President Josep BORRELL opened the last session of 2005 with a statement on the use of the death penalty. He stated that the European Parliament would fight its use. The illegal detention of CIA prisoners in Europe, the upcoming EU Summit and the use of data retention in the fight against terrorism were among the issues MEPs debated during the session. The award of the 2005 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought was presented on Wednesday.

 

 

"The 10 December, we commemorate the 57th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights.  In the United States, the 1000th person to be condemned to death since the re-establishment of the death penalty in 1976 has just been reached.  In Singapore, on the same day, 2 December, there was also an execution.  These events have once again put the death penalty high on the agenda.  The European Parliament will fight it.  It goes against the values of the Union.  Its abolition is a sine qua none for accession to the Union.  Fortunately, progress towards abolition in the world is increasing quickly.  In 1977, 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes.  Today, there are 84 countries.  But in 76 countries, the death penalty is still in use.  Moreover, 24 countries have abolished the death penalty de facto as they have not executed anyone for at least 10 years.  Although the number of countries using the death penalty is reducing, the number of executions is particularly concerning.

 

 

 

74 countries continue to use the death penalty and that is 74 countries too many.  Our work as parliamentarians is to convince our partners in these countries to finally abolish the death penalty.  The right to life is an absolute right.  It is the essence of human nature. We can not take it away, even from the worst criminals."

Thousands of tonnes of waste batteries and accumulators are being discarded each year polluting the environment even when they contain hazardous substances like mercury, lead or cadmium. For this reason, the EU is preparing new legislation and Parliament adopted its second reading recommendation in which it strengthens several requirements.

MEPs adopted a report by 550 votes in favour, 45 against with 25 abstentions on the alleged abuse of the Valencian Land Law known as the LRAU and its effect on European citizens.

 

The Parliament invites the competent authorities to take account of the following suggestions, to remedy the problems that have arisen under the present legislation with respect to those aspects of the protection of property rights which raise questions of human and fundamental rights, and with respect to Community law on public procurement:

 

–    the inclusion in the new law of a clear definition of public interest which unambiguously prevents the possibility that the ‘public interest’ justification for expropriation – which is a precondition for any expropriation under European human and fundamental rights norms – could be used for the promotion of private, rather than public, interests,

 

–    the establishment of binding criteria for the calculation of compensation in cases of expropriation on the basis of the standards and principles recognised by the case-law of the ECJ and ECHR,

 

–    fundamental review of the bases for selecting the ‘urbanisator’, and of the procedure for awarding public contracts to the ‘urbanisator’ selected, to ensure that this office is compatible with European law, given the existence of serious doubts on this subject as evidenced by the current infringement proceedings, so as to enhance the transparency of the procedure for awarding public contracts and safeguard the property rights of European citizens,

 

–    measures to ensure that each property owner concerned by any urbanisation plans is informed individually, effectively and in good time of any plan, and any aspect thereof, which might affect his or her property and fundamental rights, so as to guarantee an adequate possibility to consider appropriate action.

 

The House also calls upon the competent Valencian and Spanish authorities to ensure, through binding norms, that general plans for development and urbanisation which are likely to have significant environmental effects and which set the framework for future development consent of projects are made subject to a strategic environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC.

 

The Parliament calls on the Commission to continue to exercise vigilance in terms of monitoring compliance with tendering procedures.

 

MEPs ask the Commission to draw on the experiences of this episode and, in view of the large number of EU citizens now buying immovable/real property in EU countries other than their own, to consider what safeguards – legislative, non-legislative or merely advisory – might be appropriate so as to protect and assist citizens undertaking such important transactions and investments outside their home jurisdictions, and to report the outcome of such deliberations to the European Parliament.

Parliament adopted a report by 392 votes in favour, 121 against and 89 abstentions which backs the idea of a common consolidated corporate tax base within the EU. The report was drawn up by Pier Luigi BERSANI (PES, IT). It also supports a pilot scheme on home country taxation for small businesses.

 

 

Noting that European companies are hampered by tax obstacles, problems of double taxation and high compliance costs when they invest or operate in another Member State, the House welcomes the Commission's proposals for a common consolidated corporate tax base at European level.  This would make it possible to determine the taxable revenue of a group of companies according to a set of common rules defined at European level.  The aim would be to remove barriers set up by different national tax systems, to reduce bureaucracy and compliance costs, to create equal conditions for companies based in different Member States and to remove problems of double taxation and tax evasion.

 

MEPs reaffirm that this would not in any way prejudice the fundamental rights of the Member States on tax matters, in particular the right to set the rates of corporate taxation.  They regret that some Member States still reject the need for greater cooperation on tax matters, in particular tax bases applicable to companies. They say the best way forward would be via an EU regulation creating a common tax base and a method of apportionment among the Member States, allowing companies to offset and consolidate profits and losses globally throughout the EU. A second best approach would be to use the enhanced cooperation mechanism, which allows some Member States to go ahead with a project applying only to those in favour if the necessary unanimity for EU-wide action cannot be found. There should, says the Parliament, be a step by step approach, initially giving companies the choice of whether to apply the EU or national system, with an assessment then being made of whether to make the common base compulsory.

 

On the issue of home state taxation for SMEs, the House supports the Commission proposal for a pilot project to test the scheme, which would allow SMEs to calculate the taxable revenue of a parent company and all its branches and subsidiaries in other Member States applying the tax rules of the home State.  Agreements on sharing of revenue between the participating Member States would be essential.

Given the growth in world energy demand and the decline in resources, there is an increasing need to save energy and use it more efficiently. A step in the right direction has been taken when Parliament confirmed an agreement with Council on a directive aiming to encourage Member States to save energy and use it more efficiently when it is sold to private households or the public sector.

 

 

"The directive must and can kick off a real energy efficiency offensive in the Member States," said Parliament's rapporteur Mechtild ROTHE (PES, DE) in the debate before Parliament's second reading vote. The report was adopted with 582 votes in favour, 13 against with 18 abstentions.

 

Parliament adopted 49 compromise amendments which are the result of negotiations between the rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs and the Council.  The Directive will therefore enter in force soon.

 

This directive, which aims to encourage energy saving, covers the great majority of forms of energy sold to end users: electricity, gas, heating oil and transport fuels.  It was tabled as part of the Commission's December 2003 energy package.

 

The compromise adopted asks Member States to save 9% of the energy supplied to end users in the nine years following the directive's entry into force.  Members may set themselves a higher target.  The Council had been arguing for a 6% reduction over six years.  Some of the MEPs regretted that the goals were not binding, but merely indicative, in accordance with Member States' wishes.  Nevertheless, the Member States will have to adopt three multi-annual Energy Efficiency Action Plans. In the first, to be submitted to the Commission no later than 30.6.2007, an intermediate goal for the third year must be set.  In all three plans (the second to be submitted until 30.6.2011, the third until 30.6.2014), Member States must describe the energy efficiency measures planned to reach the targets.

 

Member States will have a period of two years to transpose the directive into national law with the exception of the first EEAP which has to be submitted until 30.6.2007 and which will be reviewed by the Commission before 1.1.2008.

 

Another positive point for Parliament is that the public sector will have to set an example.  Member States are invited to develop guidance aiming to include energy efficiency as a criterion for public procurement processes.  More information will be provided to consumers on energy end use efficiency and they will receive detailed and regular statements on their energy consumption.

 

For Commissioner PIEBALGS, "energy efficiency is one of the main priorities of this Commission. That will remain so throughout our mandate period. This new directive is expected to be a valuable tool for achieving that goal."

 

Background:

Energy efficiency and energy savings have become one of the most important energy sources.  According to studies, the total energy end-use consumption in the European Union could be reduced by 20% to 30 % without reducing comfort or standards of living. Energy savings of 1% per year could halve CO2 emissions and enable the EU to meet the Kyoto objective of reducing emissions in the EU by 8% over the period 2008-2012.

The European Parliament decided to support the creation of a European payment order (EPO), a new procedure designed to speed up resolution of cross-border payment claims. By adopting a report by Arlene MCCARTHY (PES, UK), MEPs backed the Commission proposal to establish a cheaper and less complex system to recover debts than the existing national ones.

 

 

The new EPO should allow citizens and businesses to enforce uncontested payments through a harmonised process applicable in the whole of Europe.  According to the proposed regulation, it will be possible, for instance, to claim the payment of unpaid bills for purchases made via mail orders or Internet retailers through a simple procedure.

 

Indeed, the current situation is harmful for economic operators, which are encountering difficulties in dealing with legal procedures in foreign countries and are experiencing delays in recovering debts, due to unfamiliar procedures and unexpected costs. Particularly, the small business sector should benefit from a simple and cheaper procedure for pursuing payments across the EU.  In this light, MEPs approved an amendment to ensure the free circulation of the European payment orders throughout all Member States, by setting up specific rules to avoid any intermediate proceedings. Moreover, they adopted a number of amendments aiming to simplify the procedure.

 

The approved amendments are the result of an agreement between the European Institutions to approve this regulation at first reading.  Some exceptions to the use of the new system are also included in the report.  For instance, the EPO could not be used in case of contested property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, including wills and succession.

 

Finally, MEPs asked the Commission to present a cost-benefit analysis of the EPO, after five years of its entry into force. The EPO would only apply to payment claims that are not subject to legal controversy in any Member state.

 

Parliament adopted a non-binding report by 484 votes in favour, 15 against with 14 abstentions on beer temporary quantitative restrictions of excise duty beer imports into Finland till 31 December 2006. MEPs approved the Commission proposal which sets out the following:

 

 

In 2000, the Commission granted Finland a derogation to limit personal imports of beer by individuals from countries other than EU Member States.  The amount was limited to six litres and the derogation was to last only until 31 December 2005.  The purpose of the derogations was to soften fiscal, economic, social, health and public order problems, related in particular to cheap imports from Russia. Within this context, the Commission proposes to extend the derogation for one further year to last from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2006. Finland will be authorised to apply a quantitative limit for beer imports by travellers from countries other than EU Member States, to be fixed at an amount of 16 litres.  This, it is hoped, will help to soften the current fiscal and economic problems faced by Finland. The Commission is, however, imposing a time limit in order to:

 

- take account of Community rules, which seek to prevent competitive distortions resulting from the application of different limits when external frontiers linking the Community to third countries are crossed and,

- pending the outcome of a general review of the values and quantities of goods set down in Council Directive 69/169/EEC.  Such a review may provide a permanent solution to the Finnish problem.

 

The reformed rules on state aid as a tool for regional development should be more generous to regions suffering from natural, geographic or demographic disadvantages, according to the European Parliament. MEPs also call for the ceilings for the so-called 'statistical effect' regions to remain unchanged during the next Financial Perspective (2007-2013).

 

A large majority within the Parliament supports the view that the "statistical effect" regions should maintain Objective 1 status and receive the same treatment  with regard to state aids (Article 87 (3) a) as the Union's other poorest regions for the duration of the 2007-2013 programming period. They thus unequivocally rejected the Commission's suggestion that this should be reviewed after three years.

 

Commenting on the lack of precision and details in the new guidelines regarding regional policy and especially on the lack of detailed rules for the recovery of aid, MEPs stress the importance of taking into account all dimensions of cohesion. Parliament appreciates that the Commission intends to use the unemployment rate as a supportive indicator for eligible areas to be defined by Member States under the Treaty but stresses the need for indicators to be introduced which will highlight the various differences in regional development, thereby enabling the Member States to measure more accurately the areas' relative degree of prosperity and consequently their eligibility for support.

Parliament is in favour of on a harmonised European system for the calculation of tolls and road charging for heavy goods vehicles. A large majority of MEPs adopted the second-reading recommendation by Corien WORTMANN-KOOL (EPP-ED, NL). The Eurovignette directive is one of the top priorities of European transport policy.

 

 

The directive aims to harmonise tolls and user charges in all Member states in order to strengthen the Internal Market and establish a fair system of charging for the use of infrastructure based on the "user pays" and the "polluter pays" principles.  It seeks to introduce standards which offer Member States the possibility to charge infrastructure costs for road transport.  It also contains a roadmap towards the future introduction of internalising external costs for all modes of transport.  In addition, it aims to propose the use of transportation with the least environmental impact and stimulate new investment in transport infrastructure.  During the debate on Tuesday 13 December, Parliament argued that an agreement was urgently needed as a growing number of Member States were considering introducing tolls and/or road charging.

 

At its meeting of 14 November, the Transport Committee adopted the rapporteur´s proposal on the revision of the Eurovignette by 24 votes to 4, with 18 abstentions. However, since Mrs Wortmann-Kool succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Council of Transport Ministers on 7 December, supported by the EPP-ED, PES, ALDE, GUE/NGL and UEN groups, she tabled compromise amendments addressing the most controversial issues of this directive, such as a clear strategy for internalising external costs, the geographical scope of the directive, the types of lorries concerned, obligatory toll variations and the concepts of "earmarking of revenue".

 

 

The Council accepts the concept of internalising external costs.  It was agreed that the Commission will come up with a model on the internalisation of external costs no later than two years including an impact assessment and a strategy for the stepwise introduction for all modes of transport.  Ultimately three years later, the Commission will come up with a proposal for further revision of this directive. 

 

Mrs Wortmann-Kool welcomes the substantial strengthening of environmental issues in this directive. For instance toll variations according to Euro-classes will be obligatory no later than 2010 for those countries which have toll or user charges.  Next to that there is also clarification of the possibilities Member States have to introduce urban traffic charges in order to fight air pollution and congestion.

 

 

Although the Council of Transport Ministers had proposed that tolls and/or user charges are to be applicable to vehicles with a permissible laden weight of 12 tonnes and more, the Ministers now accepted the principle of charging of 3.5 tonnes instead from 2012.  There are some strictly formulated exemptions in order to prevent that costs are excessively high in relation to revenues and to prevent undesirable consequences for the environment.

 

 

Parliament's amendments relating to stricter earmarking were also accepted.  Revenues from tolls or charges for the use of road in the trans-European road networks should be used for the maintenance of the infrastructure concerned and the transport sector as a whole.

 

 

Toll and user charges are supposed to be applied to the whole of the trans-European road network as a principle.  Council now accepts the EP proposal for a concept of parallel and road to which traffic might be diverted and which are in direct competition with TEN-roads.

 

 

After this vote this co-decision procedure can be concluded, thus avoiding conciliation.

 

Parliament adopted a report demanding extra aid for the ACP countries hit by the overhaul of the Community sugar regime. MEPs in the committee wanted the EU to provide €80m in 2006, double the €40m proposed by the European Commission when it unveiled the reform in June this year. However, the final figure of €40 million was approved by Parliament in order to reach agreement with the Council in first reading.

 

Parliament's rapporteur Bernard Lehideux (ALDE, FR) therefore called for his name to be withdrawn from the report although reluctantly supporting the first-reading agreement on the €40 million.

 

The figure of €80m would come from the External action budget heading, a key area in the ongoing negotiations between Parliament and Council on the 2006 budget.

 

At the same time, the House urges ACP countries affected by the reform to promote non-food uses of sugar such as bioethanol production. And MEPs want the reform's flanking measures to be extended automatically to 2007 if negotiations on the next financial perspective drag on, thereby delaying implementation of the new instrument for development aid and economic cooperation.

MEPs adopted a resolution expressing the European Parliament's wish to conduct "its own parliamentary inquiry" on the alleged CIA flights and detention camps in Europe, "which should at a minimum be conducted through a temporary Committee". The text was adopted just a day after the Conference of Presidents of the political groups agreed to set up in principle a temporary ad-hoc committee 'on the alleged use by the CIA of European countries for the illegal transport and detention of prisoners'.

 

 

The draft mandate and the composition of this committee will be determined by the Conference of Presidents at its first meeting on 9 January and will be put to the vote at Parliament's plenary session of January in Strasbourg.

 

MEPs call for the temporary committee to examine whether the CIA has been involved in 'extraordinary rendition' and transport of 'ghost detainees' "within the EU territory"; whether such practices are legal according to EU law [1] on fundamental rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU-US agreement on extradition; whether EU citizens were among the detainees; and whether Member States were involved or complicit in the illegal deprivation of liberty of individuals.

 

Furthermore, if investigations being carried by the Council of Europe or national governments confirm the allegations that any Member State has given assistance, the Parliament will be "committed to opening the procedure under Article 7 TEU", which foresees a sanctions mechanism when there is a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the same rights. Its application would lead to the loss of certain rights for a given Member State, including the right to vote in Council.

 

MEPs against torture

In the text adopted, MEPs also highlight the fact that press articles and reports by NGOs have indicated the alleged use of airport facilities by the CIA for transport of suspects in Aviano (Italy), Ramstein (Germany) and Kogalniceanu (Romania).

 

MEPs reiterate their belief that the fight against terrorism "must be fought by legal means and respecting international law". They also express "deep concern at the allegations concerning the role of the CIA in the illegal kidnapping, transportation, secret detention and torture of terrorist suspects" and "strongly condemn any use of torture, including cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".

 

[1] Article 6 TEU made explicit that the European Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Article 7 laid down a political mechanism for preventing violations of the principles mentioned in Article 6 by the Member States.

 

Parliament expressed its support to Bulgaria's accession to the EU on 1 January 2007 on condition that it implements further reforms in a number of key areas. Parliament warned Romania that "immediate steps" are needed to deal with widespread corruption, discrimination against minorities and other issues if the country is to be ready to join the EU on 1 January 2007.

 

 

 

Bulgaria

 

In adopting a report drafted by Geoffrey VAN ORDEN (EPP-ED, UK), MEPs urge the Bulgarian government to show "increased and visible determination" concerning problematic areas and "to demonstrate in a concrete manner" that action has been taken before April 2006.

 

MEPs said that Bulgaria is "as close, or in many cases closer; to fulfilling the accession criteria fourteen months before accession; as any of the new member states ate the same stage in the accession process."  Nevertheless, they recalled that the safeguard clauses, including the possible postponement of accession by one year, can be activated next spring and that Parliament is to be fully associated in any decision on this. Thus they called on the Bulgarian government to achieve tangible results and in particular to step up efforts in the fight against organised crime, expressing their concern about "the brazen nature of Bulgarian organised criminal elements".  Parliament also urged the Bulgarian government to continue work on its anti-corruption strategy and on reforms of the judiciary, noting there have been few successful convictions of high-level officials for corruption. Other problematic areas remain Roma integration, child welfare, psychiatric care and the agricultural system. MEPs also called on the government to improve all aspects of border control and to make increased efforts in all areas of the internal market.

 

As regards the Kozludoy Nuclear Power Plant Parliament hoped that Bulgaria would meet its obligations for the closure of units 3 and 4 and called on the Council and the Commission to ensure that Bulgaria would effectively do so. MEPs reiterated their support for the Bulgarian nurses held in Libya, who have been sentenced to death there.

 

MEPs believe Bulgaria remains on course to meet the common objective of membership on 1 January 2007, "by which time she must have fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Treaty of Accession." They emphasised that the accession of the country should depend exclusively on its own merits yet express the hope that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria will take place at the same time.

 

 

Romania

 

In adopting a report on Romania's readiness for EU accession, drafted by Pierre MOSCOVICI (PES, FR), MEPs note that "significant improvements" had been made in Romania's preparations for accession. However, they pointed out that progress had not been satisfactory in several areas. Citing "persistent delays" in the fight against corruption and the implementation of legislation on agriculture, public contracts and the environment, the committee called on Romania to take "immediate steps to make good these shortcomings" in order to join the Union on 1 January 2007. MEPs support Romania's efforts to accede on that date, but stressed that this would depend "first on the Romanian authorities' ability to fulfil the commitments made in the accession treaty."

 

Parliament stresses the importance of the fight against corruption, especially at the highest level, minorities' issues in general and the Hungarian minority problem in particular, the management and security of Romania's borders, the implementation of environmental legislation, referring explicitly to the mining project of Rosia Montana, the guaranteeing of food safety, the protection of children and the disabled, the integration of Roma, and the fight against ill-treatment by law-enforcement personnel. Though welcoming the moratorium on international adoptions of Romanian children, Parliament felt that case-by-case consideration should be given to applications which had been made before the moratorium.

 

Parliament supports the Commission’s plan to reach a decision on whether or not to postpone the date of accession on the basis of the results obtained by Romania by the spring of 2006, recalling that Parliament is to be fully associated in any decision on activating any of the safeguard clauses. MEPs hope that Romania and Bulgaria would join the EU at the same time, but stressed that both should be judged on their own merits.

 

 

 

The European Parliament adopted by 378 votes in favour, 197 against and 30 abstentions a directive on data retention in first reading. The final text negotiated beforehand with the Council aims to facilitate judicial co-operation in criminal matters by approximating Member States' legislation on the retention of data processed by telecommunications companies.

 

The directive covers traffic and location data generated by telephony, SMS and internet, but not the content of the information communicated.

 

The new EU law will help national authorities to track down possible criminals and terrorists by granting them access to a list of all telephone calls, SMS or Internet connections made by suspects during the previous few months.  The amendments finally adopted were a compromise between the PES and EPP groups with the Council and differed in some key points to the draft directive adopted initially by the Civil Liberties Committee.  The GUE, Greens and UEN groups and some members from the ALDE group voted against the directive in the final vote.  Alexander Nuno ALVARO (ALDE, DE) was unhappy with the result of the compromise adopted and withdrew his name as rapporteur.

 

Limited access to data

 

In the final text adopted, Parliament is proposing a number of amendments to the Commission text to restrict the use of retained data and ensure that the future law fully respects the privacy of the telephone and internet users.

 

On the aim of the directive, MEPs agree with the need to retain data for the detection, investigation and prosecution of crime, but only for “specified forms” of serious criminal offences (terrorism and organised crime), and not for the mere “prevention” of all kinds of crime.  MEPs feel that the concept of prevention is too vague and could lead to abuse of the system from national authorities.

 

The directive will provide for data to be retained by the telecommunications companies for a minimum of six months and a maximum of 24.  MEPs also added a provision for “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” penal sanctions for companies who fail to store the data or misuse the retained information.

 

Only the competent authorities determined by Member States should have access to the retained data from phone or internet providers. Furthermore, each national government will designate an independent authority responsible for monitoring the use of the data.

 

MEPs also establish that access to retained data should be limited to specific purpose and on a case by case basis (push system): each time, the authorities would need to request to the telecom company that the data related to a concrete suspect, instead of having granted access to the whole database.

 

As for the type of data to be retained, MEPs finally supported the registration of location data on calls, SMS and internet use, including unsuccessful calls.  This point was controversial due to the fact that telecom companies do not currently register lost calls for billing purposes and so to do this using new technologies would be expensive.  Spanish MEPs strongly supported the Council position to include the retention of unsuccessful calls, since the terrorist attacks in Madrid were prosecuted thanks to the investigation of specific lost calls from mobile phones.

 

Who foots the bill?

 

Finally, MEPs decided to delete the paragraph in which it was mandatory for Member States to reimburse telecom companies for all additional costs of retention, storage and transmission of data.  In the draft directive adopted by the Civil Liberties Committee, MEPs had initially called for the full reimbursement of costs.

One day before the European Council of Heads of State and Government start in Brussels, the European Parliament set out its position in a debate on the summit. The EU financial framework for 2007-2013 and the UK presidency of the EU were the key issues in the debate.

 

 

The President of the European Commission, José Manuel BARROSO opened the debate on the forthcoming European Council by recalling the challenges of globalisation addressed at the Hampton Council.  Mr Barroso also stated that the Commission had recently concluded its revision of its sustainable development strategy, stating that all community policies would be guided by sustainable development. 

 

The Union, the President said, could count on his "personal commitment" to ensuring sustainable development.  He welcomed the success of the Montreal conference saying that it demonstrated the EU's leadership and had already "borne fruit".

 

On growth and employment, Mr Barroso welcomed the development of national strategies taking into account the economic challenges already identified.  The Commission, he said, would report in January on the strong and weak points of the national Member State strategies as well as recommendations on sharing best practice.  President Barroso welcomed developments in the fight against global terrorism as well as the new European consensus on development.

 

Turning to the financial perspective (EU financial framework for 2007-2013), he said the summit was an "opportunity for Europe to show it could live up to citizens' expectations".  The Commission and the Parliament had set out its proposals and now it was time for the Council to reach an agreement.  Any further delay would mean delay in implementation; as the President put it "policies delayed are policies denied".  He recalled that the Commission had set out proposals on how to move forward and reach an agreement.  He welcomed Parliament and Member States' support for the Commission's proposals on the financial perspective. 

 

Mr Barroso said that there needed to be an "ambitious Europe".  The Member States needed to provide the means for an enlarged European Union.  The means for Europe to be able to react to the challenges of globalisation and immigration.  Mr Barroso welcomed the proposed review clause on the entire EU budget on both the income and spending sides.  The President strongly rejected any "parallel rules" on cohesion policy.  The rules should be the same for all Member States and no division made for the EU-15 and the EU-10.  Rules on the application for cohesion funds for competitiveness and net transfers should not be different.  The rules should apply equally to all Member States.  The proposed reforms of cohesion policy, he said, would also undermine sound financial management.  President Barroso also strongly attacked the proposed cuts in the budget for administration - calling them "dogmatic" and, he said, that the proposals made zero allowance for the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and their impact on all the EU institutions. 

 

Overall, he said that the Commission needed an ambitious financial perspective and he hoped that next week when he would be addressing the Parliament once more, that he would be explaining a budget agreement for the next seven years.

 

Douglas ALEXANDER, (UK Minister for Europe) for the UK Presidency of the Council welcomed the opportunity to have this "important and timely debate". He said 2005 had been a "tumultuous year for the European Union" with the rejection of the EU Constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands, the growing challenges posed by globalisation and terrorist attacks across the continent. Mr Alexander said that Europe has responded by asserting itself in a global role through involvement in assistance missions in places such as Aceh, the Rafah border crossing, by organising Euromed Summit and continued support for the United Nations.

 

Turning to the forthcoming European Council, he noted that "key challenges" faced the EU after the failure of the June Council and that the Presidency had listened to MEPs in the ensuing debate. Mr Alexander said that first task of the UK Presidency was the financial perspectives for 2007 to 2013. He noted that the discussions which had followed the UK proposals issued on Monday 5 December had been "very challenging" and that the Presidency would be unveiling a revised proposal later today (Wed 7 Dec). However, Mr Alexander warned MEPs that "the room for negotiation is very narrow," and that the revised proposals would still be based on reviewing all budgetary expenditure in 2008-2009. He went on to say that the "fundamental prize" of substantial funding for the new member states would still be in place with 260 billion Euro available to them over the next seven years.

 

Regarding other issues on the forthcoming Council's agenda, he said the Presidency would continue the work of following-up from the informal Summit in October at Hampton Court - notably on boosting research, improving Europe's Universities and examining how migration can be harnessed to boost Europe's economy. The Presidency would also pursue economic reform which would help the EU's "jobs and growth" agenda. They would also continue to support measure to simplify EU legislation. In the fight against terrorism Mr Alexander said the Presidency would table a proposed action plan to "combat radicalisation and recruitment."

 

On EU development aid he noted that EU policy remained dedicated to the eradication of poverty and that at correct rates the EU would provide two-thirds of aid by 2015 - up from the correct 50%. In pursuing policies that aid development in Africa Mr Alexander said that "we must not rest on our laurels" but continue to focus policy on development. Finally, he repeated earlier EU condemnation of the comment by Iranian President Ahmadinejad about wanting to "wipe Israel of the map."

 

European Parliament President Josep BORRELL regretted that the Council had not taken the opportunity to table its latest proposals to the European Parliament rather than wait until later.  President Borrell said that it had diluted the importance of the debate.

 

 

Political group speakers

 

Hans-Gert POETTERING (DE) of the Conservative/Christian Democrat European Peoples Party (EPP-ED), welcomed the June speech in the Parliament from President of the Council Tony Blair but said "style alone is not enough." He was also highly critical of the fact that the revised proposals on the 2007-2013 financial perspectives were going to be made today after the debate (12 noon) and said that the "parliament must be taken seriously." Mr Poettering called for "cohesion and solidarity" in Europe, said the UK rebate was "no longer timely" and that the new member states must not end up picking up the tab for Europe. He did however strongly support a review of expenditure in 2008-2009 as advocated by the Presidency.

 

Martin SCHULZ (DE) for the Socialist PES praised the "right approach" of Commission President Barroso. He said that the EU and the Parliament cannot accept a situation that "undermines the cohesion and credibility of the Union." Mr Schultz went on express his frustration with the way every Presidency tries to talk Europe down. He drew a contrast between the "active" ("though not always correct") decisions taken by the Parliament and the Commission with the European Council "which is often the only Institution that does not agree." Finally he used the metaphor of the ship the Titanic, its Captain and the iceberg to describe Mr Blair's options in the days ahead, "the iceberg is staring him straight in the face. ...he can avoid it."

 

Graham WATSON (UK) for the Liberal ALDE Group was scathing about the wishes of some of the larger EU members in their attempts to limit spending; "they demand policies they are unwilling to support" he told MEPs. He said that the present proposal would "paralyse the EU's priorities" and that the budget was "not just for tomorrow but a framework that would bind us until 2013." Finally he said the position of his Group on the financial perspectives was that "no deal is better that a bad deal."

 

Daniel COHN-BENDIT (DE) for the Greens (VERTS/ALE) was critical of the "vacuum" of the UK Presidency which he said "spoke volumes" about their vision of Europe. Mr Cohn-Bendit went on to say that that the Presidency of the Union "was only as strong as the governments that hold it up." On Iran he reminded the House that its controversial President had been directly elected by the people.

 

Francis WURTZ (FR) for the GUE/NGL group said that there were high hopes for the UK presidency back in June, but six months later, the leaders of the political groups in Parliament had unanimously rejected the UK's budget proposals because of lack of solidarity.  The Commission and the new Member States, he said, had also rejected the proposals.  The UK could not argue that it championed enlargement given its proposed reduction in funding for the new Member States.  He called the proposed budget a "Thatcherite deal" and rejected any comparison to the Marshall plan.  The Council should find a way out of its "one-way street" of continually reducing the EU budget.

 

Nigel FARAGE (UK) for the IND/DEM group said that if the UK presidency had sat down and deliberately tried to plan "the family Christmas of hell" it could not have done a better job.  The arguments over the budget were a prime example, he said, of how isolated and alienated the UK was in Europe.  He said that Mr Blair did not have "the guts to turn-up to the debate".  Mr Farage said that the UK was spending £30 million per day on the EU and recalled that the budget had not been signed off by the Court of Auditors for the last 11 years.  The only winner in the budget negotiations, he said, was Mr Barroso.  He said that there would be probably be a deal on the budget, but the whole of the EU rebate would be put on the table in 2008.  Mr Farage proposed extending the UK presidency for a further six months and, at the end of this period, it would be even more clear that "the UK is a square peg in a round European hole".

 

Cristiana MUSCARDINI (IT) for the UEN group said that the EU needed a budget to face up to the challenges of globalisation.  A proper debate needed to be carried out on the entire budget.  Resources were needed in particular for the fight against terrorism. 

 

Ashley MOTE (UK),a non-aligned MEP, said that he almost felt sorry for the UK Minister for Europe Douglas Alexander.  The whole of the UK Presidency, he said, had been a disaster.  He said that former UK Prime Minister Edward Heath "had lied through his teeth" on the EU.  He said that the EU was not a parliamentary democracy but rather the new "Soviet" ruled by smoke and mirrors.

 

 

UK and Irish speakers in the debate

 

Timothy KIRKHOPE (EPP-ED, UK), leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, said that the UK presidency had been unable to comprehend events and had not achieved what it set out to do.  There was a "yawning gap" between the rhetoric of Mr Blair and reality.  Mr Blair had succeeded in alienating central and Eastern European countries, failed to get any agreement on the reform of the CAP and reneged on his promise to defend the UK rebate.  He also regretted that the UK's new budget proposals could not have been made to Parliament. 

 

Bairbre de BRÚN (GUE/NGL UK) made a special plea for continued EU financial support for the peace process in the North of Ireland so that "the opportunity for peace in Northern Ireland is not squandered in 2006."

 

Gary TITLEY (PES, UK), leader of the UK Labour group in the European Parliament, welcomed the recent arrest of General Gotovina saying that it showed that Croatia was co-operating well with the ICTY in The Hague.  He congratulated the UK Presidency for making progress on REACH, and reaching a deal on the "euro-vignette" and data retention directives.  He also wanted to know what progress had been made on transparency in the Council.  Mr Titley posed several questions including: which net payers apart from the UK are prepared to pay more?  Which net recipients are willing to receive less?  Which Member States wanted further reform of the CAP?  Which recipients of CAP funding were willing to publish who receives the money?  Which finance ministers were willing to sign a declaration of assurance on the spending of EU funds in Member States in order to avoid the annual lack of approval of the EU accounts by the Court of Auditors? 

 

 

Responses to the debate

 

In his response to the following debate Mr ALEXANDER defended the level of consultation the UK Presidency has carried out - both with governments and 80 ministerial visits to the Parliament alone. He highlighted the development agenda and the significance of the recent Montreal conference on climate change. Speaking as a UK Minister, he stated that on the budget the UK "would pay its fair share but not more."

 

In his response to the debate, Mr BARROSO said that there was a consensus in the Parliament, Council and Commission on the new EU development strategy that would be endorsed by the European Council and would strengthen the EU's leadership on aid and development.

 

He said that the debate had shown a lot of "disquiet" about the financial perspective and Mr Barroso recalled that there had to be an agreement by all three institutions.  Turning to the UK presidency, he asked whether it was concern for the presidency that the leaders of Parliament's political group had unanimously rejected the UK's proposals.  "Does it mean so little for the UK presidency?"  Mr Barroso said that it was the narrow-minded and nationalistic elements in the Parliament that supported the UK's proposals.  There was a contradiction between a forward looking, modern and competitive Europe and the proposals of the UK presidency on the financial perspective.  There was a gap between the policy objectives identified at Hampton Court and the proposed means to reach these objectives.  Mr Barrsoso also warned that a lack of an agreement on the financial perspective could serve to undermine the World Trade talks.  The new Member States would not support an open-liberal Europe if the EU could not demonstrate solidarity to the new Member States with a good deal on the financial perspective. 

 

On the UK rebate, President Barroso said that the UK rebate would grow by 60 per cent if not adjusted at the expense of the poorest Member States.  The EU had to signal that it stood by the new Member States in solidarity.

 

In order to reach a deal, there had to be a higher level of spending, a fairer deal for the new Member States, adaptation of the UK rebate in the light of enlargement, a review clause which would deal with both the income and spending sides of the budget and the use of Parliament's suggestions on flexibility including the adjustment fund for globalisation.  If a deal was to be done, it would require statesmanship from all sides.  Finally, he recalled that all institutions needed to agree in order to have a new inter-institutional agreement.

 

President of the European Parliament, Josep BORRELL said that what has been described as unacceptable on the financial perspective will not be accepted because if it were to be, it could act as a boomerang.  The border line between what is and what is not acceptable was not small, he said.

 

 

MEPs voted in favour of three resolutions on the human rights situation in Tibet and Hong Kong, human rights issue in Russia and the new NGO legislation and the situation in Ethiopia and the new border conflict.

 

 

 

MEPs condemn violence in Ethiopia

 

In adopting a joint resolution on the situation in Ethiopia with 93 votes in favour,  0 against and 1 abstention, MEPs condemn the violence, the use of disproportionate means of repression by the armed forces and the mass arrests.  The House calls on the Ethiopian Government to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners and journalists and fulfil its obligations with respect to human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law.  Parliament calls on the Ethiopian Government to disclose the total number of persons detained throughout the country, to allow visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and to allow all the detainees access to their families, legal counsel and any medical care that their health situation may require.  MEPs call on the Ethiopian Government to fully respect the fundamental principles of press freedom, put an end to the state media monopoly and allow the independent press to function by returning confiscated property.  The House calls for the immediate establishment of an independent international commission of inquiry, optimally under UN responsibility, to investigate the human rights abuses and to identify and bring to justice those responsible.

 

MEPs consider that, despite the political dialogue between the EU and the Ethiopian Government under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, the latter has failed to fulfil its obligations with respect to human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. The House calls on the Commission and the Council to take a coordinated stance in line with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement.  Parliament also calls on the Commission and the Council to consider targeted sanctions against members of the Ethiopian Government if the current human rights situation is not significantly improved.  The House calls on the Council and the Commission to channel humanitarian aid for the population of Ethiopia primarily through NGOs and UN specialised agencies in order to provide direct assistance to the population.  Parliament also calls for a resumption of the process of reform and improvement of democratic institutions, which includes a serious and international examination of the results of the parliamentary elections held in May.  Finally, MEPs call on the African Union, whose head office is in Ethiopia, to take a clear stance, proving its determination to bring democracy forward in Africa, especially in Ethiopia.

 

 

 

Situation in Tibet and Hong Kong

 

In adopting a joint resolution on the situation in Tibet and in Hong Kong, MEPs demand that the Government of the PRC clarify the circumstances of the death of the young Tibetan Monk Ngawang Jangchub during the 'patriotic education' session in October 2005.  The House is deeply concerned about the state of health of the five monks arrested on 23 November 2005 at Drepung Monastery.  Parliament urges the Government of the PRC to immediately release them from their imprisonment in the Public Security Bureau Detention Centres.  MEPs call on the Government of the PRC to provide all the information available concerning their detention conditions with reference, in particular, to the allegations of torture and the possible arrest of more people.  The House urges the Government to suspend the blockade of Drepung Monastery in Lhasa immediately.  MEPs also urge the Chinese authorities to cease the 'patriotic education' campaign, to react in a proportionate manner to non-violent protests and not to undermine human rights by the use of physical violence against them.

 

MEPs calls once more on the Government of the PRC to improve the conditions of imprisonment in its jails, to cease and abolish torture of detainees, as well as stopping the continued violation of the human rights of the Tibetan people and other minorities and ensuring that it respects international standards of human rights and humanitarian law.  The House calls on the Council and the Member States to maintain the EU embargo on trade in arms with the PRC and not to weaken the existing limitation of such arms sales.  MEPs call on the Government of the PRC to continue the dialogue with the representatives of the Dalai Lama.  Finally, the House urges the Conference of Presidents to invite his Holiness the Dalai Lama to address the European Parliament during 2006.

 

Hong Kong

 

MEPs recall that the Basic Law provides for Hong Kong's Chief Executive ultimately to be elected by universal suffrage. Parliament  Calls on the authorities of Hong Kong to:

 

    - set a timetable for universal suffrage acceptable to all democratic parties and the public,

    - abolish the appointment system in the District Council,

    - replace corporate voting by individual voting for functional constituencies of the Legislative Council,

    - broaden the electorate of the Election Committee;

 

Finally, the House looks forward to seeing the Chief Executive and all members of the Legislative Council elected by means of an electoral system based on the principles of a multi-party democracy, accountability of the government to the legislature and genuinely effective governance which will confer a clear benefit on all the people of Hong Kong.

 

 

 

Human rights in Russia - support for NGOs

 

In adopting a resolution on human rights in Russia and the new NGO legislation, MEPs underline the importance of non-governmental organisations to a stable and democratic civil society which is built not only on principles such as the rule of law and freedom of speech but also on the ability of citizens to associate freely.  THe House expresses therefore its great concern about the draft law on amendments to Russian federal legislation on non-profit organisations and public associations and calls for the new legislation to comply with the norms and standards of the Council of Europe.

 

MEPs hope that the Russian legislators will:

 

(a) provide a clear definition of unacceptable political activities which may not be financed from foreign sources, (b) establish that a decision of a judicial and not a supervisory authority is the only ground for dissolution of NGOs and NPOs, (c) choose not to introduce the requirement of permanent residence for non-nationals as well as the age requirement, (d) ensure the right of non-nationals to establish NGOs in Russia and participate in their work, (e) ease the proposed powers of supervision by the authorities over NGOs, particularly as regards the requirements of financial accountability for resources supplied by foreign sponsors.

 

Parliament appeals to the Russian Duma to take the necessary time to review and improve the amendments in the light of the recommendations made in the Presidential review, the Council of Europe Provisional Opinion and this Resolution.  The House calls on the State Duma to start a broad consultation process involving all the democratic components of Russian civil society in order to find ways to genuinely encourage, support and consolidate the setting-up of NGOs.  MEPs call on the incoming Austrian and Finnish Presidencies to raise the issues of respect for democracy and human rights at the next EU-Russia summits, to give the EU-Russia human rights dialogue a more prominent role and to further involve the European Parliament in this process.  The House calls on the Russian authorities to cease politically motivated harassment of NGOs, especially those observing the situation in Chechnya such as the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society.  Finally, MEPs call on the Council and the Commission to enhance their support for civil society in Russia and to increase allocations for promoting human rights.

 

 

The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution that considerably improves the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. They may not be refused transportation on the grounds of their disabilities. Also, they have to be given - without additional charge - the assistance to meet their particular needs at airports, enabling them, e.g. to board the aircraft, proceed from the check-in to the aircraft or reach connecting flights when in transit.

 

 

Parliament and Council reached a compromise before the vote, so that the Transport Ministers will approve Parliament's first reading without amendment.  The report was adopted with 506 votes in favour, 6 against with 1 abstention.

 

During the debate, Parliament's rapporteur, Robert EVANS (PES, UK), said that up to 10 million passengers are assisted at Europe's airports every year. However, "too many people – the elderly or those with disabilities – complain of being neglected or, worse still, maltreated at Europe's airports. Fundamental rights for disabled passengers when travelling by air ought to be something we take for granted." Therefore, people with reduced mobility and disabled passengers "have to enjoy the same rights when travelling by air as you or I, without incurring any additional costs".

 

The major aspects of the regulation are as follows:

 

The scope of the regulation has been broadened: it applies not only to persons with reduced mobility, but also to disabled persons.  That means individuals who are, inter alia, blind, partially sighted, deaf, hard of hearing, or who have an intellectual disability are explicitly included.

 

Disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility may not be refused transport on the grounds of their disability or lack of mobility.  They also have the right to receive the necessary assistance they need in order to use air transport.  This assistance must be given free of charge and must enable them to, for example, check-in and register baggage, to board the aircraft, with the provision of lifts, wheelchairs or other assistance needed, to disembark from the aircraft, to move to the toilet facilities if required or to handle all necessary mobility equipment, such as electric wheelchairs, subject to advance warning of 48 hours.

 

However, the need for assistance must be notified to the air carrier, its agent or the tour operator concerned 48 hours before the time of departure.  This notification also covers the return flight.

 

The regulation applies to airports whose annual traffic is higher than 150 000 commercial passenger movements.  At those airports, points of arrival and departure, both inside and outside terminal buildings, have to be designated at which disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility can, with facility, announce their arrival at the airport and request assistance.

 

The managing body of an airport is responsible for ensuring that the necessary assistance is provided. It can provide such assistance itself or may contract with one or more other parties. When entering into such a contract the managing body is "taking into account the existing services at the airport concerned".  Initially, the Commission wanted the airports to be solely responsible.  Many airlines, however, strongly criticised this, because they provide high quality services for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility and wanted to keep on offering this service. The compromise between Parliament and Council gives the main responsibility to the airport whilst giving airlines the possibility to provide their service.

 

For the purpose of funding this assistance, a specific charge is levied on the air carriers using the airport. This charge will be shared among the air carriers using the airport in proportion to the total number of all passengers that each carries to and from that airport.

 

The right to transportation can be refused in order to meet applicable safety requirements or if the size of the aircraft or its doors makes the embarkation or carriage physically impossible.  In the event of refusal on these grounds acceptable alternative must be proposed to the person in question.  A disabled person or a person with reduced mobility who has been refused to embark on the ground of his/her disability or reduced mobility he/she must be offered the right to reimbursement or re-routing.

 

This Regulation will enter into force on 20 days following the date of publication in the Official Journal.  It shall apply from beginning of 2008. Articles 3 (Prevention of refusal of carriage) and 4 (Derogations, special conditions and information), however, will apply one year following the date of publication in the Official Journal.

Parliament adopted a resolution put forward by the EPP-ED, ALDE and UEN groups with 255 votes in favour, 251 against and 32 abstentions. On the financial perspective, Parliament insists that the financial perspective 2007-2013 should provide the basis for the further development of a strong European Union and expects the Commission to defend its position, namely that the financial perspective must be set at a level sufficient to finance the EU's political priorities.

 

 

The House emphasises that 2006 will be a year when more than 40 multi-annual programmes will be concluded, and these must be able to start by the beginning of 2007 so that the new political priorities that are linked to the new generation of multi-annual programmes can be implemented.  Parliament calls on the Commission, independently of an agreement on the financial perspective, to be more resolute in its cooperation with Parliament (particularly in the area of external policy programmes) and to do everything possible to enable the necessary legislative procedures to be concluded.

 

Research, knowledge and qualifications

 

The House urges the Member States, as well as the European Union, to intensify their respective efforts in the field of knowledge and research in accordance with the Lisbon Agenda and, in this respect, urgently calls for the new framework programmes on research, competitiveness and innovation and the I-2010 initiative to be given sufficient resources and for the Council to reflect their importance fully in budgetary terms as well.

 

MEPs welcome the Commission proposals for the creation of a European Institute of Technology and for the establishment, on a voluntary basis, of a European Qualifications Framework, but regret the lack of more ambitious proposals to address the shortcomings in EU education systems. The House reiterates the call from both Parliament and the Council to promote excellence in European universities and higher education, and also better knowledge of languages.

 

Social policy

 

The House welcomes the follow-up to the 2005 Green Paper on demographic trends in the EU and expects the Commission's proposals for concrete actions to contribute to tackling Europe's demographic ageing problem, given that the working population will fall by nearly 21 million within the next 20 years.  Parliament attaches particular importance to increasing active participation in the job market by people of working age, with a view to achieving the Lisbon objective of a participation rate of 70% in 2010.

 

MEPs underline the need for a family support policy and for the promotion of a suitable environment for children, in order to make it easier to combine work and family life.  Parliament proposes, in particular, revising the directive on family leave with a view to making it more relevant and effective.

 

Europe as a world partner

 

MEPs believe that the process of enlargement should proceed in accordance with the commitments already made, but call on the Commission to launch a process of reflection and analysis on the external limits of the EU, bearing in mind the Union’s capacity for absorption, and to present its conclusions to Parliament.