism which would make it clear that ”any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act”. Terrorism and drugs When discussing the financing of terrorism, Antonio COSTA (Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) surprised the audience by stating that in almost every case the financing of terrorism is very closely linked with the business of drug trafficking. "Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, the terrorist groups in Kosovo, the FARC in Colombia, the IRA in Ireland or Shining Path in Peru... all these groups have been financed by drug organisations". Even the 11 March bombings in Madrid were financed by the sale of narcotics in Spain, he said. As further evidence he explained that since coca trafficking decreased by about 50% in the recent years in Colombia, terrorism has declined in parallel because terrorists are running out of money. Alexander ALVARO (ALDE, DE) wondered if it would therefore not be an idea to legalise drugs in order to cut off funds for terrorism. Mr Costa replied that another proven source of financing terrorist attacks in some countries was trafficking in women but this would never justify the liberalisation of that particular trade. No consensus When the speakers finally reached the central issue, they discovered that opinions differed greatly on whether to place terrorism under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Whereas Commissioner Frattini and the rapporteur Rosa Díez were in favour, other speakers strongly rejected the idea. "I believe that Member States are in a better position to control measures against terrorism and that it should be dealt with by national courts", said Eduardo FUNGAIRIÑO (Chief Prosecutor of the Central Criminal Court, Spain). However, when a terrorist attack is perpetrated or favoured by a head of state who enjoys international immunity this person should be judged by the International Criminal Court, since the national courts have no jurisdiction in these cases, he explained. He gave some examples, including the case of the Libyan President Gaddafi and Pinochet in Chile, who could never be judged in third countries for the crimes they were accused of. Maria Luisa CESONI (Professor of criminal law, University of Louvain) agreed with Mr Fungairiño but for different reasons. "Including terrorist crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC would open the door to including many other competences in this court, like organised crime or drug trafficking. We would transform the ICC into a super international tribunal and we would water down the main purpose of this tribunal, which is to judge genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity". Rapporteur Rosa Díez replied to this point and also brought the hearing to a close, saying: "You say that bringing terrorism within the ICC would not give any added value but you were only giving a legal answer. I have a political answer: I think that it would bring a political added value, because the most important measure for combatting terrorism is global condemnation, and ensuring the perpetrators do not go unpunished. The end of impunity has an effect and brings a lesson of democracy that we cannot forget". 17.03.2005 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Fighting gender discrimination: Turkey under the spotlight |
|
|
Turkish women suffer discrimination and violence but the government is fully committed to finding solutions, a public hearing at the European Parliament was told on Wednesday. In a frank and open debate, MEPs, European and Turkish experts and a Turkish minister of state discussed the political, social and cultural role of women in today's Turkey. All speakers agreed that much still has to be done to fight discrimination. A key issue is the implementation of reforms introduced by Ankara. The hearing, held by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, was intended to contribute to an own-initiative report by Emine BOZKURT (PES, NL), due to be put to the vote in committee on 26 May. According to invited experts, forced marriages, honour killings and domestic violence are still common in many regions of Turkey. Discrimination also exists in the education system, particularly among young women, who attend school noticeably less then young men. Women's share of the labour market is very small too: only 27% of employees are women, most of them working in agriculture and the public administration. After referring to the police repression of the International Women's Day rally in Istanbul on 6 March, Ms Bozkurt said "one of the conditions for Turkey's accession to the EU is respect for women's rights". She acknowledged Ankara's efforts in reforming the civil and the criminal code to combat gender discrimination, but added that this was not sufficient. "The government has to invest enough money and staff to ensure the implementation of these changes", she said. The lack of reliable information on women's living conditions was another major problem. Without official and updated statistics, it was very difficult to plan any action. According to local NGOs, in 1995 almost all women living in slum areas in Ankara had experienced domestic violence, while of 1200 women interviewed between 1990 and 1996, 88% claimed to be living in a violent environment. "Women should enjoy the same rights as men", said Güdal AKŞIT, Turkish Minister of State for Gender Equality, as she outlined her government's efforts to fight discrimination and social exclusion. The ratification of major international conventions on women's rights, the amendment of the Constitution with a specific article to promote gender equality, and the reform of the civil and the criminal code with the removal of patriarchal concepts (e.g. chastity, public morality) were the most significant reforms already achieved by the Turkish government. She admitted that there were "still problems in the implementation of this legislation", adding that "the government is trying to improve the situation". Indeed, Ankara had started a campaign to increase public awareness about women's rights, with the involvement of local football champions. Concerning the 6 March rally, Ms Akşit strongly criticised the repression and said "the police needs training on women's issues". Other speakers provided more detailed information. According to Feride ACAR, lecturer in political science in Ankara, the degree of discrimination in Turkey is not uniform. There are substantial dissimilarities "between different regions, and between the urban and the rural communities", where for instance the patriarchal mentality is more widespread. The EU integration process is also helping to accelerate legal changes but, she said, "it is too early to say anything on implementation yet". Serap CILELI, a campaigner against forced marriages and honour killings, said the patriarchal mentality was a major obstacle in combating discrimination against women, while Vildan YIRMIBESOGLU, an Istanbul lawyer, said "a change in mentality has begun to occur in society. We are becoming more aware of women's rights". There was a general consensus on the chances of improving Turkish women's living conditions. MEPs agreed with experts that the implementation of the reforms was feasible, since Turkish society is more aware of the importance of gender equality, and were generally satisfied by the minister's answers. In her concluding remarks, Ms Bozkurt said "one thing is clear: the strong commitment of the Turkish government". 16.03.2005 Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality Press enquiries: |
| No progress in debate on European diplomatic service |
|
|
Divisions persist between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament over the future European diplomatic service. The institutional implications of creating the European External Action Service (EEAS), intended to make the EU's foreign policy more coherent and efficient, were discussed on Tuesday in a public hearing organised by the EP Constitutional Affairs' Committee. The debate focused on the institutional aspects and scope of the new service but no consensus was reached. The setting up of the EEAS is laid down the Constitutional Treaty, the aim being "to assist the future EU Minister for Foreign Affairs...to perform his or her duties". However, the details are not spelt out so there is much room for discussion. MEPs' are keen to avoid the creation of an entirely new institution, an independent 'super administration', operating autonomously without any link to the Commission. A report on this subject is being drafted for the committee by Elmar Brok (EPP-ED, DE). Jim CLOOS, common foreign and security policy director at the Council, said the EEAS was a "golden opportunity to provide the EU with an effective foreign policy". The new service should be established in between the Commission's structure and the Council's secretariat, without setting up a different body. "There is no question of creating a new institution, because this is not what the Treaty intends", he said. The Commission's powers on trade, development and humanitarian assistance do not need to be integrated in the EEAS, according to Mr Cloos, who concluded that this was not a case "for intergovernamentalising the Community aspects of external relations". Graham AVERY, director at the Commission's DG for external relations, told the meeting "It is vital that the foreign minister also be vice-president of the Commission". The Commission's powers must be respected and duplication of responsibilities avoided. "We have more questions then answers for the moment", he said. Other open issues concern the recruitment of staff for the diplomatic service, the future of the external delegations, and the question whether the EEAS should be financially independent or be funded by the Community budget. Lamberto DINI, Italian Senate deputy speaker and member of the European Convention's working group on "external action", disagreed with Mr Brok's proposal for an EEAS "fully integrated into the Commission staff structure". He believed the Commission would like to confirm the status quo and Parliament wants to establish some sort of political scrutiny over the new service. In Mr Dini's view, however, the EEAS should be autonomous. "An autonomous service does not mean a weakening of the Commission", he said. Although Parliament would criticise such an intergovernmental body, he recalled that "there are many examples in history of intergovernmental solutions which have then been absorbed by the Community". Mr BROK said he could agree to a sui generis solution but opposed the idea of not integrating trade, development and humanitarian assistance into the EEAS. The Commission's external powers were too important and "should be included in the coordination of the EU external policy". He proposed an EEAS incorporated into the Commission's staff structure, while being bound to implement Council's decisions. The service's staff would be composed of officials from the Commission and the Council secretariat plus national diplomats. Any solution that entailed an amputation of the Commission's duties was "unacceptable", he concluded. At the December 2004 European Council, the Commission was asked to draft a joint report on the EEAS, in cooperation with the High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana. The report will be discussed at the European Council in June this year. The EEAS is due to be set up a year after the entry into force of the Constitution, scheduled for 1 November 2006. The Constitutional Affairs Committee plans to draft an Oral Question to the Commission on this topic in the near future. 15.03.2005 Committee on Constitutional Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Last updated: 21 March 2005 | Legal notice |