 |  |  |  |
 |
|
|
Brussels, 13 July 2005
 Security must take priority over rights, UK Home Secretary tells MEPs |
|
|
Britain's Home Secretary Charles Clarke told MEPs on 13 July that, in the fight against terrorism in Europe, security must take priority - despite the concern of many MEPs that citizens' rights could be undermined by EU measures designed to prevent terrorist attacks such as the one that devastated London last Thursday. Addressing the Civil Liberties Committee to present the programme of the UK presidency, Mr Clarke gave support to moves to speed up draft EU legislation to allow data retention from phone calls and emails to help fight terrorism, a plan rejected by MEPs in June when they sent the proposal back to the parliamentary committee for further debate. How is the right balance between security and freedom to be found? "The point I want to make is that the human right to travel on the underground in London on a Thursday morning without being blown up is also an important right", Mr Clarke said. He added that the challenge of a more secure Europe requires "a proportionate response". "None of our proposals are new, they were not new even after the Madrid attacks, but they are things we still need to do". The original proposal to store data from phone calls, text messages and emails for a maximum of three years was put forward by the UK, Ireland, France and Sweden. The stored information would only include details on the date, time and location of the communication but not on the content of the conversation. To give an example of how important intelligence agencies and the use of new technologies are, Mr Clarke mentioned that the presence of CCTV cameras on public transport in London would certainly help investigators to identify the terrorists. "The support that we had from international, and particularly European, intelligence agencies and police has been first class," Mr Clarke told the committee. "It has made a material difference". Less rhetoric and more practical measures Parliament's rapporteur on data protection, Alexander ALVARO (ALDE, DE), who asked MEPs in June to reject the proposal to store data from phone calls and emails, told Mr Clarke today: "You have our support but you will not get blind obedience. I find very annoying the rhetorical way people use to explain how to fight terrorism. (...) You argue that intelligence units are the best weapons but they failed in New York, Madrid and London". Many MEPs insisted that Member States must justify the data retention measures. Kathalijne Maria BUITENWEG (Greens/EFA, NL) said "Privacy is not something holy but it is up to us to prove a measure is necessary". Giusto CATANIA (GUE/NGL, IT) said that the tragic events in London "show that our strategy is not working. (...) We need to retrieve troops from Iraq, this is the first step which needs to be given". Mr Clarke gave a straight answer: "It is wrong to link the situation in Iraq with the terrorists' attacks. We have to break the link of Iraq with what motivated terrorists to attack London. After all, 9/11 took place before the conflict started in Iraq". When Mario BORGHEZIO (IND/DEM, IT) argued that we are dealing with "Islamic terrorism", the British Home secretary said that "what was also powerful to see in London was the absolute determination of all faiths - Catholic, Jew, Muslim - to stand for the respect of democracy and of other faiths. The police is with the Islamic community and against radicalism". Finally, asked about the Parliament's strong wish for more democratic scrutiny over EU actions through the use of the co-decision procedure for the adoption of legislation to prevent terrorist attacks, Mr Clarke answered: "We think that the most important thing is to focus on the substance. We want to use whatever pillar (legislative procedure) will allow us to get a deal on the fight against terrorism and organised crime". 13.7.2005 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Mining waste: MEPs stand firm |
|
|
After the serious accidents notably in Romania in 2000 and in Spain in 1998, where mining waste containing heavy metals or cyanide was released into the environment, the EU decided that a directive targeting this sector was needed to regulate the management and storage of such waste. The Environment Committee adopted this new text today, 13 July, by 36 votes in favour, with 5 against and 15 abstentions. As a result of the vote, major differences with the Council are likely, particularly over the derogations Member States should have. Some types of waste can present dangers to public health and safety as well as the environment. The collapse of a heap of inert waste in Aberfan, Wales, caused 144 deaths in 1966, and the rupture of a fluorite tailings dam in Stava, Italy, left 268 dead in 1985. In all, it is estimated that waste from mining industries amounts to about 29% of the total waste generated in the EU each year (400 million tonnes). During the debate that preceded today's vote, rapporteur Jonas SJOSTEDT (GUE/NGL, SE) expressed his displeasure with the common position adopted (with some difficulty) by the Council. "The Council has created new categories of waste and multiplied the national derogations. It has set the bar far too low", he said. He proposed an amendment to limit the derogations: "I don't want big holes in the net. The exceptions envisaged by the Council are unacceptable", he stated. The Environment Committee followed his lead by deleting a series of derogations introduced by the Council. Former installations, where the sites have been closed, also represent, in the eyes of the rapporteur, real "time-bombs". Here too, MEPs tightened up the Council's proposed measures. They want an inventory of closed sites to be established by every Member State in the three years following the entry into force of the directive, prioritising the most dangerous sites. The site should if necessary be rehabilitated in the following four years at the expense of the waste producers. This point is of particular importance to the new Member States of Central and Eastern Europe where many mining companies have long flouted safety standards. In the future, every time a mining site starts up, a financial guarantee must be given and regularly adjusted, to ensure that obligations are met, during and after use of the site, for the rehabilitation of the land within the site as well as land directly affected by the waste facility. MEPs also tightened up the conditions for allowing waste to be dumped in rivers and seas (which in principle is forbidden) as well as the classification criteria for the most dangerous facilities (known as category A). 13.07.2005 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Procedure: Codecision, 2nd reading Press enquiries: André Riche (32-2) 28 40992 (32) 0498.983.585 |
| Protecting workers from the risks of optical radiation |
|
|
Parliament's contribution to a package of measures to protect workers' health and safety reached another important stage with the adoption on 12 July of a second reading report on the exposure of workers to risks from optical radiation. The report, drafted by Csaba ŐRY (EPP-ED, HU), was adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs by 22 votes to 1, with 23 abstentions. Prevention and early diagnosis of damage to the eyes, together with the prevention of long-term health dangers, are the key aims of the directive, which lays down exposure limit values and requires employers to carry out risk assessments. It also includes provisions on workers' rights to information, training, consultation and health checks. MEPs disagreed with the Council's common position on one key point. They believe national authorities - rather than the EU - should lay down the rules on whether and how employers should assess dangers to the eyes of natural radiation from the sun, and how they must respond to such risks. The Council's text would require employers not only to assess the risks but also to set up an action plan if a risk is identified. However, MEPs agree that rules on radiation from artificial sources are best laid down at EU level. Concerning radiation from lasers, for example, the Council common position gives details of the measures employers must take to protect their employees (e.g. switching to different working methods to reduce the risk from radiation; limitating the duration and level of the exposure; the design and layout of workplaces). MEPs agree with these rules, although they want the Commission to draw up a practical guide to help employers, in particular managers of smaller firms, to understand the technical provisions of the directive. This directive is the last of a series of four designed to protect workers from the dangers of various "physical agents". Previous directives have dealt with vibrations, noise and electromagnetic fields. 12.07.2005 Committee on Employment and Social Affairs Procedure: Codecision, second reading Press enquiries: |
| Special medicines for children |
|
|
"For far too long Europe's children have been waiting, and parents' and patients' organisations have been calling, for special paediatric medicines. Let's not disappoint them!" The appeal made by rapporteur Francoise GROSSETÊTE (EPP-ED, FR) to her fellow members of the Environment Committee did not fall on deaf ears: the committee adopted her report on paediatric medicines on Wednesday 13 July by 40 votes to 9 with 9 abstentions. This could pave the way to an agreement with the Council at first reading under the codecision procedure. Most of the time sick children have to take smaller doses of medicines designed for adults, although their organism absorbs or eliminates them differently and there can be particular side effects. Few pharmaceuticals companies produce drugs aimed specifically at children, because the clinical trials are more difficult and the time taken to perfect them is longer. Six months for all The draft regulation under consideration aims precisely to encourage the pharmaceuticals industry to change its attitude, essentially by extending the life of patents or supplementary protection certificates by six months. MEPs debated the merits of this incentive at length. Some would have liked to make it proportional to the profits earned, shorter in some cases and longer in others. However, the rapporteur, the Commission and a majority of Member States feared that variable protection regimes might cause insurmountable problems of implementation. In addition, many procedures laid down in the regulation would have had to be reformulated. In the end, no alternative proposal achieved majority support in the committee, which thus positions itself de facto on the side of the Commission's initial text: six months in all cases. There will, however, be one exception: the exclusive commercial rights of "orphan drugs", intended to treat rare illnesses, will be increased from 10 to 12 years if they are invented specifically for children. Under current legislation, a medicine covered by a patent and a supplementary protection certificate is protected for a maximum of 15 years. A further six months of protection would, according to Commission estimates and depending on the case, produce extra profits of 800,000 to 9 million euros, compared with the average cost of a clinical trial, which can be as much as 4 million euros. Stimulating research The Commission is urged to review the regulation six years after it enters into force and amend it if it has not produced the desired impact, notably on research. But MEPs want to boost research now by other means. On of their amendments calls for the creation, within a year after the adoption of the regulation, of a special EU programme for research into medicines for children, to be called MICE (Medicines Investigation for the Children of Europe). And, to optimise research efforts, the regulation would set up, under the auspices of the European Medicines Agency, a network of researchers and research centres to avoid duplication of research and or tests on children. The agency should also, say MEPs, compile an inventory of therapeutic needs in the two years after the entry into force of the regulation, and this should seek to establish priorities for research. The regulation will also set up a Paediatric Committee, the "cornerstone" of the whole edifice, according to Ms Grossetête. MEP would like this to be created six months at the latest after the entry into force of the regulation. They want to amend some of the provisions regarding its composition and call for its opinions to be published. These would include opinions on paediatric research plans submitted by companies seeking the extra six months protection. MEPs want there to be transparency in the granting of certain derogations provided for in the regulation. Lastly, it should be noted that the regulation not only details the procedures for authorising the marketing of products, the derogations regime and requirements in terms of communication, it also provides for penalties to be imposed on companies that do not comply. 13.7.2005 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Procedure: Codecision, first reading Press enquiries: |
| MEPs back moves to simplify exports of generic drugs to poorer countries |
|
|
The European Union must do everything it can to enable the world's poorest people to have access to medicines. This is the view of Parliament's Trade Committee, which on 12 July adopted a report by Johan VAN HECKE (ALDE, BE) on a draft regulation on compulsory licensing for the export of generic medicines to developing countries. What problem is this legislation trying to tackle? Under the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), countries with major public health problems can issue "compulsory licences" for the manufacture of patent-protected drugs. But most developing countries do not have a pharmaceuticals industry to produce the generic drugs. On 14 November 2001, a declaration was adopted at Doha, during the WTO ministerial conference, to make the application of TRIPS more flexible not only for developing countries without the manufacturing capability but also for exporting countries. A decision of the WTO General Council of 30 August 2003 lays down the conditions under which countries without manufacturing capabilities can import generics that are still patent-protected. It also allows manufacturing countries to export drugs under a compulsory licence even where these drugs are patent-protected on their territory. The European Commission's draft regulation is intended to transpose the decision of 30 August 2003 into Community law. It lays down conditions for the granting of compulsory licences for the manufacture in Europe of generic drugs intended for export to developing countries. The text is based on a multilateral decision, so the EU institutions have only limited freedom for manoeuvre as it was not easy to agree a compromise within the WTO and, in Mr Van Hecke's words, "we must not open a Pandora's box". Nevertheless MEPs adopted amendments to the Commission's proposal to bring it more into line with the development goals it is seeking to achieve. MEPs propose final touches to the legislation The EP Trade Committee firstly wants to broaden the scope of the regulation so that all developing countries can benefit from exports under compulsory licences. Under the Commission proposal, only WTO members can apply. MEPs believe the WTO decision does not exclude a widening of the regulation's scope and they cite examples of similar legislation adopted in Norway, Canada and the Netherlands. To be effective, the machinery for issuing licences must not be too complicated or cumbersome. MEPs therefore wish to simplify the legislation as much as possible. The Commission lays down numerous administrative requirements to ensure that compulsory licences are not misused. The Trade Committee thinks these are unnecessary as they are not stipulated in the WTO decision and would simply deter potential applicants from using the system. MEPs also want to tighten up some provisions of the regulation. Before applying for a compulsory licence, an applicant must ask the patent holder to sell him the products at a reasonable price. MEPs say the patent holder should have 30 days to reply and not "a reasonable period of time", as proposed by the Commission. Once this period has elapsed, the compulsory licence application should be granted. This waiting period would not apply in the event of "situations of national emergency....or cases of public non-commercial use". However, the licence holder must pay "adequate remuneration" to the patent holder. MEPs insist that "humanitarian and non-commercial reasons underlying the issue of the licence" must be taken into account. To remove any uncertainty as to the amount of the remuneration, the Trade Committee calls on the Commission to lay down guidelines. It is often NGOs and United Nations bodies in the field that distribute the drugs. MEPs therefore want to add them to the list of those who can request imports of pharmaceutical products, on the same footing as representatives of the countries concerned. The Trade Committee wants it to be possible for the regulation to be brought into line with changes to TRIPS that are already in the pipeline or for it to be changed to take account of failings in its application. It thus proposes that the Commission present a report every three years to Parliament and the Council on the application of the regulation. 12.07.05 Committee on International Trade Procedure: Co-decision, First reading Press enquiries: |
| Basel II directives on track |
|
|
MEPs in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee have reached a broad agreement on many of the issues at stake when it comes to updating EU law in parallel with the Basel II agreement on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions. They approved the first reading report from Alexander RADWAN (EPP-ED, DE) with 36 votes in favour, none against and six abstentions. This overwhelming vote in favour came after compromises were reached on such questions as internal group lending, the approach to covered bonds and minimum requirements for data history, amongst others. Hundreds of amendments were made to the Commission's proposals. Many made substantial changes, but there were also a large number aimed at tidying up and clarifying the text. Another issue relates to Parliament's powers regarding "comitology" - the system which grants the Commission authority to decide on the detailed implementation of an EU law. The proposed constitution would have given Parliament an explicit right to revoke such implementing decisions, but with the constitution's ratification in doubt, MEPs decided that implementing powers for the Commission in this case should not come into force until Parliament's future role in this area has been clarified. MEPs in the committee hope an interinstitutional agreement can be reached to confirm Parliament's powers of "call back." The compromise texts adopted by the committee were also developed in the light of the rapporteur's discussions with the Council, with a view to the legislative procedure being completed at first reading. The International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: a Revised Framework, or the ”Basel II Framework,” offers a new set of standards for establishing minimum capital requirements for banking organisations. It was presented in June 2004 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a group of central banks and bank supervisory authorities in the G10 countries, which developed the first standard in 1988. The changes aim to make capital requirements much more risk sensitive. For more information on Basel II, see the website of the Bank for International Settlements: http://www.bis.org/press/p040626.htm 13.07.2005 Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Procedure: Co-decision, First reading Press enquiries: |
| Only full EU membership acceptable, says Turkey's chief negotiator |
|
|
The Turkish chief accession negotiator rejected proposals for a ”privileged partnership” as an alternative to EU membership for Turkey, when appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. Mr Ali BABACAN went into some detail to set out the political and economic reforms that have been achieved so far by his government and answered a number of searching questions from MEPs. Full EU membership is the goal to which both the EU and Turkey have committed themselves, Mr Babacan said: ”No other relationship is foreseeable for Turkey.” He added that Turkey already has several arrangements with the EU, such as the customs union, and that it was difficult to see what could be added to that in a special relationship. Turkey can live with the ”rigorous” negotiation framework as proposed by the European Commission two weeks ago, but ”would take issue if there were new hurdles”, Mr Babacan said. ”The negotiations will be difficult, but we will be patient, tolerant, focused and we will work hard”, he said, ”knowing that we will have to win the hearts and minds of those who are still sceptical”. Opening a series of questions from MEPs, Camiel EURLINGS (EPP-ED, NL), who is the rapporteur on Turkey’s accession progress, asked whether the ”law on foundations” - concerning the legal rights of churches - will be amended now that enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn has deemed it to be insufficient. Mr Babacan assured him that the concerns of the Commission and of Parliament will be taken into account when the Turkish parliament debates the bill after the summer recess. Mr Eurlings also mentioned the problems with freedom of the press and the lack of socio-economic development in south-eastern Turkey. In answer to concerns raised by a number of MEPs about an apparent slow-down in the reforms, Mr Babacan replied that the "critical mass" of the reforms had been achieved prior to the Council’s decision in December last year to open negotiations. Implementation of the reforms takes some time, he added, and therefore the Turkish government prefers to evaluate progress on the basis of whether there is improvement compared to the previous year. More importantly, the political will and the support of the population are strong enough to carry through these reforms. But this support can be fragile, he added, and if comments by EU leaders and the Parliament are not phrased carefully, ”people may be offended”. Equally, the political will and support will only be there if the target of negotiations is full membership. On Cyprus, Mr Babacan stressed that the ”Ankara Protocol”, extending the customs union to the new Member States, including Cyprus, will be signed before the start of the negotiations, scheduled for 3 October. Turkey was and remains willing to find a solution for the divided island and has shown this when it supported the Annan plan, which was approved by referendum in the northern part of Cyprus, but rejected in the southern part. Regarding Armenia, Turkey last year invited Armenia to take part in a committee of historians to research these events, Mr Babacan told MEPs, but so far had received no response. On south-eastern Turkey, Mr Babacan explained that the region had lived through decades of ”terrorist attacks” and that the lack of security had traditionally scared off investors. 12.07.2005 Committee on Foreign Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Gordon Brown: Europe must face up to scale of economic challenge |
|
|
Gordon Brown told MEPs that the increasingly global economy presents Europe with a huge challenge in maintaining its competitiveness. Speaking on 12 July to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee to present the programme of the UK presidency, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer said full employment could be a realistic goal only if the EU faced up to the scale of reform needed. Mr Brown highlighted in particular the growing strength of Asian economies: "Twenty years ago, ten per cent of manufactured goods were made in developing countries - soon it will be fifty per cent. Asia's share of output stands ready to surpass that of Europe, in ten years it will probably be 50 per cent higher. We have to face the fact that Europe has not only been growing at half the rate of the US, but at a quarter of the rate of China." He said the EU's founding fathers had assumed national economic integration would over time be replaced by European economic integration, but: "There are now global flows of capital, global companies, global brands and global supply of goods and services. We should be honest about the scale and intensity of change needed to adapt to this." The Chancellor spoke of the importance of maintaining high social standards, but said today's European social model was not a success, with 20 million unemployed in Europe, more than half of them out of work for more than a year. With more jobs likely to be 'outsourced' away from Europe, at least 22 million new jobs would be needed by 2010. Mr Brown said there needed to be a Europe-wide commitment to completing the single market, an active competition policy and reform to state aid rules, so that aid would focus on research and development, enterprise and regional imbalances, thereby tackling market failure. "We must remove barriers to employment, encourage the skills of the future and make work pay," said Mr Brown, who repeatedly stressed the importance of action by Member States to equip their citizens for the challenges of the future. Ieke VAN DEN BURG (PES, NL) asked about the reform of the stability pact, praising Mr Brown's own 'golden rule' on government borrowing. The Chancellor was positive about the pact's new emphasis on public investment, its greater attention to the economic cycle and to general government debt, though he said the test of the new pact was still to come. He added: "Of course there will be a debate about the European Central Bank - whether it should have a symmetrical inflation target as we do in the UK." Both Kurt LAUK (EPP-ED, DE) and Wolf KLINZ (ALDE, DE) wanted to know what would be done to reduce the regulatory burden of EU laws. Mr Brown said both proposed and current regulations should be subjected to a series of tests: a cost test, a competitiveness test and a risk based test. The last of these meant an approach where risks are analysed first, so that companies would only be asked to provide essential information. Dariusz ROSATI (PES, PL) and Antonis SAMARAS (EPP-ED, EL) both raised the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy, one of the main stumbling blocks at the recent summit. Mr Brown said "If we are genuinely to face up to global challenges, it does not make sense for 40 per cent of the EU budget to go to a sector which accounts for four per cent of employees and two per cent of output." For Mr Brown, priority should go instead to spending on areas such as science and infrastructure. He also warned that agricultural subsidies from rich countries were pushing out production from poorer countries. The UK presidency would do all it could to make progress towards a Financial Perspective agreement, he said, adding that this always took longer than planned. Asked by Guntars KRASTS (UEN, LV) about the services directive, Mr Brown said there needed to be a balance between the requirements of the single market and the maintenance of high social standards. He suggested services of general interest could be excluded from the directive, though these would have to be clearly defined, and perhaps limited to social services and public health. 12.07.2005 Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Press enquiries: |
| MEPs keen to strengthen cooperation with India |
|
|
The Foreign Affairs Committee called for far greater cooperation between the EU and India when it adopted a draft resolution by Emilio MENÉNDEZ DE VALLE (PES, ES) by 60 votes in favour, 9 against and 1 abstention. MEPs championed a proposal by the Commission for a new strategic partnership and called for extra funding for its implementation. They noted that the USA has aspirations for a strategic alliance with India and that China and India are also expanding their relations. In the resolution, MEPs make a number of specific recommendations to strengthen the ties with India, but also raise a number of issues of concern. The resolution calls on the EU and India to jointly tackle aspects of industrial, environmental and development cooperation, trade, investment and good governance. It voices alarm at UNICEF reports that seventeen and a half million children are working in India, "mostly in subhuman conditions". More generally, MEPs urge India to update its labour laws to prevent the exploitation of workers. The EU should work together with the Indian government to improve the situation of underprivileged people, in particular women, children and disadvantaged groups, e.g. Dalits and Adivasis. Another cause for concern is the increasing environmental destruction and MEPs urge India to show greater sensitivity to the question of global warming, while pursuing its development needs. The "alarming drop in the number of tigers" merits special mention. The resolution notes that twenty years after the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, the site has still not been cleaned up and calls on the Indian authorities and on Dow Chemicals to clean up the toxic waste immediately. MEPs also urge India to allow derogations to the ban on the manufacture of generic drugs for medicines such as those against AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis and cancer. MEPs recommend systematic EU-India consultation in advance of international meetings or conferences and establishing permanent links to secure "balanced and mutually beneficial progress on the main points of the Doha Develoment Agenda". They also call on the Indian government to take firm action against the dumping of trade goods on the EU. 13.7.2005 Committee on Foreign Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Last updated: 14 July 2005 | Legal notice |