Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 4 September 2002 - Strasbourg OJ edition

6. Question Time (Council)
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is Question Time (B5-0257/2002).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 1 by Bart Staes (H-0524/02):

Subject: Charter of EU Fundamental Rights and a tightening up of aliens policy in various Member States of the EU

Governments throughout the EU are tightening up their aliens policy and creating more and more obstacles to asylum-seekers, for example: tightening up family reunification provisions, with those concerned being required to deposit large amounts of money as a guarantee, an increase in the minimum age for marriage to 24, expulsion of children born to parents who entered the country illegally, the obligation on immigrants to prove that they have a job to go to, and restrictions on the right of immigrants’ parents to come and live with their children. The measures referred to above constitute a downright violation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Can the Council indicate whether or not it agrees that the measures referred to above and implemented by the Member States do indeed constitute a breach of the spirit of, inter alia, Articles 7, 9, 15(3), 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 41 and 47 of the said Charter, and it is prepared, where appropriate, to intervene?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) Illegal immigration is a considerable problem for the EU’s Member States and an issue that occupies their populations a good deal. The Seville European Council decided to reinforce the EU’s efforts in this field. There was agreement that the measures taken in the short or long term for the joint management of migration flows must strike a fair balance. On the one hand, there should be an integration policy for lawfully resident immigrants and an asylum policy complying with the international conventions, principally the 1951 Geneva Convention.

At the same time, our policy must involve resolute action to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. That is what is stated in paragraph 28 of the conclusions agreed in Seville.

The measures to which the honourable Member refers are legislation adopted by the individual Member States as national measures for combating the problems faced. It is outside the Council’s competence to decide whether the measures taken by the Member States are, or are not, in accordance with the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I should like to refer to Article 51(1) of the Charter, affirming that the Member States are bound by the Charter when they are implementing Union law and only when they are implementing Union law. There is generally no question of the regulations to which the honourable Member refers being adopted in implementation of Union law, and I do not therefore think that there is any point in asking me to assess whether the measures taken by the Member States are in accordance with the Charter. The Charter is of a different character. It is aimed at the implementation of Union law. Wearing my other hat as Danish Minister for Integration, I should like to say, however, that, when it comes to Danish legislation in this field, it complies fully with all the international standards. That is something I should like to emphasise.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Staes (Verts/ALE).(NL) I should obviously like to thank the Minister and former fellow MEP for his response, but surely we cannot concern ourselves with word games. I clearly asked whether the Council could indicate whether or not it agrees that the measures enacted by the Member States do indeed constitute a breach of the spirit, I repeat the spirit, of the Charter. I am aware of the fact that the Charter is a solemn declaration, Mr Haarder, but it contains very fine passages about respecting privacy, the right to marry and start a family, the right to equal working conditions, the right to asylum, the ban on discrimination, and I could carry on for a few minutes yet. Surely you have to admit, Mr Haarder, that in your country too, legislation is now being enacted which is at least in breach of the spirit of what is written in the Charter. I should like to call on the Council, the Ministers of the Fifteen Member States, to respect the spirit of the Charter. I believe that a better society could be the result.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) Mr President, I completely disagree with the questioner and should like to emphasise in no uncertain terms that there is no question of any breach either of the letter or of the spirit of any international agreement whatsoever.

I should also like to add that what the question says is false in certain respects. It states, for example, that a country has a minimum age for marriage, and that is incorrect. There are conditions governing the circumstances under which a permanent residence permit can be obtained solely on the grounds of marriage, and that is something quite different. It is self-evident that no condition of this kind applies, of course, to refugees for, if it did, it would be contrary to the conventions. I can assure Mr Staes, when he talks about Danish legislation, that we are up to speed on the conventions. We are well aware of how they are to be interpreted, and I could not contemplate taking responsibility for any breach at all, either of the spirit or of the letter, of any convention whatsoever. I was myself the European Parliament’s human rights spokesman in 1998 and 1999. The reports are there to be found and read. I have no intention of infringing either the spirit or the letter of any international convention whatsoever.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 2 by Gerard Collins (H-0526/02):

Subject: Southern Africa and serious food shortages

Last February the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations warned that nearly 4 million people in southern Africa would need emergency food assistance this year. This is due to reduced 2001 cereal harvests caused by adverse weather and reduced planting. Christian Aid has just published a position paper warning that over 12 million people in the southern Africa region risk starvation in the coming months after poor harvests, drought, flood and mismanagement.

Will the Council outline its response to this alarming situation and state how it considers the issue of providing adequate food aid can be addressed and how support for civil society organisations can be strengthened?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The food crisis in southern Africa was discussed at the most recent Council meeting on 22 July of this year, that is to say the meeting of foreign ministers. The Council expressed its concern about the situation in southern Africa where up to 13 million people are feared to have been hit by the crisis. The Council is disturbed by various political decisions and initiatives that have been taken and that have apparently contributed to exacerbating an already alarming humanitarian situation, involving drought and floods. The Council is of the view that solving the humanitarian crisis is one of the most important political priorities, and it therefore calls upon the countries in the area to direct their respective policies towards fulfilling that objective.

Regional efforts to solve the crisis should be encouraged in line with principles, such as that of good governance, laid down in the initiative concerning the New Partnership for African Development, NEPAD, in which the states of southern Africa play a crucial role.

The Council calls upon the countries in the region to do their utmost to facilitate the regional and humanitarian operations that are under way, including those designed to provide logistical and administrative support and to secure access to, and the distribution of, emergency aid.

Organisations forming part of civil society ought to play a decisive role in the distribution of food aid so as to prevent such aid being misused for political ends. The EU has already responded by providing extensive food and humanitarian aid to the area. There is, however, a need for further efforts. The EU and its Member States are prepared, in close cooperation with the SADC countries, to continue to contribute to these efforts.

I surely do not need to say anything about Zimbabwe and Mr Mugabe. It is surely self-evident what the Council thinks about the matter.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Collins (UEN). – Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for the very comprehensive reply which he has given. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is now warning that some 13 million people are threatened with starvation over the next six months as a result of food shortages brought about by adverse weather conditions and flawed government planning.

The UN Special Envoy for Humanitarian Needs in Southern Africa is to visit six drought-stricken countries in the region from 6 to 16 September, and I understand that representatives of WHO, the UN Children's Fund and the Food and Agricultural Organisation are expected to join the mission. What strikes me is that there is no reference to EU participation. Would the Council take appropriate and urgent action to ensure that the EU is involved in this mission and in the coordination of international food aid with other international organisations?

Finally, I would like to know what the Council's response is to the FAO warning in a report last August that only 24% of the USD 507 million needed to provide food assistance until the next harvest in April 2003 has been pledged and that agricultural inputs are needed to help farmers recover from the crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I fully understand the view put forward here by my good friend and colleague, Mr Collins. I should like to emphasise that the European Union is involved, but that it is the UN that takes action. It is therefore the UN that is the contractor and in charge of the work, while the EU to a very large degree supports the work financially and, of course, also diplomatically and politically, if need be. The EU is involved, then, but it is the UN that is responsible for actually carrying out the work.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 3 by Liam Hyland, which has been taken over by Mr Crowley (H-0527/02):

Subject: Promoting the participation of young people in political and civil life

How does the Council intend to follow up the positive comments of the Education and Youth Affairs Ministers who met on 30 May last and highlighted the need to promote the participation of young people in political and civil life in the Member States and acknowledged that it is necessary to be more receptive to young people and to take their views into account, both formally and substantively, and will the Council outline the areas in which it considers that the views of young people should be taken into account?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The honourable Member is undoubtedly aware that the discussions in the Education and Youth Council on 30 May, discussions concerning the participation of young people, took place in connection with the adoption of a resolution on the framework for European cooperation in the youth field. In accordance with this resolution, the open coordination method is to be applied in a flexible and appropriate way to certain priority themes in the youth field. The Commission has drawn up proposals on this in a white paper entitled ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’. It was published in November of last year.

Information and participation are some of the subjects which will be tackled initially. In consultation with the Member States, the Commission has drawn up a questionnaire on these subjects. The questionnaire has now been submitted to the Member States, which should answer the questionnaire with due regard for prevailing opinion among young people themselves, youth organisations and other relevant bodies.

The issues concerning young people’s voluntary work and greater understanding and knowledge of young people will be tackled at a later date. I would like to emphasise on the Council’s behalf that the new framework for European cooperation in the youth field is still at a preliminary stage. An evaluation report is to be presented in 2004.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his response. The reason for Mr Hyland asking this question, and why I am taking it on his behalf, is that over the last few years we have seen more and more young people becoming disconnected from political and civil life. Indeed those same people who feel no connection with the political movements or the political parties in their own countries are very likely to turn up at demonstrations about anti-globalisation, about reclaiming the streets or eradication of poverty and so on. Surely, through the Council and the good offices of the minister himself, there must be some mechanism whereby that energy and that idealism can be harnessed for the good of all of society and not just for the good of the few. I am particularly anxious to hear an answer concerning the initiatives they hope to undertake during the Danish presidency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I am entirely in agreement with the presentation of the problem, as outlined here by my esteemed colleague. On the one hand, we have a group of young people who are more internationally minded than ever before and who are deeply committed. We saw this in the summer at the ‘Youth 2000’ forum, where a thousand young people from throughout Europe met at 13 folk high schools in Denmark, where they each drew up proposals for a constitution for Europe and finally came together and combined them all into a single proposal which they presented to the Convention. I also want to mention the youth convention as exemplifying these very committed young people. Next, there is a very large group which is extremely passive. They are perhaps not opposed to European cooperation, but it does not interest them. Finally, there is a very small group which demonstrates and throws stones. As for this small group, I would say that one of the gratifying features of the meeting in Elsinore at the weekend was that there were twice as many police officers as demonstrators present. That is a step forward – let us hope that this will characterise the rest of the presidency and also future presidencies. I can only declare myself in agreement with the honourable Member. The Council is very aware of this issue, and I think this has been stated so well that I do not need to repeat it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – As they deal with the same subject, Question Nos 4 and 5 will be taken together:

Question No 4 by Josu Ortuondo Larrea (H-0528/02):

Subject: Seville European Council agreements

One of the decisions taken at the Seville European Council was that said Council should meet formally four times a year (twice as frequently as is currently the case), without prejudice to other informal meetings, and should draw up three-year strategic programmes starting in December 2003, on the basis of which annual operational programmes would be devised.

Does the Council not think that this would lead to an increase in the influence exerted within the Community by the European Council – the body within which the Member States’ highest executive powers of government are concentrated and which controls the EU’s legislative by means of its component ministers? Does the Council not think that this would be to the detriment of the Commission’s executive powers whilst at the same time increasing the democratic deficit of a Union which does not practise the proper separation of public powers as prescribed by Montesquieu and as required of a modern democracy?

Question No 5 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0535/02):

Subject: Separation of powers

Should executive and legislative powers be separate? If not, why not?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The Council considers that the Seville decisions concerning the European Council merely elucidate the relevant provisions of the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 4, which states that the European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof. At a time when the Union’s activities are characterised by increasing development and differentiation, and immediately before major enlargement to include a number of new Member States, the European Council has found it necessary to strengthen the Council’s powers as a provider of guidelines and impetus. This is precisely what the role of the European Council is according to the Treaty. The Council cannot see that these practical guidelines are in any way incompatible with the Commission’s executive powers, which cannot in any way be affected by a decision, the sole purpose of which is to enable the European Council to exercise as effectively as possible the responsibility which the European Council has been given. In this respect, I would point out that the President of the Commission is of course a member of the European Council, and I have not heard any objections to the Council’s trying to reform itself.

As regards any possible democratic deficit and the lack of separation of powers within the Union, the Council considers that the current situation, regardless of what one thinks about it, cannot be affected by a reform the sole purpose of which is, as has already been observed, to implement the existing provisions of the Treaty more effectively. As the question concerning the separation of the executive and legislative powers – whether it is a matter of the principle in general or its application in the Union – has not been discussed as such by the Council, the Council is not in a position to respond to the exact point raised in Question H-O 535. Of course, the Council is not unaware of this classic problem, which is indirectly taken up in the Laeken declaration, for example, adopted by the European Council in December, and which will, in all probability, also be taken up in the Convention and later at the subsequent intergovernmental conference. The honourable Member must understand that, beyond purely academic considerations which do not belong here, the Council cannot comment on the possible outcome of a debate which will not be conducted in the Council itself and which, in any case, has not yet taken place. I hope that, with this explanation, I have made it clear why I cannot go further into the question which has been raised.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE).(ES) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, many thanks for your response. I might be asking the impossible, but I would have liked the period for responding to our questions to be shorter, so that the Spanish Presidency could have replied to my question, as it, in its time, was responsible for the Seville European Council.

Having said this, it is undeniable that in Europe, in the European Union, it is the Council that wields the most legislative power and, furthermore, controls executive power through the comitology procedure.

I would like to ask you if you believe that the United States would be the world leader if its legislative power, instead of residing with the House of Representatives and the Senate, resided with a Ministerial Council composed of representatives of the various North American States, from New York State or Washington State to California, Florida or Colorado. If the American President, Mr Bush, had the level of attributions, competences and powers that our President, Mr Prodi, has, do you think he would have the influence and capacity he has in international relations and at domestic level? Would he have the same influence and capacity?

I believe we must make Europe a true democracy, with separation of powers, as suggested by other speakers: legislative power should reside with this Parliament, and executive power with the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I will confine myself to saying that I am as exercised by Montesquieu’s theories on the separation of powers as the honourable Member is. I am, as it happens, a political scientist by training and think that it is absolutely fundamental that we should keep this separation of powers in mind. I said this as recently as yesterday, when I represented the Presidency in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs here in Parliament. With the best will in the world, I cannot, however, see the Council’s efforts to reform itself as being in conflict with Montesquieu’s theories on the separation of powers, and I cannot see that the Council has taken powers or in any way hampered the Commission. As a matter of form, I would like to report what I said on behalf of the Danish Government in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs yesterday, that is that the Danish Government is an ardent adherent of the Community method and does not want the Council to take powers from the Commission. That is what was said – but it was as a Danish Minister that I added this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Newton Dunn (ELDR). – The President-in-Office made an extremely interesting remark in passing in the first half of his first answer when he referred to the President of the Commission having been a former Member of the European Council. So it is in order for people who have been members of other EU institutions to express an opinion in their present position.

The President-in-Office was a very distinguished Member of this Parliament so he is therefore able to express an opinion, by his own words, on the state of the Council now. Would you agree Mr President-in-Office of the Council, based on your experience in the Parliament, that we do need separation of the powers and will you be urging the Danish presidency to put this forward at the Convention?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council. – This is Question Time and concerns questions to the Council. The Council does not deal with the Convention, the Danish presidency does not deal with the Convention. We respect the procedure that has been laid down for the Convention so I have no further comment.

Yet I hope that what I just said indicated that the honourable Member might tend to agree on the need to separate powers in a democracy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – As the author is not present, Question No 6 lapses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 7 by Alexandros Alavanos (H-0536/02):

Subject: Cyprus – expiry of the deadline for a political solution to the problem

In June 2002 the deadline that had been set for a political solution to the Cyprus problem, to be achieved by means of talks between the two Cyprus communities under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the UN, expired without producing a result, because of Turkish intransigence.

Could the Council assess any results attained by the talks so far? Could it outline the next steps leading up to the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union, together with the nine other applicant countries?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) As the honourable Member no doubt knows, the current direct talks concerning Cyprus are confidential. The Council is well aware that no breakthrough has yet been made in the talks, and that disappointingly little progress has so far been made, which has also been stated by the UN Security Council according to the report which Mr de Soto, the UN Special Envoy for Cyprus, issued on 9 July. As the talks are now continuing, the Council expects the parties to increase their efforts with a view to taking advantage of the current unique opportunity and finally make the necessary progress towards a solution – hopefully before the accession negotiations are concluded. The decisions concerning the accession of the candidate countries must be taken before the end of the year within the normal enlargement procedure on the basis of the Commission’s report and the recommendations which the Commission will put forward in its document on the enlargement strategy, which we expect by October.

With regard to the accession of Cyprus, the EU’s view, which was put forward once again in Seville, is in line with the Helsinki conclusions, to the effect that a solution of the Cyprus problem will facilitate Cyprus’s accession to the EU. A solution is not, however, a prerequisite for Cyprus’s accession. When it takes its decision, the Council will take into account all the relevant factors. That is a position which it is wise to adhere to, and so we all hope, and cross our fingers, that advantage will be taken of this ‘window of opportunity’, this unique opportunity which there will be this autumn to resolve this extremely old and tragic problem on this wonderful island.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL).(EL) I thank the minister and former member of this House. I have listened very carefully to his views, which are the same views as those expressed by his prime minister, Mr Rasmussen, in a recent interview in the Politiken newspaper.

I should merely like to ask the President-in-Office a straight question: what message is the presidency of the Council of the European Union sending Turkey. Why, if the talks are not succeeding, must someone be to blame? There are those who stand to gain if the talks do not succeed. Is the message which the presidency of the European Union is sending Turkey, yes, we will make every effort to resolve the Cyprus question, but if no political solution can be found, that will not stop the Republic of Cyprus from joining the European Union?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I think that it is important that, in my answer, I should adhere entirely to the well-established and sensible formulation which was adopted in Helsinki and which has been repeated time and again, namely that a solution to the Cyprus problem will facilitate the accession of Cyprus, but that a solution is not a prerequisite for accession. The Council will take all factors into account when the decision is taken. That is what can be said, and I think that everyone understands what is meant, and I have nothing to add.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Αlyssandrakis (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President-in-Office, that we are concerned about the impasse in cross-community talks goes without saying. You said in your first reply that the interested parties will need to step up their efforts. However, as everyone knows, the key to resolving the Cyprus problem is to be found in Ankara, not in Cyprus itself.

I should like to ask if the Council intends to put pressure on the Turkish government to take the steps needed in order to help resolve the Cyprus problem. Otherwise, I fear that, as things stand, we may well end up partitioning the island, with the Turkish side, with Turkey behind it of course, as always, insisting on recognition of the independent sovereignty of the Turkish Cypriots.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I would like to emphasise that the negotiations have certainly not broken down. There is a continuing dialogue, and there should be a meeting very soon between UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the parties on Cyprus, so there is absolutely no question that anything has broken down. Nor will I accept the description of Ankara’s shadow. I will not comment on whether there is a shadow, but I can say that this process, which was adopted in Helsinki and has been confirmed, is going ahead. It will not be affected by any shadow.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 8 by Ioannis Marinos (H-0539/02):

Subject: Discrimination against Greeks in Albania

According to reports in the Greek press, hundreds of Greek residents of the town of Himara, in southern Albania, have protested formally to the Albanian Government concerning the non-restitution of their property in the part of the town located by the sea, which Albania’s former communist regime took from them. The residents of Himara have not yet managed to obtain the title deeds to their property, and much of it has been illegally transferred to Albanians by the authorities, who took advantage of the absence of the owners outside Albania for a period of many years. There is also a similar problem with the property of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania, whose land was also confiscated by the communist regime and has not since been returned.

Is the Council aware of the problems faced by property-owners in Albania? What action does it intend to take to ensure that they receive the title deeds to their property as soon as possible?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The Council is aware that the Greek minority in Albania claims property rights in the same way as other citizens. It has also emerged that the Autocephalous Orthodox Church makes similar claims.

Pursuant to Article 181 of the Albanian constitution, the Albanian Parliament must adopt laws before the end of November with a view to finding a fair solution to questions concerning expropriations and confiscations that took place before the constitution was adopted.

The Albanian Parliament has set up a special committee on the restoration of property. This committee is now starting to scrutinise the legislation with a view to restoration of, or compensation for, property which was seized under Communist rule. The committee has not completed its work.

The Council is fully aware that a solution to the property question is also an essential prerequisite for encouraging domestic and foreign investments in Albania, just as it is a prerequisite for the development of agriculture.

The Council was able to subscribe fully to the assessment of the individual countries, given by the Commission in its first annual report on the stabilisation and association process. On 13 May of this year, the Council approved the recommendations in this report and requested that rapid progress should be made in each of these areas over the next few years.

In one of these recommendations, Albania was specifically called on to adopt new legislation on ownership and restoration of property, to remedy the existing shortcomings in the legislation in this field and to ensure better enforcement of property law in Albania.

Albania is the EU's partner in the stabilisation and association process. The EU maintains a regular dialogue with Albania, especially in the form of the meetings in the advisory EU-Albania taskforce. Here, the EU has the opportunity to stress the importance which is attached to solving this issue, now that the country is starting to approach integration into Europe, at the same time as acquiring closer ties with the EU. It also gives the EU the chance to ensure that Albania continues with the measures which it has promised in this field.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Μarinos (PPE-DE).(EL) I thank the President-in-Office for his reply, from which I understand that the Council really is aware of the problem and is making efforts in the right direction. However, it is not clear exactly what the Council is calling for or I, at least, fail to understand what he means by 'dealing with the problem'. I would expect him to decide how the problem should be dealt with.

The State Department wrote to the Albanian government a few days ago, calling quite specifically for Greek schools to be opened at once, for recognition of land ownership by members of the Greek community and for trespassing on Greek property in Himara to stop. As far as I know, the Greek government has taken similar steps. I would remind the President-in-Office that Greece sends generous financial aid to Albania and that over 600 000 Albanian immigrants work legally and without obstruction in Greece, earning wages that workers in Albania can only dream of.

Perhaps the European Union which also sends various forms of aid to Albania should take more persuasive measures? And surely it considers it urgent and imperative, Minister, to put a stop to the plan to move 15 000 settlers from northern Albania and Kosovo to the Himara area, in order to tip the ethnic balance against the Greek minority?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I understand my colleague’s concern very well, but I would like to stress that Parliament has taken up the matter, and a special committee has been set up. The constitution envisages that a solution will be found. The Council has expressed its opinion, and there is an ongoing dialogue between the EU and Albania, in the context of which I promised here a little while ago that the EU would ensure that Albania pursued the measures promised. There is therefore no question of either the Greek minority or others being left in the lurch or forgotten. The situation will be monitored continuously and closely.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President, first a comment on the manner in which the President-in-Office replied. Perhaps he thinks his questioners are stupid. But I can assure him that we are not that stupid. He has no right to say that the matter is not overshadowed by Ankara when both Ecevit and his foreign secretary have stated that they will go ahead and integrate occupied Cyprus into Turkey. How dare he reply like that. What does he take us for?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I did not think at all that I had brushed it aside; I think that my last remark was extremely binding. It was a little shorter than the first one, but no less binding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Without wishing to correct anyone here, I shall simply remind you all that this is Question Time, which has its own rules, and ask you to adhere to the Rules of Procedure.

Without setting a precedent and taking into consideration that Mr Lage had to leave the room for a few minutes at the time scheduled for his speech, I am going to give the President-in-Office of the Council the opportunity to respond to his question.

I repeat: this must not set a precedent. If you leave the room, you lose your turn, but Mr Lage had to leave for a moment. I would also ask him to avoid doing this again.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 6 by Carlos Lage (H-0530/02):

Subject: Free movement of persons in the Schengen zone

On 22 June a group of 500 Portuguese citizens travelling to Spain to take part in an authorised demonstration to be held in Seville during the European Council meeting was prevented – in a violent manner – from entering Spanish territory by members of the Spanish police forces. Nothing can justify this kind of behaviour and action, totally unacceptable in a Union which considers respect for fundamental freedoms and rights as one of its founding principles. It seems unlikely that the Portuguese citizens represented a particular danger, or indeed any danger, to the Spanish State. And, even if they had, the forceful and heavy-handed behaviour which, unfortunately, characterised the reaction of the Spanish police authorities, would have been quite unacceptable.

Can the Council therefore say what measures it will take vis-à-vis the Spanish Government to clarify the facts? Does it not consider that a clear definition and common agreement should be sought concerning the circumstances and conditions which may lead to the suspension of the rules governing Schengen?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I should like to answer Question 6 by Mr Carlos Lage.

As regards the first question, I would like to draw attention to the fact that neither Article 33 of the EU Treaty nor Article 64(1) of the EC Treaty gives the Council the ability to intervene to maintain public order or security in the Member States. This also applies to public-order measures which the Member States take when meetings of the European Council are held within their territory. This is therefore something in which the Community cannot interfere.

As regards the second question, I would like to refer to the Executive Committee Decision of 20 December 1995 on the procedure for applying Article 2(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which has a long reference number which I do not want to read out.

This Decision draws up detailed rules for when controls can be reintroduced at the internal borders. It constitutes a part of the so-called Schengen rules, and it is thus binding for all Schengen States. Incidentally, it is published in OJ L 239 of 22 September 2000, page 133.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lage (PSE). (PT) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I thank you for the information you have provided. I must tell you that this episode, linked to the Seville Summit, has caused a small political storm in Portugal and has been used by many opponents of the European Union as an argument against the European Union itself. Because we live in an area of free movement, the majority of public opinion in Portugal cannot understand how this area of free movement and these citizens’ rights could be breached by border controls carried out in a quite oppressive and arbitrary way by the Spanish authorities.

We do not want to make this a Portuguese issue. We are simply asking the President-in-Office of the Council, when he has the opportunity, to look into the matter in order to establish, not even changes to the law but common and consensual procedures to ensure that such episodes do not reoccur.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) As has been shown, it is not a matter for the Council to decide when it is reasonable to make use of the possibility under the Schengen rules for temporarily closing the borders. I can state that the Danish Presidency reserves the right to make use of this possibility. We have stated this expressly, but we were pleased that, during the weekend which has just ended, there were so few demonstrators at the summit of Foreign Ministers in Elsinore that there were twice as many police officers as demonstrators.

Let us hope that this sets a trend for the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Korakas (GUE/NGL).(EL) This is not the first time this unacceptable practice has been used and the citizens of one Member State have been banned from crossing the border into another Member State and treated badly; generally it is people protesting against the policy of the European Union who are on the receiving end.

It is what happened during the Nice summit, when thousands of Italian protesters found the French borders closed, during the Genoa summit, when hundreds of Greek demonstrators, who were badly mistreated, were prevented from disembarking in Ancona. It happened to Danish demonstrators, your fellow countrymen, Mr President-in-Office, during the Gothenburg summit, when they tried to cross the border and meet up with people protesting against the policy of the European Union.

It is clear, despite the pronouncements, that Schengen was not introduced to facilitate the free movement of the citizens of the Member States of the European Union within the European Union; it was introduced in order to turn the European Union into a fortress. It applies when it is in the interests of the ruling circles of the European Union, so that capital can move freely, but it does not apply when it comes to the movement of people protesting against interests of big business and the policy of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The Schengen cooperation means that the countries undertake to maintain open borders in respect of each other, except when there are exceptional reasons for temporary closure.

It is not a retrograde step; it is a step forward. The Council and I regard the possibility of temporary closure as reasonable. We must bear in mind that it is not only a question of lawful demonstrations, it has been a question of something resembling terrorist activity in connection with these meetings. We must protect democratic gatherings. That is something we owe to democracy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Schmid, Herman (GUE/NGL). (SV) Mr Haarder said, amongst other things, that the meeting in Elsinore had been very calm and that none of the expected, or feared, disturbances had arisen. That is good, of course. I wonder, however, whether this might possibly also have had something to do with the fact that there were strict border controls, so that any foreign demonstrators who might have wanted to get to Denmark and Elsinore were in fact unable to do so.

It would be helpful if Mr Haarder could deny that this is the case and state clearly that no one has yet been turned away from the Danish border during the Danish presidency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) If I may venture to answer as a Danish minister: I do not think that, in connection with the weekend meeting in Elsinore, we made any use whatsoever of the possibility under the Schengen rules of closing the borders. Demonstrators were completely free to enter; but fortunately only peaceful demonstrators came, and that is something I think we should be pleased about.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 9 by María Izquierdo Rojo (H-0540/02):

Subject: Women who work in the fields in accession countries

What measures, benefits and activities connected with the accession process directly affect women who work in the fields in the accession countries? What measures will the Danish presidency be taking with regard to such women?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) Both the Member States and the EU institutions are obliged to incorporate equal opportunities for men and women in all EU policies and programmes, and the European Council has on several occasions set out guidelines for a special strategy in this field.

Furthermore, Regulation No 1250 from 1999 lays down that the Structural Funds shall contribute to removing inequalities between men and women and to promoting equal opportunities in the context of strengthening economic and social cohesion. That also applies to pre-accession programmes.

In connection with this, the Union has set aside considerable financial aid for measures to develop the rural districts by means of the so-called SAPARD programme.

The Member of the European Parliament may apply directly to the Commission if she wishes to have a fuller overview of the specific programmes.

With particular regard to the pre-accession negotiations concerning the chapter on agriculture, the common position of the Union also contains a comprehensive section on development of the rural districts. It covers the aid which will be given through the EU’s various financial instruments. As the rural districts in the candidate countries require restructuring, modernisation and alternative production and facilities, the EU attaches great importance to the measures for developing the rural districts, which have a direct effect on the conditions under which women in these regions work.

During the negotiations on the chapter on employment and industrial relations policy, the Union has stressed the importance which this section has for the equal treatment of men and women, and it has also been emphasised how necessary it is for the candidate countries to comply with the rules in this field. I would like to draw attention to Regulation No 1257 from 1999, which groups together all Community actions in favour of development of the rural districts and in which it is expressly stated that measures aimed at removing inequalities and promoting equal opportunities for men and women should be supported.

Recently, the Council concerning agriculture, that is to say the Agricultural Ministers Council, at its meeting on 27 May of this year, adopted specific conclusions on the integration of the equality aspect into the Common Agricultural Policy. The Council expressly recognised in these conclusions that women play a bigger and bigger role in the rural districts, and it calls on the Commission to use the Structural Funds to continue to promote entrepreneurial spirit, high-quality employment, training and the provision of life-long services for rural women.

Furthermore, the Council urges the Member States to adopt policies which actively strengthen women’s economic capacity in the rural districts.

The Council points out that all the candidate countries have now agreed to come into line with existing Community law regarding equality immediately on accession.

The Danish Presidency wants to follow the same line, inter alia in the context of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and the further negotiations on accession. We want to make use of every opportunity to draw attention to the general fundamental principles of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and in this respect to promote equality between men and women, as referred to in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of the Treaty.

Finally, I should point out that the current Chairman of this Agricultural Ministers Council is herself from a farming background.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izquierdo Rojo (PSE).(ES) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, how many of these female agricultural workers will become part of the European Union at the next enlargement? What number were you working with in your forecasts?

I would also like to ask you if, during the Danish Presidency, any actions or campaigns will be implemented to correct the current salary discrimination.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I am not in a position to answer the question that has been asked, and I am not even sure that studies will make it possible to answer it. I shall gladly try, but I cannot answer the question here orally. I cannot.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Mrs Izquierdo Rojo asked two questions, did she not? I believe the second question was this, but perhaps you would care to comment, Mrs Izquierdo Rojo.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izquierdo Rojo (PSE).(ES) Mr President, I would like to tell you that I would be interested to know the figure whenever the President-in-Office of the Council can provide it, in other words, how many female agricultural workers are expected on the first wave of accession. Otherwise, we cannot carry out any advance planning. For any action to take place, if we are to gear it towards female agricultural workers, we have to know how many there will be.

At the moment this is not possible, but I would be grateful if you could send me the figure.

With regard to the second question, I would also appreciate a response on whether or not a campaign will be carried out.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I do not think that we in Denmark have any information as to how many there are in Denmark. Nor do I think that people in other countries have any. It may be regrettable; but I do not think the information exists. However, I shall willingly try to find the information, if it is wanted.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Yes, we have taken note, but, Mrs Izquierdo Rojo, Mr Haarder answers what he sees fit to answer. We are not going to start a debate now.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izquierdo Rojo (PSE).(ES) Mr President, the Council must know how many female agricultural workers are going to join the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Well, if and when the Council does know, it will answer you, but now you have asked your question twice. If the President-in-Office of the Council wants to tell you anything else, however, I am not going to stop him.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) Yes, of course we know how many farms are entering. We know quite precisely, both in Poland and the other countries. However, we do not know how many rural women are coming in. We do not have the classification by gender. I very much regret that.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question No 10 by Jonas Sjöstedt, which has been taken over by Herman Schmid.

Question No 10 by Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0542/02):

Subject: Future accession treaties for new Member States

It is possible that the Irish electorate will vote against the Treaty of Nice for a second time, which would also render the new breakdown of votes on the Council and seats in Parliament under that Treaty null and void. Would it not then be possible for the Union to act as it did at the time of the accession of Finland, Sweden and Austria, i.e. negotiate and reach agreement with each of the applicant countries separately on seats in Parliament and votes in the Council in the treaty of accession? The Treaty of Nice would not then be needed as a basis for the accession of new Member States.

Is this not an appropriate procedure to use for the enlargement of the Union should the Irish people vote against the Treaty of Nice once again?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I would like to remind the honourable Member that the European Council in Seville expressed satisfaction that the Irish Government had firmly decided to get the Treaty of Nice approved, something which – as is well known – is a prerequisite for enlargement to take place within the time limits laid down.

On behalf of the Council, I would like to recall that, at the meeting in Seville, Ireland’s Prime Minister stated that his government intended holding a referendum this autumn, so that Ireland can ratify the Treaty of Nice.

The Prime Minister presented a national declaration from Ireland, confirming that the provisions of the EU Treaty relating to foreign and security policy do not affect the country’s traditional policy regarding military neutrality, and will not do so after ratification of the Treaty of Nice, as can be seen from Annex 3 to the Presidency’s conclusions.

The European Council adopted a declaration, in which note was taken of the national declaration by Ireland. This declaration can be found in Annex 4 to the same conclusions. The European Council expressed satisfaction that the Irish Government had firmly decided to get the Treaty of Nice approved, something which – as is well known – is a prerequisite for enlargement to be implemented within the time limits laid down.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Schmid, Herman (GUE/NGL). (SV) I fully appreciate that the Irish Government and the Irish Prime Minister would like this to happen, but the Irish Government cannot decide how the Irish people will vote. The issue must therefore be regarded as remaining open until the referendum has been held. Consequently, another ‘No’ vote from the Irish people cannot be ruled out.

My question relates to a situation that is wholly feasible and quite practical. This is not an abstract question, but a practical, political one. Given such a situation, could we not solve the problems in a very simple, practical way, by allowing Ireland to join the institutions in the same way as Finland, Sweden and Austria did, i.e. by negotiation? That way, there would be no problem with the Treaty of Nice. Would not that be a practical, pragmatic solution that might also appeal to Mr Haarder?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I cannot say any more than I have already said, because this is the way things stand. Of course it might turn out to be a ‘no’ – we all know that – but in that case we would have a totally new and unpredictable situation of which it would be impossible to predict the conclusion. It is a very uncertain situation, and one which puts enlargement at risk in any case. I would not wish there to be any controversy over the matter, however; I only wanted to state the facts concerning the Council and the Irish vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Several Members have asked to speak. Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, I am going to give the floor to the two who were chronologically first to ask.

Mr Crowley has the floor for a supplementary question.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crowley (UEN). – I thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his response. I should like to ask him to confirm – what I believe him to have said, through interpretation – that ratification of the Treaty of Nice by all Member States is necessary for enlargement to proceed. It is a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) Yes, as I have said twice before, this is a precondition for enlargement to take place within the scheduled timescale. This is what it says in the Seville conclusions, and I take my stand on these.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Purvis (PPE-DE). – My question follows that one. You say it is a precondition within the time set. Is that the 2004 time-limit, meaning that it will still be possible to have enlargement beyond 2004 without the Nice Treaty, perhaps under the system suggested by Mr Sjöstedt in this question?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I have said what was agreed in Seville, and I take my stand on that. I have nothing to add: everyone is aware that deadlines were set in Helsinki and that these have been affirmed time after time. What was said in Seville was that the Treaty of Nice is a precondition for enlargement to take place within the scheduled timescale. Non-ratification of the Treaty of Nice would present us with an extremely uncertain and unpredictable situation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 11 by Gary Titley (H-0544/02):

Subject: Better regulation

This month, the Commission delivered its communication on better regulation. A central aim of this communication is to ensure that an impact assessment of all Commission proposals is carried out. What practical measures are being taken by the Council to ensure that they carry out impact assessments on Council amendments to Commission proposals?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The European Council in Seville welcomed a number of communications from the Commission on how lawmaking might be improved. I am thinking in particular of the action plan for finding ways of simplifying and improving the quality of the regulatory environment. It invited the three institutions concerned, that is, Parliament, the Council and the Commission, to arrange for this to happen on the basis of the work of the High Level Technical Group and to adopt an interinstitutional agreement before the end of 2002 in order to improve the quality of Community legislation and the conditions, including time frames, for its transposition into national law. The High Level Technical Group for Interinstitutional Cooperation met on 15 July 2002. In anticipation of this meeting, the Presidency had put forward a proposed timetable for drawing up and adopting the commercial interinstitutional agreement, starting with the specific actions relating to the three institutions as proposed in the Commission’s action plan. At the meeting on 15 July 2002, it was decided firstly to reach common agreement on the chief elements of a future interinstitutional agreement. The institutions would then, on the basis of this, discuss the practical content of the specific actions of the agreement. At the same time, it was emphasised that the principle of specific actions in an agreement should be viewed in the context of the work being undertaken in the Convention. Practical measures with a view to an impact assessment of amendments to the Commission’s proposal can be expected to be an element for inclusion in further discussions on an interinstitutional agreement. In this context, I can tell you that the next meeting of the High Level Technical Group is expected to take place next week, on 10 September.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Titley (PSE). – It is a delight to have Mr Haarder with us again, in a different role. But may I say with respect that now that he has become part of the government he acquired the government's habit of not answering the question.

How exactly is the Council going to approach the issue of impact assessments? If the Commission carries out an impact assessment as part of its better regulation proposals, will the Council, when it amends the Commission's proposals, carry out a further impact assessment of its own amendments? How will it do that and who will it get to do it?

It is very important in terms of the interinstitutional agreement with Parliament to know exactly what the Council's approach is to impact assessments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I should like to have given a clear answer. If I did not do so, it was because that very question is to be discussed in connection with the interinstitutional agreement; it is a question which, among other things, will be discussed next week, on 10 September. I cannot say what will happen, therefore, but I can say this: a reform is not undertaken without carrying out assessments, and without pursuing the aims of the reform. Finding a way of assessing its possible impact is a natural subject for the interinstitutional agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – Following up Mr Titley's point, could I ask whether the Council would look seriously at the question of critically considering methodologies of impact assessment? In the years when I had something to do with this in an academic capacity, it was notorious that it was extremely difficult within the sociology of law to find reliable ways of assessing the impact of legislation which was in force. Predicting the impact of legislation which is going to come into force is yet more difficult. Does the President-in-Office agree with me that it would be wise for the Council to look into issues of methodology before we embark on expensive projects of this kind?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) It is precisely that which is to be discussed. I cannot say whether I am 100% in agreement with what was said, but the speaker is in any case an intelligent man and he is probably right in what he says. The question, therefore, is to what extent we shall proceed in this way. It is that which is to be discussed on 10 September, and I ask that the House appreciate this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 12 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0545/02):

Subject: Measures to restrict illegal immigration into the Canaries

On the basis of the agreements adopted at the Seville summit, what measures does the Council propose to restrict the massive influx of illegal immigrants into the Canary Islands?

In particular, what measures are proposed to curb this irregular form of immigration at the places of origin, in order to ensure the safety of the immigrants themselves?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The conclusions from the Seville European Council outline the measures which are to be taken with a view to combating the problem of illegal immigration effectively at EU level; and here we are talking about both prevention and restriction of immigration. We need to strike a fair balance between this aim on the one hand and the aim of better integration of those immigrants who are lawfully present in our countries on the other, and of course we also need an asylum policy which complies with international conventions.

It should also be mentioned that, even before the Seville European Council, the Spanish Presidency had given a significant impetus to this matter, notably by adopting two normative instruments, which not only map out some of the necessary measures, but also set the framework for future efforts and the development thereof. The instruments concerned are the action plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings and the action plan for the management of EU external borders, which were both adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council. In addition, this Council reached an agreement on 13 June of this year on conclusions about measures to be taken to prevent and combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings by sea.

The conclusions from Seville, which make specific reference to these action plans, attach importance to the following measures. Firstly, speeding up the conclusion of readmission agreements currently being negotiated and approval of new briefs for the negotiation of readmission agreements with countries already identified by the Council: see conclusion No 30. Secondly, as regards expulsion and repatriation policies, adoption by the end of the year at the latest of the components of a repatriation programme based on the Green Paper submitted by the Commission in April 2002. This also falls under conclusion No 30.

Thirdly, the gradual introduction of coordinated, integrated management of external borders, which should, among other aims, help bring greater control of migration flows. A number of measures are mapped out which should make it possible to achieve this goal very shortly: see conclusions Nos 31 and 32. In a wider and more general perspective, the conclusions from Seville affirmed that immigration policy, as an essential element to be taken into consideration, should be integrated into the EU’s relations with third countries. They pointed out that an integrated, comprehensive and balanced approach to tackle the root causes of illegal immigration must remain the EU’s constant long-term objective. The conclusions highlight the importance of ensuring the cooperation of countries of origin and of transit in joint management and in border control and also in readmission, which is discussed in conclusion No 34. The conclusions confirmed that it is necessary to carry out a systematic assessment of relations with third countries which do not cooperate in combating illegal immigration in the relevant areas. They point out in this regard that inadequate cooperation by a country could hamper the establishment of closer relations between that country and the EU. In the light of the conclusions from Seville, the Danish Presidency has attached a high priority in its work schedule to the fight against illegal immigration, so that the European Council conclusions can be implemented swiftly. I can inform you that I myself shall be the President-in-Office of the Council when it debates these issues.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Medina Ortega (PSE).(ES) Mr President, during the first sitting in July, when you were President-in-Office of the Council, I asked you a very similar question and you told me that the Council and the Danish Presidency would address the matter as quickly as possible. Two or three days later, on 8 July, I asked this question, hoping specifically that during the summer something would have been done. The problem we have in the European Union, Mr President, and this is neither your fault nor that of the Danish Government, is that our system does not work.

Between the date on which I asked the first question, the first week of July, and today, thousands of illegal immigrants have entered the Canary Islands, both by sea and by air, and the situation there is unsustainable, and we do not have any reception centres. These islands have a smaller area than the islands of Denmark, and at the moment we do not have any means of solving the problem.

Mr President, I would say – and I repeat – that, through no fault of your own or of the Danish Presidency, the Council of the European Union is not following up the proposals that Mr Vitorino has been making for some time now, so that the European Union can in fact establish control. We should at least know who is arriving and why, and what we can do for them.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) These problems in the Canary Islands came to my attention frequently when I attended the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) on migration in Lanzarote in the early summer. I am therefore very aware of these problems, and I can assure Mr Medina Ortega that we are very active in this field. I travelled to Athens to discuss problems – specific problems – with what is known as the Dublin II agreement, which determines which country should take responsibility for handling an asylum application. I am probably going to Rome next weekend to discuss the same problems. If we adopt the new system – guaranteeing that it is the responsibility of the first country to handle an asylum application – combined with the system of fingerprint exchange, there is some apprehension that certain countries will see particularly large numbers of asylum seekers returned to them and will therefore bear an exceptionally heavy burden. Of course, this will have to be discussed. I do not believe that the problem is very serious; but we do have to consider how we can reassure the governments concerned. There are several ways of doing this, and it is those I am discussing with the relevant governments. This merely by way of convincing Mr Medina Ortega that we are absolutely not passive in this matter; we are extremely active. We have started with the most difficult problems of all, with a view to getting those out of the way, in order that we can not merely realise the wish expressed in the Seville conclusions for the completion of the Dublin system, but also make the best possible progress with the common asylum rules. Although the Presidency has also declared these a high priority, we have not promised to be able to finish drawing them up during the Danish term. We intend to make the best progress we possibly can with the work, and if possible complete it in November.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 13 by Astrid Thors (H-0547/02):

Subject: Finalising of the agreement concerning the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program

According to the Commission (DG External Relations) a part of the bilateral work concerning the EU’s relations with Russia focused for much of 2001 on energy, environmental protection and nuclear safety. This was meant to be done through the conclusion of the agreement on a Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program, (MNEPR), aimed at cleaning up radioactive waste in north-west Russia and through the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP). Similarly, in the press brief from the Commission (issued on 27 May 2002) before the Ninth EU-Russia Summit held in Moscow in May 2002, it was stated that the environment and nuclear safety were going to be discussed and that it would be important to ensure that the Russian federation finalise the MNEPR agreement as soon as possible. In the Joint Statement issued after the EU-Russia Summit, however, no reference was made to the MNEPR. A pledge conference on the NDEP is also to be held on 9 July.

What is the current situation concerning the MNEPR? What are the obstacles to the conclusion of an agreement on the MNEPR? What measures is the Council going to take in the near future in order to ensure that the Russian Federation finalises the agreement?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The negotiations on the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR) have been going on for more than three years. The EU has emphasised at a number of summits that these negotiations should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is true that the common will to conclude the negotiations was not formally expressed in the joint statement from the summit in Moscow on 29 May, but the question was discussed at the summit, and Russia expressed a desire for resolution of the outstanding issues, which are of course taxation and civil liability.

The EU has taken every opportunity to put pressure on Russia to break the deadlock, including at the meetings of the Cooperation Council. The other partner countries, the USA and Norway, have also put her under intense pressure.

The EU attaches great importance to nuclear safety in North-West Russia and believes that this agreement could contribute to overcoming some of the obstacles to the implementation of projects which could further cooperation on safety in connection with the management of irradiated nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in the Russian Federation.

The inaugural pledging conference for the Support Fund of the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP) was concluded with a positive result on 9 July of this year in Brussels. The initial contribution to the Support Fund was approximately EUR 110 million, of which EUR 62 million are earmarked for nuclear projects.

Participants in the conference emphasised that the conclusion of this MNEPR agreement is a necessary precondition for projects within the nuclear sphere entering into operation within the framework of the NDEP.

The NDEP is an important and practical step towards achieving the objectives, set by the G8, of the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.

The nuclear-safety issue is of decisive importance for environmental protection on the continent of Europe. This particularly concerns Russia, but also other North European countries. The Danish Presidency therefore wishes to work towards bringing the negotiations on the MNEPR agreement to a conclusion by the end of this year.

I hope this answers Mrs Astrid Thors’s question.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Thors (ELDR). (SV) I am satisfied with the reply, but unfortunately I must say that the Russian side seems to have a certain attitude of divide et impera towards the European authorities. In the past, I have even seen a situation where the Council was given one answer and the Commission another, and they play on the fact that the presidency changes. I could also quote yesterday’s answer from the Commission to a similar question: 'Unfortunately, over recent months the Russian side has neither confirmed its willingness to sign nor given any indication of the nature of the problems holding up their signature.'

I regret to say I have a feeling that the Russian side will continue to delay. I would therefore appeal to the Danish Presidency to exert considerable pressure if necessary. At the same summit where this agreement was not signed, Russia was still accepted as a market economy. Is there no similar way to achieve what is now needed?

I would like to thank Mr Haarder for the commitment he showed to the Northern dimension last week.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I do understand the fact that Mrs Astrid Thors is losing patience: we in the Presidency and the Council are as well, which is why we have taken every opportunity to exert pressure. Without commenting on what was said about Russia’s strategy, I can at least guarantee that we shall not miss an opportunity to put pressure on Russia, as I have said. I have just attended a Ministerial Conference in Greenland in which the Russians also participated. The subject matter was the Northern Dimension, in which I know that Mrs Thors also has a great interest. Many of these matters were also raised there, and I believe that it is important – and here I am sure that we are in agreement – that we establish cooperation with Russia in as many fields as possible, while seeing this as a way of increasing the opportunities for exerting pressure on her in those areas where we believe it important and necessary. I am thinking of Kaliningrad, of the enlargement of NATO and the EU and of the environmental problems in the Murmansk area, which Mrs Thors knows more about than I do. There is every reason for establishing relations with Russia in as many fields as we possibly can, and at the same time for taking advantage of these opportunities to put pressure on her where we believe it really is necessary.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rübig (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency's priorities.

So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) In my opinion, the agreements which I have been answering questions on here concern a different topic, and therefore this supplementary question does not bear any direct relation to the questions I have answered. I do not mean that there is a set of rules in the archives, but I prefer not to improvise, as this is outside the scope of the question.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The supplementary questions should still be on the Russian Federation and the problem of nuclear energy in EU-Russia relations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question No 14 will not be taken as the subject to which it refers already appears in the agenda for this part-session.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President.

Question No 15 by Brian Crowley (H-0554/02):

Subject: Tackling Drugs

The prevalence of illegal drugs, including crack-cocaine, continues to cause serious problems for society in terms of addiction, criminality, treatment and policing.

Will the Danish Presidency, in the light of subsidiarity, give assurances that the Council will make the fight against illegal drugs a top priority of the Danish Presidency, and will it report back to the House in December 2002 on the initiatives and actions it has undertaken in this regard?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) This is Question No 15 by Mr Fitzsimons. No, sorry, just a moment. The question was from Mr Crowley. Like its Spanish predecessor, the Danish Presidency attaches great importance to combating drugs. The cornerstone of the Presidency’s drugs programme is the mid-term review of the EU action plan to combat drugs for 2000-2004. The Commission will draw up an evaluation report to be submitted to the European Council at the meeting in Copenhagen in December. The Danish Presidency intends to monitor closely the preparation of the Commission’s report to ensure that the relevant working parties in the Council contribute to the greatest possible extent so that the report is comprehensive and informative.

The Danish Presidency has adopted a balanced approach to the drugs problem and will therefore endeavour to pay as much attention to prevention and drug-supply reduction as to international cooperation. It has presented initiatives on the treatment of criminal drug abusers whilst they are in jail, and on synthetic drugs: the generic classification. In addition, the Presidency intends to step up efforts to address current, and any future, problems regarding the distribution of illicit drugs on the Internet. At international level, meetings will be held with the candidate countries, the USA, Russia and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN); and, as far as Latin America is concerned, meetings will be held in preparation for the event to be held during the Greek Presidency. In this way, the Presidency intends to hold meetings with most of the countries which, from the point of view of the EU, are the principal countries of origin and of transit for illicit drugs. The issue of cocaine will be discussed at meetings with the USA and with parties in Latin America. In December, the Presidency will as far as possible inform the European Parliament of the results achieved during the Danish Presidency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, again I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his response. The reason for asking this question is that over the last eight months several huge seizures of illegal drugs and narcotics have been made across the European Union. In Ireland over the last eight months something in the region of 24 million euros' worth of illegal substances was seized by police and customs officers, in Britain 82 million euros' worth and across the rest of the European Union 297 million euros' worth. The European Union now has the distinction of being the main user of synthetic drugs such as ecstasy and amphetamines. The reason I put a specific request for you to come forward with conclusions or results at the end of the presidency in December is that I was hoping that – linking back to what Mr Hyland was talking about earlier – it would be possible during your time in the presidency to undertake a joint initiative between young people and the presidency to ask young people about the dangers facing them and try and alleviate some of the social problems and issues people face that drive them into the drug culture.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I should like to thank Mr Crowley for his firm commitment to this matter and thank him for his good advice and suggestions. I can only say that we shall do what we can because, and I repeat, we consider this a particularly important area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rübig (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, what I would like to know is whether preventive programmes are being considered or whether the Council has given some thought to incentives for alternatives, so that young people who have already come into contact with drugs can come off them.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) We could talk long and hard about this subject, that is, how alternatives – alternative substances in some cases – can be used to help these young people out of their abuse pattern at the earliest opportunity. This is a matter which, I believe, concerns the national parliaments in all of our Member States, and it also concerns the Danish Presidency. I cannot say that the question will become a central one, as it is first and foremost the responsibility of national, and often even local, authorities to guarantee these therapies, but I can say that I agree that this is a core problem. In my national parliament, at least, it is the subject of a debate involving heightened emotions and opinions which cut across parties because the plight of these young people is so distressing. At the same time, there is a difficulty with giving them substances to help them out, as this can also cause them to become dependent in some other way. In short, we could talk at length about this, but this is not the place.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Question No 16 has been withdrawn.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – As the author is not present, Question No 17 lapses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – As they deal with the same subject, Question Nos 18 and 19 will be taken together:

Question No 18 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (H-0560/02):

Subject: Death of members of the opposition in Equatorial Guinea

During Council Question Time on 3 July, the Council was tackled and alerted both by Mr Carlos Carnero González and myself about the human rights violations and serious physical torture of members of the democratic opposition practiced by Teodoro Obiang’s regime. I urged the Council Presidency to take ‘immediate action’, reminding the Minister that it is not a question simply of more or less euphemistically condemning the situation, but of ‘exercising the strength of the European Union’, using every possible political and diplomatic means to put an end to this inhuman situation.

Two days later, Juan Ondó Nguema, one of those sentenced in the Marfil Cinema trial without any legal guarantees whatever, according to all international observers, died in the Black Beach prison as a result of the ill-treatment inflicted on him while he was being interrogated by the police, and of his having been deprived of food and water in the days preceding his death.

In this situation, what pressure are the Council and Presidency bringing to bear on the authorities in Equatorial Guinea to guarantee a minimum respect for basic rights in that country?

What measures has the Council taken or does it intend to take to demand that the Government of Equatorial Guinea introduce measures to democratise the country?

Question No 19 by Carlos Carnero González (H-0577/02):

Subject: Death of a political prisoner in Equatorial Guinea and joint action to be taken by the European Union in support of democracy and human rights in that country

Precisely one day after the Council, in the person of the Danish Foreign Affairs Minister, replied at the European Parliament’s July part-session to questions on the arbitrary arrests, trials without guarantees or justified accusations, instances of brutal torture and imprisonment in inhuman conditions which had been perpetrated by Equatorial Guinea’s dictatorial regime against the country’s democratic opposition, one of the individuals concerned – Juan Ondó Nguema – died tragically as a result of the maltreatment he had received.

In view of the fact that the country’s dictator, Teodoro Obiang, has so far ignored all calls from the international community for the trials to be cancelled, for the prisoners to be released and for the torture to cease, is the Council intending to take any urgent joint action in support of democracy in Equatorial Guinea, including applying the Cotonou Agreement human-rights protection provisions, bolstering the UN’s activities and involving the USA?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The Council is monitoring very closely humanitarian conditions and the human rights situation in Equatorial Guinea, in particular the case of the imprisoned opposition leaders and the conditions under which they are held. We all recall that the EU, directly after the sentence was passed, made a declaration calling upon the relevant authorities to take the necessary measures to have the sentences reviewed and ensure that the fundamental rights of the accused were respected.

The EU has on a number of occasions expressed deep concern at the deterioration in the human rights situation, and, following the death of Juan Ondó Nguema, the Council debated reports concerning the causes. At that time, neither the government’s nor the opposition’s explanation could be confirmed. According to the opposition, his death was due to torture and ill-treatment, whereas the government gave the cause of death as a serious lung disease, from which he was allegedly suffering prior to the trial. Against this background, the Council does not intend to take emergency measures at this stage, but will continue its investigations into the circumstances leading to Nguema’s death. The EU will employ appropriate political and diplomatic means in order to put pressure on the authorities in Equatorial Guinea to bring about an improvement in the human rights situation in general and to promote democratic reforms in that unfortunate country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carnero González (PSE).(ES) Mr Haarder, we were referring in our question to the death in prison of Juan Ondó Nguema, but, sadly, we must now add that on 31 August another political prisoner died in the Black Beach prison, Juan Asumu Sima. This 80-year-old man had to attend trial, sometimes assisted, and at others seated, due to the brutal torture to which he had been subjected. The political prisoners in Black Beach may end up becoming names on a long list of the deceased which will continually prick the conscience of international and, of course, European Union public opinion.

Mr Haarder, the Council can think what it likes, but, of course, believing the government of Equatorial Guinea instead of the opposition is too much to believe. I ask you, is the Council thinking of making an official visit to the political prisoners in Black Beach and, moreover, taking measures to suspend the Cotonou agreement with Equatorial Guinea if they are not freed immediately?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) The Council will of course use all available means to find the truth. I myself have been present here in Parliament to debate resolutions on that unfortunate country, and I can assure the House that the Council has every intention of finding the truth. My words should not be taken to mean that I attach more weight to the government’s than the opposition’s assertions; I am just pointing out that it is one party’s word against another’s, and what we have to do is establish the truth – documented truth, mind you – so that we can substantiate any charge against the government and increase the pressure on the regime. I fully agree with my former colleague and thank him for the tragic, and regrettable, news that another death has taken place. This is of course yet another argument for maintaining the pressure and availing ourselves of all the means to obtain information and exert pressure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Obiols i Germà (PSE).(ES) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on 3 July, we asked the Council for immediate action to address the highly worrying situation of a large group of opponents of Mr Obiang’s regime in Equatorial Guinea. At that time we asked for an appeal to be made, for pressure to be exerted. Two days later, on 5 July, to be precise, one of those convicted in the judgment that incarcerated dozens of opponents in Black Beach, Juan Ondó Nguema, died as a result of the maltreatment he suffered, and due to water and sleep deprivation during the last days of his life.

Mr President, I know that the world is often cruel and that, of course, neither Europe nor the Council can solve all of its problems or shoulder all of its tragedies. This, however, was a very specific, localised problem.

A few days ago, another opponent died, and we ask again, insistently, Mr President, that the Council please do something immediately to solve this problem and remove the threat hanging over a few, very specific people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Haarder, Council.(DA) I do not know how my former colleague had thought the Council could remove this threat. It has done its best with the means at its disposal. I have said this, and the Council will continue to do so. I can say no more. Thank you, Mr President.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – As the time allocated to Question Time is at an end, Questions Nos 20 to 34 will be answered in writing(1), with the exception of Question No 21, which is not acceptable.

That concludes Questions to the Council.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.15 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

 
  

(1) See Annex 'Question Time'.

Legal notice - Privacy policy