In a recent study, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work estimated the cost to the Union of all work-related health problems to be more than 3% of gross domestic product. At the origin of most of these health problems is stress caused by employment flexibility and social insecurity, which are the norm in our liberal societies. Indeed, many scientific studies have established that stress at work is the cause of numerous health problems, including cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, smoking and alcoholism.

In the context of the Lisbon agenda, what forceful action is the Council planning to take to make employers face up to their social responsibilities, both in terms of prevention and to compensate employees for the damage suffered?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

I should first like to observe that the German Presidency and its future Portuguese and Slovenian successors have, in their shared eighteen-month programme, undertaken to ensure continuity in the development of modern, social and sustainable labour law across the EU, and the further measures following on from the Commission communication on the Community health and safety at work strategy for 2007-2012 will play a part in this, in precisely the same way as will the Green Paper recently presented by the Commission on the future of labour law. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Strategy for 2002-2006 took account of the changing nature of work and of the new kinds of risks that this entails, to which the honourable Member, in his question, was quite right to refer. These risks will be discussed in detail in the forthcoming health and safety at work strategy, and will also feature in the conclusions of the Employment Council in May.

A whole series of directives on working conditions have been adopted in the course of recent years, and the honourable Member will no doubt be aware, as regards the specific issue of an employer’s liability for its employees’ health and safety, of the Community legislation currently in force on this subject, including the framework directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, and already nineteen individual directives laying down minimum requirements in specific areas of protection at work. Nor must it be forgotten that responsibility for the implementation of this legislation rests with the Member States and that it is they alone who are responsible for any provisions relating to compensation. Liability for applying the regulations rests with employers, and the competent national authorities ensure that they are enforced, while the Commission’s function is to monitor the full transposition of the directives into national law, and it is authorised to initiate, where necessary, proceedings in respect of infringement of the Treaties. It also monitors the practical implementation of the directives, to which end it receives regular reports from the Member States. I would like to point out that the Commission has just presented a new directive on the simplification and rationalisation of reports on practical measures taken in this area.

The German Presidency is working closely with Parliament in order to achieve agreement on this proposal at as early a date as possible.

Within the broader context of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, the Council is just now completing the annual review of the various components of the European Employment Strategy. It was on the basis of this work that the Employment Council, on 22 February 2007, formulated a series of key messages with clear demands for structural improvements in the labour market and stronger social cohesion, which were forwarded to the European Council for its Spring Summit.

The Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee played an active part in formulating these key messages, which state positions on such subjects as, for example, the modernisation of labour law and appropriate levels of social protection.

I can therefore assure the honourable Member that the Council, under German Presidency, is playing its part in maintaining and improving health protection and the safety of workers in the European Union.

Bearing in mind the recent judgment (12.12.2006) of the European Court of First Instance (Case T-228/02, the People's Mujahidin of Iran Organisation v. the Council), which recognises the need for greater transparency, respect of the right to know the evidence adduced against a political organisation on the basis of which it is included in the EU's 'terrorist list' and the right to judicial defence, does the Council of Ministers intend to ensure respect for Europe's democratic legal system and implement the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by revising the procedure adopted hitherto for designating organisations as terrorist organisations?

Six years have now elapsed since the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of the resolution on combating terrorism and its incorporation in the Community legal system through the Council's common position of 27.12.2001. Can an assessment now be undertaken of the effectiveness of the procedure used for drawing up and updating the EU's 'terrorist list'?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is currently taking the steps required in order to comply with the ruling of the Court of First Instance, and has already taken the first steps towards improving its procedures for drawing up the list referred to in Regulation 2580/2001 of persons and entities involved in terrorist acts. The Council aims, wherever possible, to present every person or entity whose assets are to be frozen with a justification and to make procedures clearer and more transparent, thereby enabling the persons and bodies included on the list to ask for their cases to be reviewed.

The Council has already, in connection with its Decision of 21 December 2006 on the addition of certain persons and associations to the list of persons, associations and entities whose assets are to be frozen (Council Decision 3006/1008/EG, OJ L379 of 28 December 2006), produced justifications, which have been made available to those persons and associations affected. The Council has also informed these persons and associations as to the procedural steps they can take in order to make their views known.

In the same way, the Council, on 30 January 2007, decided to comply with the Court’s decision in the PMOI case and to notify MEK/PMOI of its intention to retain it on the list of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen and also to justify this decision to them. The Council has called on the MEK/PMOI to forward its comments and any supporting documentation within the period of one month.

What support does the Council intend to give the Republic of Cyprus, an EU Member State, which is the target of Turkish threats and belligerence designed to deter it from concluding bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries for the exploitation of the natural gas reserves thought to be present within its sovereign territory and the exploitation boundaries of its economic zone?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is familiar with the matter to which the honourable Member refers, which has to do with good neighbourly relations and the Cyprus issue.

As regards good neighbourly relations, I would refer to the conclusions on the subject adopted by the European Council when it met in Helsinki in 1999 and in Brussels in December 2004, in which it called for an unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations, which would involve the avoidance of all acts capable of having an adverse effect on the peaceful settlement of disputes, a position confirmed by the Conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 11 December 2006.

Further to the Cyprus issue in general, I would like briefly to repeat that Turkey’s continued support for efforts towards a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus issue within the United Nations and in harmony with the EU’s fundamental principles, together with progress in the normalisation of bilateral relations between Turkey and all EU Member States including the Republic of Cyprus are among the demands, by compliance with which the progress made in the accession process will be measured.

The points referred to above also constitute part of the negotiating framework and are among the short-term priorities of the revised accession partnership with Turkey that the EU is systematically raising at the meetings with Turkey in the course of the Political Dialogue. I can assure you that we attach great importance to these points and are closely monitoring developments, since progress made on this front will have effects, inter alia, on the continuation of the accession negotiations.

In March 2006 the Home Affairs Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom agreed at an informal summit to look into the possibility of introducing a ‘European integration contract’ or a ‘European examination’ for immigrants wishing to become citizens of EU Member States. According to reports, this type of ‘contract’ is intended to supplement the citizenship examinations that already exist in some EU Member States. The ministers agreed to have this proposal examined by their national experts.

What would this ‘European integration contract’ consist of? What obligations are included in this document? What is its status? What is its relationship to existing citizenship examinations in various EU Member States? Does the very flexible Belgian naturalisation legislation – which imposes absolutely no obligations on candidates for citizenship – not represent a problem with regard to the introduction of this contract?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The presidency wishes to point out that it has no remit to make statements on the deliberations of the so-called ‘G-6’.

The EU is in fact working towards greater cooperation in the field of integration policy. Even though the adoption and implementation of national integration strategies will, in future, continue to fall within the remit of the Member States, the EU will continue to support them by, inter alia, encouraging the sharing of experience and best practice, but deliberations at EU level have not so far made reference to the concept of an integration contract.

It should, finally, be noted that the European Council, in its conclusion of 14/15 December 2006, agreed that, in the course of 2007, integration and intercultural dialogue, together with the combating of every form of discrimination within the Member States and the EU, would be promoted, that integration policy would be strengthened, and that agreement would be reached on common goals and strategies. The ministerial conference on integration, to be held in May 2007, will therefore be of particular significance.

Is the enforcement of a ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants throughout Europe conceivable in the Council’s view?

Why is the necessary legal process moving so slowly?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In its 2 December 2002 recommendation on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control⁽¹⁾, the Council stated that the Member States, in view of the risks associated with passive smoking, should endeavour to protect smokers and non-smokers from tobacco smoke. It recommended that they should bring in legislation and/or other effective measures to guarantee protection from tobacco smoke in the workplace, in closed rooms, in closed public amenities and on public transport.

The intention of the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is that present and future generations should be protected from tobacco consumption and pollution of the environment through tobacco smoke be prevented. The Commission and all the Member States (with the exception of Italy and the Czech Republic) have ratified the FCTC, which contains a specifically binding obligation on the contracting parties to protect human beings from the nuisance of tobacco smoke. Article 8 of the FCTC states that every contracting party must bring effective measures to protect against passive smoking in the workplace, in closed rooms, on public transport, in closed public amenities, and, where necessary, in other public places.

On 30 January 2007, the Commission adopted a Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke; policy options at EU level’. Its objective in doing so is to initiate a comprehensive consultation process (until 1 May 2007) on the best way to stem passive smoking in the EU and support the trend towards smoke-free zones in the EU. The presidency has already drawn the Council’s attention to this Green Paper. It is planned that the Council (Employment and Social Affairs) on 31 May 2007 should include an exchange of views among the ministers on the Green Paper.

In November 2006 the Commission launched an initiative to reduce the administrative burden on European business by 25% by 2012. In recent weeks the SME Union has met with the Commission to urge it to reduce statistical reporting requirements for SMEs over the next three years by 30% and to target the practice known as 'gold-plating' at national level.

Does the Council support such proposals and if so what specific measures will it be bringing forward during the current Presidency to support and encourage the Commission in implementing this urgently needed reform agenda?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor its members, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2007 part-session.

The Council takes the view that a reduction in administrative costs for companies and, in particular, SMUs is an important measure in terms of strengthening competitivity and economic growth in the EU. On 19 February 2007, the Council considered the Commission programme of action seeking to reduce administrative costs, concluding that a major joint effort was necessary to achieve any significant reduction of administrative costs within the EU. It agreed that a 25% reduction in the administrative costs of implementing EU rules must be achieved by the year 2012 and that the Member States should set themselves ambitious international goals by 2008, calling on the Commission to launch its programme of action with the support of the Member States on this basis.

In order to emphasise the importance it attaches to progress in this area, the Council decided to give priority to the immediate measures recommended in the Commission communication as soon as the relevant Commission proposals had been tabled.

Amnesty International has reported on several occasions when individuals were captured and forced to leave Saudi Arabia, without any procedural safeguards such as legal counsel, apparently because of their actual or suspected connection with the Ahmadiyya Community, a religious community which considers itself a sect of Islam. This seems to be an obvious violation of the rule of non-discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation.

Has the Council taken any action in regard to this situation or is the Council prepared to do so?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is following the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia with very close attention. As part of its political dialogue with all third countries, the EU strongly recommends them all to ratify all relevant international agreements on human rights where they have not already done so.

The European Union strongly advocates the removal of all forms of discrimination and intolerance and, with this in mind, tabled a resolution for the 61st session of the UN General Assembly calling for the abolition of all forms of intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, the unanimous adoption of which testifies to the universal applicability of its content. The European Union therefore calls on third countries to put into practice the principles of this resolution, which has been recognised as an important instrument for the purpose of protecting the right of every individual person to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

What measures does the Council propose to take to ensure the effective participation of all Member States in the control of the Union's external frontiers, and, in particular, the operational mechanism for the protection of the maritime frontiers by Frontex?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The control and monitoring of the external frontiers is the Member States’ responsibility. Border controls are not, however, operated only in the interests of the Member State concerned, but in the interests of all those Member States that have abolished controls on the internal borders. The establishment of Frontex, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, through Council Regulation 2007/2004/EC⁽¹⁾ was an important step in the promotion of solidarity between the Member States in the protection of the external borders.

Frontex coordinates the operational cooperation of the Member States and manages joint operations and pilot projects on the land, air and sea borders.

In order to help those Member States whose borders come under sudden and extraordinary pressure, the Commission has submitted a proposal for the Parliament and Council Regulation establishing a mechanism for the creation of rapid border intervention teams. This proposal is currently being discussed by the Council with a view to attempting to reach agreement with Parliament at first reading stage.

The Member States will also be able to contribute to the protection of the external borders by providing each other with technical equipment. Frontex is currently, on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation 2007/2004/EC, compiling a central registry of items of technical equipment (known as the ‘toolbox’) which Member States are willing to make available to other Member States. At the 15 February 2007 Council meeting, Frontex presented an inventory, and those Member States that had not done so already were urged to make an active contribution to the toolbox, which it is intended should be available for use with effect from summer 2007.

Frontex has also completed two feasibility studies (BORTEC and MEDSEA) on the protection of maritime borders in 2006, the object of which is the establishment of a European monitoring system for the southern maritime borders, to which priority is being given in line with the Presidency’s conclusions on the meeting of the European Council of December 2006, and Frontex is being urged to develop as soon as possible a permanent network of coastal patrols on the southern sea borders. Frontex is currently giving consideration to how to create this network and involve the Member States in it.

With the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, new countries now form the EU’s external borders. What discussions has the Council had with the authorities in these countries with respect to border security, trafficking and organised crime? How can the EU secure its borders without affecting the rights of free movement for EU citizens?

(DE) This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor its members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament’s March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Community Code on the movement of persons across borders (‘Schengen Borders Code’) which was adopted on 15 March 2006 by the European Parliament and the Council by the codecision procedure⁽¹⁾ governs controls on persons crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union. This Code is binding and applicable in all Member States, with the exception of Ireland the United Kingdom, from the date of its entry into force, that is, 13 October 2006, as well as in Bulgaria and Romania from the date of their accession to the EU.

The requirements governing border protection are therefore identical and binding for all these Member States, even if, under the terms of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession and Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession, the provisions of the Schengen ‘acquis’ incorporated in the EU concerning the dismantling of controls on persons at the internal borders with and between those Member States which acceded in 2004 and 2007 have not yet entered into force. These provisions will apply in those Member States on the basis of a decision to be taken by the Council following an assessment - conducted in accordance with the Schengen evaluation procedure - of whether the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen ‘acquis’ have been met and after consulting the European Parliament.

Controls at the internal borders with Romania and Bulgaria can only be lifted once the Schengen ‘acquis’ (Schengen Information System II) has been implemented and in particular if the relevant assessments in those Member States are positive.

All Member States, including Romania and Bulgaria, are involved at all levels in the Council in discussing the issues of border protection, trafficking in human beings and organised crime.

Border protection and border controls have been - or are currently being - assessed in each new Member State in order to establish whether they meet the requirements of the Schengen ‘acquis’ and therefore whether controls on persons may be lifted at the internal borders. Assessments will be carried out for Bulgaria and Romania as soon as these countries have declared themselves ready.

The Treaty of Nice stipulates that when the number of EU Member States reaches 27, new Members of the Commission will be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality, Member States will be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as Members of the Commission and each successive college will be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States of the Union.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe also provides for the above principles to be applied.

On 3 January 2007, speaking on the German television station ZDF, Vice-President of the Commission Günter Verheugen stated that ‘a small Member State would benefit more from providing a deputy commissioner in an important area than a commissioner dealing in a marginal area’.

What is the opinion of the country holding the Presidency of the Council on the position of its designated Vice-President of the Commission? Is this position shared by the country holding the Presidency?

What proposals concerning the Commission are planned with regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

By way of response to the honourable Member’s first question, I would remind her that the Council does not generally comment on public statements by Members of the Commission.

Further to the honourable Member’s second question, the point needs to be made that it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcomes of the ongoing consultation with the Member States on the future of the Constitutional Treaty. As the honourable Member will be aware, these consultations serve as the basis for a report to be submitted by the German Presidency to the European Council in the first half of 2007. Further decisions on the continuation of the reform process will be taken once the European Council has reviewed this report.

The discretionary and uneven interpretation of the present rules regarding airside and duty-free purchases has resulted in a serious loss of confidence for the travelling consumer purchasing legitimate products. This uneven application of the current rules has led to the confiscation of thousands of litres of products in the last few months, and airside and duty-free outlets are seeing a serious drop in sales both in the EU and in third countries.

Is the Council aware of this crisis impacting on every Member State and on hundreds of companies in the European Union? What action does the Council intend taking to resolve this problem?

Furthermore, does the President-in-Office consider lipstick a potential security risk? If so please explain.

Does the Council have any intention to review the EU security rules that are in place at European airports? These rules are causing mayhem because all duty-free liquids are now being confiscated from transit passengers travelling into Europe?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members, was not presented orally at the part of Question Time given over to the Council at Parliament’s March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The security measures to which the Members referred are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security⁽¹⁾. The Commission acted under Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002⁽²⁾, which lays down the legal framework for aviation security in the Community; that being the case, the Presidency would ask Members to address their questions to the Commission, which is in a better position to respond to their misgivings. Members should note that the specific measures mentioned in this instance include restrictions on liquids and gels and are to be reviewed after six months.

On a recent visit to Djibouti, in recognition of Djibouti's contribution to regional stability and its role as a mediator, messenger and peace-maker, Commissioner Michel asked President Guelleh to step up political relations between Djibouti and the EU, which, among other things, is one the largest development aid donors. Although the Republic of Djibouti is of clear strategic importance in both regional and global terms, it has an authoritarian presidential regime. No more than a few days after the Commissioner's visit, a number of journalists and members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Renewal (MRD) were arbitrarily arrested, as reported by Reporters Without Borders, among others. The regime's treatment of opponents in Djibouti raises a number of questions, particularly in the light of the fact that parliamentary elections are to be held there in January 2008.

How does the Council intend to go about ensuring long-term respect for human rights in Djibouti and, with this in mind, does it intend to support the organisation of a European election observation mission to the country in 2008?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is aware of the recent arrest of members of the Mouvement pour le renouveau démocratique (MRD) and of staff of the independent weekly paper Le Renouveau. The regular political dialogue with Djibouti under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement is the proper context in which the EU can raise its concerns about the human rights situation in Djibouti and – bearing in mind the agreed objective of promoting a stable and democratic political environment – can address questions on the political state of affairs in that country in the most general terms.

By the same token, the promotion of local democracy and of responsible state governance through support for the development and functioning of decentralised institutions that would serve as pillars of democracy is one of the objectives of Europe’s cooperation with Djibouti.

As regards the possible dispatch of an EU election observation mission to Djibouti’s parliamentary elections in January 2008, the priorities for the EU’s election-monitoring activities in 2008 have not yet been discussed by the relevant groupings within the Council.

What efforts is the Council making to encourage the use of alternative energy in national transport plans?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor its members was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council is fully aware of the importance of alternative energy sources in the transport sector from the point of view of not only sustainable supply but also measures to slow down climate change and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Following the energy and climate package published by the Commission on 10 January 2007, the Council of Energy Ministers in its conclusions of 15 February 2007, indicated that a 10% biofuel component of total petrol and diesel consumption for transport purposes was the binding minimum objective to be achieved by 2020 in all EU Member States. This objective was confirmed by the European Council at its spring session. The Council of Energy Ministers concluded that the objective should be binding subject to sustainable production, the commercial availability of second-generation biofuels and an appropriate amendment to the directive on fuel quality, making it possible to use suitable mixtures.

In its conclusions, the Council also seeks a coherent framework for renewable energies on the basis of the forthcoming Commission proposal for 2007 concerning a new comprehensive directive on the use of all renewable energy sources, together with the comprehensive and rapid implementation of the measures recommended in the Council conclusions concerning the Commission biomass action plan of June 2006, particularly regarding second-generation biofuel demonstration projects.

The Council attaches particular importance to this matter and as soon as the Commission has submitted its proposal will follow developments closely. It also hopes that the European Parliament will be able to give the same level of support and thereby facilitate adoption of the proposal.

In light of the upcoming review of the EU Common Position on Burma, can the Presidency indicate whether or not it will be supporting the renewal of the Common Position and explain the reasons for its support or lack thereof? If the Presidency supports the renewal of the CP, would it be in favour of strengthening it to include, for example, support for the ILO move to bring a case against the SPDC before the International Court of Justice and/or to increase EU financial and political support for civil society groups working in and outside the country?

Is the Presidency aware that the current Common Position does not make any mention of the ethnic nationalities, which make up approximately 40% of the population and does not include any reference to EU support for a tripartite dialogue involving the SPDC, the National League for Democracy and the ethnic nationalities, even though both the NLD and the ethnic nationalities have repeatedly stated that this is the only legitimate path for political transformation in Burma? Would the Presidency commit to pushing for the inclusion of an indication of EU support for a tripartite dialogue and a recognition of the key role of ethnic nationalities in the EU Common position?

(DE) This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council or its Members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament’s March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

As no major developments have taken place in the country in question, the Council intends to maintain the Common Position in its present form, subject to technical adjustments. The Presidency takes the view that the Common Position continues to constitute an appropriate combination of targeted restrictive measures and humanitarian aid for the population of one of the poorest countries in the world. On the basis of the Common Position, the EU regularly expresses its concern to the government and regional partners able to influence that country and presses for changes in Burma/Myanmar. Issues such as human rights violations, including forced labour, the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and the absence of a genuine and comprehensive transitional process towards a legitimate, democratic government are regularly raised as part of this process.

The Council has actively supported the efforts of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to take up complaints about forced labour in Burma/Myanmar. The government of Burma/Myanmar reached an agreement at the end of February this year with the ILO on addressing these complaints.

The EU is already using Community resources to support active civil society groups both within and outside Burma/Myanmar. The overall financial commitment for programmes in Burma/Myanmar has considerably increased, and the Commission intends to make available even more resources from 2007. Alongside geographical budget lines, a series of thematic budgetary lines will be entered, and support for civil society and respect for human rights will be an integral part thereof.

The EU has repeatedly called on the government of Burma/Myanmar to embark on a comprehensive transitional process in which all forces in the country, including the individual ethnic groups, must take part. Furthermore, the EU considers that a long-term stabilisation of the country is only possible if it takes place through national reconciliation, which requires the participation of all ethnic groups of the country.

Gerhard Schröder, the former Federal Chancellor of Germany, now chairman of the board of the company Nord Stream, has said on Swedish TV (SVT Rapport, 8 February 2007) that the Ministers in the Council had decided that Member States were obliged to facilitate and support the building of Trans-European Networks (TENs). Mr Schröder's conclusion was that the proposed Russo-German gas pipeline in the Baltic had therefore been given the Council's blessing. The decision on this issue is said to have been taken at the Energy Council meeting on 17 June 2005. Does the Council agree with the view expressed by Mr Schröder? Has the Council approved the construction of the Russo-German gas pipeline with a route under the Baltic Sea?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The author of the question is advised that Mr Gerhard Schröder is not the chairman of the supervisory board of Nord Stream AG, but rather the chairman of the said company’s shareholders’ committee.

Further to the first question, the presidency wishes to make it clear that it does not comment on reports in the media.

Further to the second question, the presidency wishes to observe that – as the honourable Member is no doubt aware – European Parliament and Council Decision 1364/2006/EC laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision 96/391/EC and Decision No 1229/2003/EC⁽¹⁾makes reference to a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany running through the Baltic Sea or ‘via the offshore route’ at the following three points:

in Annex I ‘Axes for priority projects, including sites of projects of European interest, as defined in Articles 7 and 8’, item NG 1,

in Annex II ‘Additional criteria for identifying Projects of common interest, as referred to in Article 6(2)’, under ‘Gas networks’, item 9

in Annex III ‘Projects of common interest and their specifications, currently identified according to the criteria set out in Annex II’ under item 9, ‘Developing gas transport capacity (gas supply pipelines)’ as the third of the projects listed there: ‘North European gas pipeline: Russia, Baltic Sea, Germany’.

As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, the Council and Parliament have, in Annex I to the Decision, categorised a ‘North European gas pipeline’ as a ‘project of European interest’ – a term denoting the projects given ‘the highest priority’ (q.v recital 8).

As regards the specific provisions for projects with this status (e.g. the option of Community cofinancing, the obligations of the Member States in respect of these projects and the action of a European coordinator in the event of serious delays or problems with implementation) the Council refers the honourable Member to the text of the Decision already mentioned above, which was adopted by Parliament and the Council under the codecision procedure.

Following the Tuareg rebellion in Mali on 23 May 2006, an agreement known as the Algiers Agreement was signed on 4 July 2006 by the Malian Government and the Democratic Alliance of 23 May for Change with a view to resolving the conflict.

The agreement provides for a Forum for Development in North Mali to be held in the Kidal region, with the Tuareg participating.

The Government of Mali plans to hold the forum next March, but without the participation of the Democratic Alliance of 23 May for Change.

Since the European Union has been asked by the State of Mali to assist with the organisation of the forum, what does the European Council intend to do to ensure that the Tuareg take part in the forum and to encourage the development of the Kidal region?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As the honourable Member notes in her question, the Forum for Development in North Mali is, according to the latest information available, due to be held on 23 March. This date is the most recent to be agreed following the repeated postponement of the event.

The EU’s diplomatic missions received, on 15 February, letters from the Democratic Alliance of 23 May for Change in which the issue of the Alliance’s participation in the Forum was raised.

The EU heads of mission in Bamako are currently engaged in consultations on this matter and will be seeking more precise information from the Malian Government.

What is the state of this system which is designed, I understand, to replace paper-based exchanges between Member State governments concerning genuine and false documents ?

(DE) This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor its Members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

As the Member is aware, the European image archiving system (FADO) was set up by the Joint Action adopted by the Council of 3 December 1998.⁽¹⁾

The system aims to enable the Member States to exchange computerised information within very short periods of time on genuine documents and documents that have been recognised as forgeries.

FADO is now fully operational, using the computerised system set up in the Council secretariat, as provided in the annex to the above Joint Action, and serves as a network for contacts with and between the Member States’ relevant central services.

In view of the outcome of the Six-Party Talks in Beijing, can the Council detail how it sees the EU’s involvement in the process and whether a Troika visit will be considered?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members, was not presented orally at the part of Question Time given over to the Council at Parliament’s March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The EU has welcomed the agreement reached by the Six Parties at their latest round of talks, which ended on 13 February. As indicated in the statement issued by the Presidency on 14 February, it is hoping that the agreement will be implemented swiftly and that the Six Parties will continue their discussions on all of the commitments set out in their Joint Declaration of 19 September 2005.

In the statement the EU also pledged its continuing political support for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and raised the possibility of sending a Troika mission to North Korea. The latter has since been done, and the mission thus took place from 6 to 8 March.

The Council did not answer my question H-0046/07⁽¹⁾ and I am, therefore, compelled to repeat it with the request for a clear and precise answer to my specific question. Does the islet of Imia in the eastern Aegean constitute part of the territory of the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has nothing to add to the answer it has already given to the honourable Member’s question H-0046/07. It can only refer to the positions stated in the relevant conclusions of the European Council, and with which the honourable Member will be familiar.

The Prüm Convention provides for the collection, storage, use and exchange of citizens' personal data (including the fingerprints and DNA of suspects) and allows local and foreign special services to be present and operate on the territory of the Member States. It also provides for joint operations between police and special forces of two or more Member States in the case of internationally important events.

Does the Council acknowledge that the use of terms such as 'mass gatherings' or 'similar major events' implies an unprecedented process of surveillance and control? Is the Council not concerned that the use of general terms such as 'urgent situations', 'terrorist offences' and 'maintaining public order' will justify the police and other law enforcement authorities delving into citizens' personal data and the restriction of freedom of expression without accountability to any independent, legal supervisory body? Is there no concern at the legalisation of the violation of the rights and freedoms of all citizens, which is enshrined in this Convention in the name of combating terrorism and organised crime, in which only a minority are involved?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

For the reasons set out below, the presidency, while respecting the honourable Member’s viewpoint, does not agree with it. The terms 'mass gatherings' or 'similar major events' in Article 18 of the draft Council Decision on stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, does not in any way result in an ‘unprecedented process of surveillance and control’ nor does it facilitate one. The Council wishes to point out to the honourable Member that Article 18 of the said Council Decision does no more than commit the competent authorities in the Member States to mutual support in respect of ‘mass gatherings, similar major events, and grave calamities’, which shall take the form of measures specified under this heading. Article 18 does not, however, constitute a legal basis for surveillance measures that have not hitherto been in place.

As regards terrorist offences, the obligations under Article 16 of the draft Council Decision are restricted to the exchange of information where ‘the assumption is justified on the basis of certain facts that the persons concerned are likely to commit offences of the kind referred to in Articles 1 to 3 of the Council of the European Union’s Framework Decision 2002/475/JI on the combating of terrorism’. Here, too, no obligations are imposed in respect of further surveillance or investigation and the obligation is limited solely to cooperation.

The honourable Member’s fears that the police and public order authorities would interfere in citizens’ private affairs and hence that the freedom to express opinions would be restricted without the same authorities being required to account for their action to a democratic body of control are not justified. The maintenance of public order has always been one of the most important functions of the police services in the Member States, and this is not a function that can be derived from the draft of this Council Decision. All measures taken by police forces on the basis of this draft are subject to the control of the supervisory authorities established for the oversight of the police in accordance with the legislation adopted by the Member States. As regards data protection, the draft Council Decision contains especially stringent provisions on this subject, in the shape of Articles 24 to 32, which are applicable to all information shared in accordance with this Decision.

We are concerned that Nigeria intends to adopt a law entitled 'Act to Make Provisions for the Prohibition of Relationship Between Persons of the Same Sex, Celebration of Marriage by Them, and for Other Matters Connected Therewith.' The Act would effectively criminalise the Nigerian LGBT community and is, we believe, being motivated by fear and hatred rather than good judicial sense. The proposed law clearly violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and is also in violation of the Cotonou Agreement Article 1, which calls for 'respect of the rights of the individual' and Article 8, which calls for a political dialogue where respect for human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law and good governance are essential prerequisites for the validity of the agreement.

Will the Council raise the issue of this law in its discussions with the Nigerian Government? What urgent actions does the Council intend to take to ensure that the EU makes clear to Nigeria the EU position on human rights? Will the Council reiterate the EU's commitment to the abolition of the criminalisation of same-sex relations in accordance with the rulings of the UN Human Rights Committee? What action will the Council take to uphold Articles 1 and 8 of the Cotonou Agreement should this law continue on its path towards adoption?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor its members, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2007 part-session.

The draft legislation concerning same-sex relations was in fact discussed by the EU and the Nigerian authorities. EU mission leaders have been following developments closely since 2006 and discussed them with Nigerian civil society organisations opposed to the bill.

The EU pointed out that, the law, if adopted, would as the honourable Member has rightly observed, constitute an infringement of universal human rights standards.

In addition to efforts by the EU mission leaders, the Nigerian Senator heading the committee responsible (the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Legal Affairs) has agreed to a review of the draft and is seeking to ensure that it is acceptable at international level and in accordance with the Nigerian Constitution.

Deliberations on the bill are continuing and, in view of the imminent parliamentary and presidential elections, adoption during the current term is highly unlikely. The EU will continue to monitor developments in the new elected Parliament.

The Council recently underscored its firm commitment to combating climate change in its conclusions of 20 February. The Council also welcomed the Commission's proposal to bring greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, but the discussed directive will only come into effect in 2011.

The Commission's stakeholder consultation on this subject made clear that en-route charges on aircraft emissions and impacts are regarded as the second most effective instrument in reducing the impact of the aviation sector on climate change.

While airlines and airport operators might be afraid of a compulsory system (since this will increase prices for passengers), a system based on voluntary contributions would remove this concern. Such a voluntary contribution would amount to no more than 2 to 5% of the ticket price. The revenues from such contributions are invested in afforestation or renewable energy projects in developing countries.

Would the Council consider joining a voluntary system to include a compensation option in ticket booking procedures, so that its officials can take their responsibility and compensate the emissions related to their flights?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As is evident from the honourable Member’s question, a debate set in motion by the Commission is currently underway with particular regard to whether efforts at addressing climate change should be supported by voluntary or compulsory contributions. In the event of the Commission, as a result of further developments in this debate, putting this question before the Council, the latter will not fail to give this problem all the attention it merits. Should the Council, following the conclusion of such examination, act on the proposal of the Commission and after consultation of the European Parliament in enacting legislation, it will certainly take care to take the measures required to facilitate their implementation by the European institutions. The Council is unable, at the present time, to make any predictions as to the content or scope of such legislation.

The honourable Member is also referred to the provisions currently in force relating to issues connected with the budgets of the European Parliament and of the Council respectively.

In recent months, there has been an alarming increase in the wave of illegal immigrants arriving in Greece, on the islands of the eastern Aegean, from Turkey. In 2006, 20% of the illegal immigrants arrested came from Turkey (as opposed to 15.5% in 2004 and 11.9% in 2005).

Greece and Turkey signed a Readmission Protocol in April 2002 and, over the period as a whole, the Greek authorities have submitted applications to Turkey in respect of 22 945 illegal immigrants arrested, only 1419 of which have been repatriated. In its report (November 2006) on Turkey’s progress towards accession, the Commission notes in regard to negotiating Chapter 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security) that Turkey has made little progress in tackling illegal immigration and that a tremendous effort is needed to bring the country into line with the Community acquis. Does the Council intend to take initiatives to speed up the necessary reforms and their correct application by Turkey in this specific area? There is also a significant problem with the cost of transporting illegal immigrants.

Does the Council consider that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the external borders of the Member States of the European Union, could use Community financial means to tackle these specific problems on the basis of Article 9 (Return cooperation) of its founding Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004⁽¹⁾?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

That the Council attaches great importance to the efforts to be made by Turkey, as an applicant country, to combat illegal immigration, is not a matter of doubt, and it was for this reason that this consideration was included in the short-term priorities of the revised accession partnership adopted by the Council on 23 January, in which context there is explicit reference to the requirement that a readmission agreement be concluded without delay. This issue is also discussed in the screening report on negotiating chapter 24 (justice, freedom and security), which is currently being examined by the Council. The Community has repeatedly stated that these negotiations have to be completed promptly, and this is, no doubt, continuing to be made clear at all levels, in particular within the forums set up under the association agreement.

Under Article 9 of the Council Regulation establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union⁽²⁾, the Agency provides the support required for the organisation of joint return operations on the part of the Member States. Under this Article, the Agency may also use Community funds allocated for the purpose of returns. The presidency therefore takes the view that the Agency may use Community funds allocated for the purpose of returns in order – subject to the Community’s policy on returns – to support joint returns operations on the part of the Member States. It should be noted that this applies only in the case of joint operations to return illegal immigrants.

The issue of the participation and role of Frontex in the organisation of joint return operations by air is currently being discussed at Council level. It was also the subject of the Council conclusions on improved operational cooperation on joint return operations by air, adopted on 27 April 2006.

The judicial authorities of Romania have acquitted 'Prime Minster' Ion Antonescu, leader of the fascist Iron Guard and collaborator with Nazi Germany during World War II, together with 19 other members of the 'government', of charges of war crimes. By quashing the judgment which convicted him following the liberation of Romania in 1944, the courts have given their blessing to Romania's invasion of the USSR on the side of Hitler's Germany and to Nazi crimes against humanity. This decision is an affront to the memory of millions and to all those worldwide who resisted and fought fascism with all their might. It is an insult to the Romanian people who, before and after the overthrow of Antonescu, gave so much in the fight against fascism and the struggle for democracy and peace. This decision also undermines fundamental international treaties and constitutes a serious threat to democratic freedoms.

What is the Council's position on this undemocratic and reactionary decision?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has not discussed this issue.

It wishes to point out that, according to Article 6 (1) of the Treaty on European Union, ‘the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States’.

The Government of Uganda has for some considerable time been engaged in talks with the LRA, a movement which for years has terrorised people in Northern Uganda and which abuses children in an appalling manner.

On 26 August 2006, the two parties signed a ceasefire agreement, which expired at the end of February. The LRA did not go to the agreed assembly points but is making for the Central African Republic. The ICC has issued an international arrest warrant for LRA leader Kony and four other commanders.

What steps will the Council take to induce the Governments of the DRC and the Central African Republic to arrest the LRA leaders?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In its conclusions dated 15 May 2006, the Council stated the urgent necessity of the commanders of the ‘Lord's Resistance Army’ (LRA) being arrested and brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer the charges laid against them before it. It called on both the Ugandan Government and Uganda’s neighbouring states to act together to ensure that the warrants for their arrest were put into effect.

The Council is also following with attention, and is strongly supportive of, the peace process between the LRA and the Ugandan Government. It has encouraged the parties in that process to continue to work together towards a sustainable peace agreement that establishes peace and justice and is compatible with national and international law, including the ICC’s Rome Statute. The Council has also strongly urged all representatives of regional interests to adopt a favourable stance in respect of the peace process.

In December 2005, the Council decided provisionally to grant the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) candidate country status. Does not the fact that Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU on 1 January 2007 alter the Council's position with regard to the timetable and pace of negotiations between Skopje and Brussels?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The accessions of Bulgaria and Romania brought the fifth enlargement round to a close. The December 2006 European Council reiterated that the EU stands by the undertakings given to Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey as candidates for accession. The European Council also made it clear that the speed of the accession process would depend on the results of reforms in the country with which negotiations were in progress, with each country being assessed on a case-by-case basis. The European Union has again pointed out to the states of the Western Balkans that the progress of each of them on its way to the European Union will depend on efforts each of them makes to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and the conditions of the Stabilisation and Association Process.

That these general principles also apply to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is self-evident. It was with the desire to particularly acknowledge the progress made in the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement that the European Council, in December 2005, accorded the country candidate status. Although the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has continued to make progress, it has to be said – as the Commission did indeed point out in its last progress report in November 2006 – that it has done so at a slower pace. The areas remaining outstanding must now be addressed with all speed; they include the priorities in European partnership and the further implementation of the said agreement. The government has major challenges to contend with, particularly as regards police and justice reform and the fight against corruption. It follows, then, that the pace of the accession process is primarily dependent on the efforts and achievements of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia itself, which will be discussed in the Commission’s next progress report. The Union will continue to actively support the country in its efforts to achieve this objective.

In the past few days, reports have been published in the international media claiming that plans have been drawn up for an attack on Iran.

The reports state that the USA has drawn up a detailed plan for air strikes on nuclear facilities and other installations in Iran. At the same time, the Israeli airforce has been observed engaging in intensive activity with approximately the same scenario in view.

Has the Council been informed by the USA of these plans? Has the USA requested assistance or facilities from the Member States of the EU? What is the Council's position?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The European Council continues to support efforts towards a negotiated long-term solution to the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Following the report by the Director-General of the IAEO on 22 February to the UN Security Council, the Council had, on 5 March, an exchange of views on the Iranian nuclear question. The Council’s position on this can be summed up by saying that the EU continues to take a twin-track approach to Iran. The EU is implementing the measure referred to in UN Security Council resolution 1737, which are aimed at the most vulnerable parts of the Iranian nuclear and rocketry programme. At the same time, the Council is to continue to support efforts towards a negotiated long-term solution that would pave the way for a new relationship with Iran founded upon mutual respect and extended cooperation. With regard to this, the Council recalls the wide-ranging proposals presented to Iran on 6 June 2006 by the EU’s High Representative.

In the space of a few years, the United States has become a major producer of biofuels. There are now thousands of stations offering biofuels and several million engines running on biofuel have been manufactured.

In Europe, the process of urbanisation moves ahead, exacerbating communications problems. A challenge of this kind calls for solutions produced by research, the rapid application of new technologies and the use of environment-friendly means of public transport.

Europe devotes a large part of its electrical energy to lighting. Research could lead to the development and swift introduction of new, more efficient and less expensive lighting systems.

The European public feel that insufficient progress is being made in these areas.

What measures will the Council take to speed up the dissemination and application of research findings?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As the honourable Member is surely aware, Parliament and the Council have recently adopted the Decision⁽¹⁾No 1982/2006/EC on the Seventh European Community Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (2007-2013) and the Decision⁽²⁾No 1639/2006/EC on establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme(2007-2013).

These two programmes constitute the main measures intended to be applied in all those sectors in which they are needed in order to close the gap between the European Union and its principal competitors in the global market by improving the adoption of the outcomes of research and innovation by industry, by those in positions of political responsibility and society and by putting them more speedily to use. The intention is that these programmes should also serve to achieve one of the EU’s most important objectives, that being an increase in Europe’s potential for economic growth and its greater competitiveness, by means of investments in knowledge, innovation and human capital.

While the programmes differ from one another, they are not exclusive in character. It is expected that they will result in greater coherence and complementarity and in synergy effects with various promotional measures already in place, and that not only at Community level, but also within the Member States, third countries and as part of intergovernmental initiatives such as interventions by the Structural Funds, COST, EUREKA, etc.

At EU level, energy is one of the ten priority subject areas of the specific programme ‘Cooperation’⁽³⁾, which forms part of the Seventh Framework Programme.

The measures of the ‘Intelligent Energy – Europe’⁽⁴⁾programme are also directly funded from the Framework Programme for Competitiveness and Innovation.

As regards the specific points made in the question in relation to the EU’s energy requirements, the honourable Member is referred to the Council conclusions ‘An energy policy for Europe’ of 15 February 2007⁽⁵⁾, the adoption of an action plan arranged by priorities for an energy policy for Europe by the European Council at its meeting on 8/9 March 2007, and to the so-called energy package, which was adopted by the Commission on 10 January 2007⁽⁶⁾6.

In the wake of the unacceptable boycott of the Palestinian Authority decided by the Israeli government and the US administration following the January 2006 elections in Palestine, the EU too has suspended its financial aid. This boycott amounts to the de facto 'punishment' of the Palestinian people, contributing as it does to the further worsening of the already grave humanitarian situation facing the Palestinian people, while also destabilising the Palestinian public institutions, especially the civil service. It is hard to understand how as things stand the EU can propose, as conditions for re-establishing relations with the Palestinian Authority (financial aid included), a 'commitment to non-violence' (when it is Israel that is militarily occupying the Palestinian territories and oppressing the Palestinian people), 'the recognition of Israel' (when in reality Israel does not recognise the Palestinian people's right to an independent sovereign state), and 'respect for the prior agreements and obligations, including the Road Map' (when it is Israel that fails to comply with the UN resolutions, the Oslo agreements and the Road Map itself, and, among other unacceptable attitudes, is carrying on with building an illegal wall and with its policy of settlements in the Palestinian territories).

In view of the above, can the Council state when it intends to ensure the re-establishment in full of relations with and financial aid to the Palestinian Authority?

A UN report on the West Bank and Gaza Strip highlights the destitution into which the inhabitants of the region have fallen as a result of the hostilities and the boycott of the Palestinian Authority. According to data in the report, 46% of households are unable even to meet their food requirements, while the reason given for the risk of starvation to Palestinians is 'the economically restricted access to food owing to the prevailing political conditions'.

Does the Council intend to lift the ban on financial support for the Palestinian Authority and to call on the international community to lift the unacceptable boycott?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Members of the European Parliament, in their question, address the subject of support for the Palestinians.

The EU and its partners in the Middle East Quartet have congratulated the Palestinian people on their election process, which resulted in free, fair and secure elections to the Legislative Council on 25 January 2006. It was with the outcome of these elections in mind that the High Representative, Mr Solana, addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 5 April 2006, stressed that the EU had no fundamental interest in seeing the Hamas government fail. In its conclusions of 12 February 2007, the Council welcomed the agreement achieved in Mecca on 8 February on the formation of a Palestinian government of national unity. The EU is prepared to work together with a legitimate Palestinian Government that is united on a platform corresponding to the principles of the Quartet, those being the renunciation of violence, the recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and the acceptance of existing agreements and undertakings.

The EU also stressed its commitments to continuing to provide the aid needed in order to meet the basic needs of the Palestinian people, the total value of which amounted, in 2006, to in excess of EUR 650 million, and it also ensured that these efforts were made known to the Palestinian public.

The EU is continuing to work towards a negotiated solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict that will result in the existence of two democratic states coexisting with one another in peace and security. As before, the Council is willing to do everything in its power to help achieve this objective.

The Bologna process and the protocol signed at Bergen, Norway, concerning the recognition of degrees awarded for studies at European universities provided that the Member States should draw up a ‘list’ of the universities whose degrees are not recognised without other procedures. These lists have not yet been drawn up, which has resulted in a large number of petitions to the European Parliament, and citizens are concerned about the future of their children. Will the Council say what provision is being made at Community level and what measures the Member States should take to comply with European Union requirements? Does the Council intend to propose further measures on this subject?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the March 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As far as the Council is aware, there is no reference, either in the press communiqué given at the end of the 2005 conference in Bergen to which the honourable Member refers, or in the Bologna Process in general, to the compilation of some kind of ‘list’ of universities whose degrees are not recognised. The press communiqué did, however, contain a demand by the Ministers for the ratification of the Lisbon Agreement on degree recognition and a call on the participant countries not only to discuss the problems of recognition noted by the ENRIC/NARIC networks, but also to draw up national action plans for the improvement of the procedures relating to the recognition of academic degrees gained abroad.

The Council recalls that – with the exception of certain regulated professions – there are, under the present treaty, no EU-wide Community regulations prescribing the mutual recognition of degrees, although, according to Article 149 of the European Communities Treaty, one of the goals of Community activity is still the promotion of the recognition of academic degrees and periods of study, and, to this end, a network of information centres has been set up under the patronage of the Commission in order to offer information and advice on the nature and value of academic and professional qualifications gained in the Member States.

Finally, as regards the further actions to be taken in this area, the Council wishes to point out that it has already stated their general aspects in response to the Commission proposal on the establishment of a European qualifications framework and now expects Parliament to give its opinion on it. Although this framework is not binding, it is hoped that, once it is established, it will make a substantial contribution to promoting the recognition of the most diverse kinds of qualifications, irrespective of their level and of where in Europe they were acquired.

Does the Council have any intention to review the very rigorous rules that are in operation before Irish and European farmers can draw down their annual single farm payment?

Is the Council aware that the system of farm inspections without notice is causing a lot of aggravation among the farming communities, and, in particular, among small and medium-sized farmers?

(DE) This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor its Members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council is fully aware of the problems of implementing the rules on cross-compliance for farmers, including in Ireland. Ministers have already frequently raised this matter in the Council.

A review of the practical application of these provisions is a matter of priority for the Presidency which views this as part of a policy to promote reforms with a view to simplifying and reducing red tape.

The Council is expecting the Commission to submit a report on the application of the rules governing cross-compliance; it will discuss this report in depth and reach an agreement on conclusions.

The Council will duly examine any proposal on this matter made by the Commission.

Can the Council state what progress has been made to date in Europe in terms of implementing the Lisbon strategy and can the Council state what are the key stumbling blocks in the way before the Lisbon process is completed?

(DE) The following answer which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor its members, was not given orally during a Question Time to the Council during the European Parliament’s March 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council welcomed the Commission’s annual progress report of 12 December 2006 on the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment and widely shares its views. The Member States and the Commission have made an extremely promising start in implementing national reform programmes and the Community Lisbon Programme. In most Member States, however, there is undeniably scope for extending the measures, for example with regard to the long-term sustainability of public funding, labour market adaptability, R&D and innovation policy, developing the potential of companies, in particular SMUs, improving the efficiency of the energy markets and competition, particularly in the web and services sector. The Community Lisbon Programme is of particular importance at EU level in making Europe more competitive, together with measures seeking improved legislation, as indicated by the Council in its conclusions, including the ambitious objective of reducing the administrative expenditure incurred in implementing EU rules.

In general it is either not permitted or very expensive to change names on air tickets. As a result airlines make a lot of money on tickets which the consumer buys but for whatever reason is not able to use. By contrast international rail tickets, including Eurostar, do not require names and are therefore exchangeable.

Does the Commission feel the airlines should recognise this anomaly and make it much easier and cheaper to change names on tickets?

(FR) There are no specific rules on the subject in Community law or under international convention. The rule prohibiting the transfer of tickets from one person to another is a purely commercial practice introduced by most airlines. One reason for doing so was to prevent any occurrence of arbitrage, such as when a travel company buys seats at a low price a few months before travel takes place and then sells them on to consumers at a higher price just before departure.

It would appear that the practice also helps airlines to deal with all the passenger data they handle. Their task is facilitated by the fact that the data are known in advance, hence there is no need for them to be fed into the system manually at the last minute - something which might cause delays at check-in. Even though only a minority of passengers would be affected, the last-minute transfer of tickets would undoubtedly cause major problems in the case of flights using wide-bodied aircraft carrying several hundred passengers.

No airline is under any obligation to transfer tickets, although some do so under certain circumstances (even via the Internet) - for which service a small charge is often payable.

In these circumstances it is not clear how legislation covering this particular point would necessarily be to the advantage of consumers and the airline industry.

Passengers must be conversant with the conditions attached to the tickets which they purchase. In this connection the Commission is particularly concerned that the information offered to passengers should be as clear as possible and that the requirement for clarity should be laid down in EU law.

Belgium's regional governments are considering introducing a road-use vignette. This involves payment of a tax for use of the Belgian road network. Studies show that nearly 4 million foreign vehicles use Belgium's roads each year, while some 5 million cars are registered in Belgium. This means that non-residents of Belgium (mostly Europeans) would pay as much of this tax as residents of Belgium themselves.

Have Belgium's regional governments informed the Commission of the possible introduction of this vignette by about 2009? What is its view of the matter? Would not the unilateral introduction of such a system contravene the rules on the free movement of persons and goods, and would it not entail discrimination among EU citizens, as the introduction of the vignette would be accompanied by a reduction in road tax in Belgium?

(FR) The plan to introduce a road-use vignette in Belgium has not been brought to the attention of the Commission by the Belgian authorities. It is, therefore, not in a position to express an opinion at this stage about the measures intended.

If such a plan were referred to the Commission, it would carefully assess its compatibility with applicable Community law.

At present, there is not sufficient funding to implement all TEN-T projects, with the result that Member States are implementing national projects in preference to those of significance to Europe as a whole. In this way, the implementation of projects of European significance is being held up.

Priorities have been set by joint agreement among all EU Member States with a view to guaranteeing the functioning of all aspects of the free market throughout the EU. For that reason, particular attention should be paid to implementing TEN-T projects.

In view of the fact that TEN-T funding is much lower than expected, and given that the new EU Member States do not necessarily have the resources to contribute to the financing of priority TEN-T projects throughout Europe, how does the Commission envision the ongoing implementation of the 30 priority EU transport projects?

(FR) As the honourable Member has stressed, the funds available for the implementation of all the priority projects of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) are not sufficient, despite the fact that setting up the TEN-T is an essential factor in guaranteeing the functioning of all aspects of the internal market within the European Union.

In this context, the Commission feels obliged to concentrate the resources available under the TEN budget heading on those projects with very high European added value, that is, the cross-border sections and the bottlenecks, out of the 30 priority projects of the TEN-T.

New Member States will, moreover, be able to mobilise the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund under the ‘convergence’ objective, for the realisation of projects in the transport sector and, in particular the priority TEN-T projects.

Other innovative financial instruments will need to be considered for the implementation of the TEN projects. With the new Financial Regulation applicable to TEN, the mobilisation of the loan guarantee instrument of the European Investment Bank (EIB) will contribute to the emergence of public–private partnerships (PPP).

Following the EU enlargement in 2004, the Baltic Sea is mostly surrounded by EU Member States where the high level of economic activities of individual countries and the increasing importance of cooperation between EU Member States and neighbouring countries are creating a demand for a new quality of transport system services and new innovative solutions are required to streamline the movement of freight flows through the region.

What are recent EU transport policy priorities and trends in relation to the Baltic Sea region and Baltic countries in particular from the short-term and long-term perspective?

(FR) The economies of the countries in the Baltic region enjoy a higher growth rate compared with the average for the European Union. This results in an increased need for transport between the Baltic countries and the countries outside of this zone.

Among the 30 priority projects of the Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T) identified by Parliament and the Council in 2004, seven relate to the Baltic Sea region. Despite the limited possibilities afforded by the TEN budget (2007-2013), the new Member States should be able – thanks to access to regional funds and more particularly to the Cohesion Fund – to realise most of the priority projects within the prescribed time limits but also to modernise their rail and road networks as well as some of the ports and airports that are of regional or international importance.

Maritime transport plays an increasingly important role in the Baltic region; approximately 50% of external trade goes by sea. Investment in port infrastructure and in the hinterland must therefore receive special attention. Motorways of the sea are also an important factor. They have been identified in the Commission’s communication on the extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries as one of the five transnational axes that contribute most to promoting international exchanges, trade and traffic and that should make it possible to strengthen regional cooperation and integration in the longer term. The Northern axis is particularly relevant for the Baltic Sea region. It would connect Russia and Norway with the Northern and Baltic Member States.

As far as rail transport is concerned, the European Union’s political priorities include: opening up the rail markets of the countries concerned and developing interoperability between rail systems with different gauges.

The Commission is placing an increased emphasis on support for SMEs and recognises SMEs as the backbone of the European economy. We have seen an increasing number of initiatives to improve the financial and regulatory environment for SMEs and an increase in information on market access targeted at SMEs. However, the central element of these policies is the development of a more entrepreneurial culture in the EU. Approximately 60% of EU citizens have never considered starting a business and it is the fear of failure that is the main dissuading factor.

What concrete initiatives does the Commission have in place to bring about a change in attitude particularly amongst young people in the EU? How does the Commission assess the success of those initiatives to date? Does the Commission plan to increase cooperation with relevant authorities in the Member States to encourage entrepreneurship and the setting up of private businesses?

(EN) Efforts to promote and develop European entrepreneurship are at the heart of the Lisbon strategy. Enhancing the role of education in creating a more entrepreneurial culture is crucial if we want more Europeans to embark in promising business ventures and overcome fears linked to setting up a business, such as the fear of business failure. Consequently, entrepreneurship education both at the Community and the Member State level is amongst the Commission's Priorities identified by the Spring Council.

To foster entrepreneurial mindsets, entrepreneurship has to become an appealing opportunity for young people. Accordingly, the inclusion of entrepreneurship in national school curricula or the support of lifelong learning figure prominently on the growth and jobs strategy agenda. The 2006 Commission Communication on “Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning” clearly invites Member States to develop more systematic strategies, including helping the creation of student mini-companies.

The Commission proposal for a Recommendation on Key Competences, adopted on 9th November 2005, stresses the need to offer all young people the means to develop entrepreneurship and other key competences through initial education in the context of lifelong learning. The Commission’s role in the process of promoting this key competence is to foster cooperation and mobility in international projects and networks. The new Lifelong Learning Programme provides financial support for respective activities.

Also the European Youth Pact foresees measures to enhance and support young people's entrepreneurial skills. Specific actions in the Youth in Action programme target young people to develop their spirit and sense of initiative, enterprise and creativity.

Delivering on the Commission Communication “Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning”, the Conference on Entrepreneurship Education held in Oslo in October 2006 resulted in the “Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education” proposing new initiatives, like the creation of common platforms of programmes, projects and teaching material, in order to help dissemination of best practice. Cooperation between educational establishments and the local community and firms´ involvement in formal and non-formal education are other key issues. In addition, the Commission is exploring the feasibility of an Erasmus-type exchange programme for young and potential entrepreneurs.

Regarding progress in Member States, the picture shows a varied mix. Last December the Commission's Annual Progress Report on the Lisbon Strategy highlighted that some Member States set up a national strategy for promoting entrepreneurship education at all levels (Cyprus, Spain, Finland, Slovenia, United Kingdom). Others have more generic plans in this sense (Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta). But so far entrepreneurship is well established in the curricula only in Finland, Ireland, Poland and United Kingdom.

Commission's services co-operate with relevant authorities in the Member States to encourage entrepreneurship and to ease the setting up of businesses. The Modern SME Policy represents a new stages in the Commission policy to support entrepreneurship. For instance, the recently Commission-established network of "national start-up co-ordinators" should keep facilitating start-ups high up in the EU´s political agenda. Moreover, the Commission is focussing on the promotion of entrepreneurship via the audio-visual media and preparing actions to tackle stigma attached to failure.

In connection with the entry into force of the First Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and its Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, which includes measures to promote innovation at SMEs, the Commission has not yet made any mention of the possible establishment of a European system of innovation vouchers. These are subsidies from European authorities which SMEs which exploit technology can use to request innovative research from participating European research centres or knowledge institutions.

Can the Commission already provide some information about the setting-up of a possible European system of innovation vouchers and the role of national and regional authorities in it?

What role could the future European Institute of Technology play in organising such a European innovation voucher system?

(EN) As outlined by the Honourable Member, the Commission is indeed considering the possibility of a European Innovation Voucher System to support Small and Medium sized enterprises in enhancing their innovation capacities under the First Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme.

For a European Innovation Voucher System the Commission recognises the need to design actions which are complementary to Commission as well as national programmes and respect the subsidiarity principle.

The Commission has till date not given information as it is currently actively exploring the various possibilities of putting in place an Innovation voucher system.

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to inform the Honourable Member that under the 7th Framework Programme the establishment of an ‘Exploratory award’ scheme for SMEs is foreseen. These "Awards" will enable small and medium sized enterprises to explore possibilities of funding for their research projects via European and National Support programs. The ‘Exploratory Awards’ will be developed jointly with the Members states.

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that it is indeed deeply convinced that a European Innovation Voucher Systems can only be established with the active participation and strong contributions from regions and Member States.

With regard to the second part of the Honourable Member's question, the Commission can confirm that it does not see an active role of the European Institute of Technology in an European Innovation Voucher System or similar instruments providing small grants to SMEs for limited research and development tasks.

According to a programme of preventive checks carried out by the Organisation for Planning and Protection Against Earthquakes, more than 250 schools in Greece have been built without regard to earthquake regulations. Measures to reinforce buildings are described as urgent and some schools need to be demolished. To date, checks have been carried out on only 3.5% of the total number of public buildings.

Will the Commission examine the possibility of providing support for measures to carry out an overall inspection of buildings used by large numbers of people, in particular public buildings, in order to ensure that both public and private buildings are earthquake resistant, while intensifying efforts to inspect and, possibly, restore older buildings which do not comply with modern earthquake resistance standards, particularly in regions which are highly prone to earthquakes, such as Greece?

(EN) The Commission is fully aware of the problems and serious safety risks regarding the seismic resistance of buildings and works in several member states prone to extensive seismic activity as the Honourable Member of the Parliament has outlined with regard to the situation in Greece. The Commission agrees that there is a need of thoroughly assessing this risk in detail and of subsequently addressing deficiencies to ensure a high level of safety. However, it needs to be emphasised that the issues of safety of buildings and of related risk prevention fall under exclusive Member State competence.

Regarding support for measures to carry out inspection and refitting of buildings, the Commission does not administer funds that could be used for undertaking such tasks. However, the Commission has through a number of actions contributed towards advancing the technical ability to address safety issues through improved and wider seismic design. Notably, the Commission has been the driving force for the development of the so-called Eurocodes which are common European design codes for buildings and civil works. Among them Eurocode 8 is dealing with the design of structures for earthquake resistance.

In certain Member States there are companies whose internal rules set the age of retirement at 58, thereby deviating from national legislation. Does the Commission consider such a situation acceptable in view of the demographic problems now facing the European Union? Does it consider that this might endanger the sustainability of insurance schemes in the Member States concerned and what impact will it have on social security arrangements? How would the Commission advise Member States to respond to the situations arising from legal ‘early’ retirement at the age of 58?

(EN) According to the EC Treaty, social protection is the competence of the Member States. Therefore, the Commission does not interfere in the overall design of pension systems within EU. With respect to provision organised through contracts between employers and employees, the Commission has introduced legislation aimed at the good governance and sound management of these schemes. However it has no competence to intervene in the specific details of such arrangements.

This said, the Laeken European Council of December 2001 adopted broad common objectives for pension systems, towards which Member States should develop their reform strategies. These are: adequacy, financial sustainability and modernisation. In order to ensure financial sustainability, policies should include measures to promote higher employment of older workers and not to encourage early retirement. Moreover, the European Union has set explicit targets for working longer in the context of the Lisbon strategy: to increase the employment rate of older workers (aged 55-64) to 50%and to increase the effective age of exit from the labour market by 5 years by 2010. Longer working lives result in more contribution years and fewer benefit years, thus contributing directly to the adequacy and sustainability of pension systems. Pension systems are an important part of labour market institutions through the provision of benefits. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the incentive structure embedded in the pension system is supportive to employment. In particular, attention still needs to be paid in a number of Member States to paths of early exit (before the standard retirement age) from the labour market.

Furthermore discriminating against workers on the grounds of age is covered within Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation⁽¹⁾. This Directive prohibits unjustified forms of age discrimination in employment preventing disadvantaged age groups from participating fully in the labour market. The Directive prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and instructions to discriminate on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief in relation to:

access to employment, self-employment and occupation

access to vocational training and guidance

employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay

The Member States had until 2 December 2003 to transpose the requirements of the Directive into national law. With regard to age, the period of transposition could be extended by three years to 2 December 2006 for those Member States who needed the extra time in order to take account of particular conditions. Non-discrimination legislation is necessary to remove structural barriers to the employment of older people, and to ensure that they are not discriminated against in employment, for example in the provision of training. But not all differences of treatment will be unlawful, as they may be justified under national labour market policy and the attempt to increase the employment opportunities of older workers. According to Article 6 (2) of the Directive, Member States may provide that the fixing for occupational social security schemes of ages for admission or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits, including the fixing under those schemes of different ages for employees or groups or categories of employees, and the use, in the context of such schemes, of age criteria in actuarial calculations, does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of age, provided this does not result in discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Member States have agreed to work together in order to ensure the sustainability and adequacy of pensions across the EU. The Laeken European Council of December 2001 recognised that there could be significant benefits by enhancing dialogue and co-operation on issues related to the reform of pension systems. It endorsed a working method based on the open method of coordination. The latest report can be found at:

Will the Commission commit to an amendment to the Electromagnetic Fields Directive (2004/40/EC)⁽¹⁾, given consensus among leading scientific experts in this field on the damage this directive will inflict on the future development and provision of medical devices across the EU, in particular the consequence for clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is potentially disastrous?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the concerns expressed by some European medical associations on the potential impact of Directive 2004/40/EC on the use of medical procedures involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Member States have to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 30 April 2008 at the latest. In order to assess the implications for MRI of the exposure limit values imposed by the Directive and to identify problems, if any, in a quantitative and comprehensive way, the Commission has commissioned an independent study.

The first results of this study are expected to be available in the last quarter 2007 and will be jointly analysed by representatives of the Member States and Social Partners in the context of the Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work. The study will also take into account other sources of information, such as the results of a report from the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that is currently being produced.

In the light of these results, the Commission will inform the other Institutions of its assessment and propose, if necessary, any initiative to address the issue while ensuring that adequate levels of protection are preserved.

The numbers of refugees fleeing from Iraq to Europe have increased rapidly, and the situation in Iraq is only deteriorating. According to some experts on refugee movements, what is taking place now can only be classified as a mass flight. Of the just over 16 000 Iraqis who sought asylum in Europe between January and November last year, 45% came to Sweden. Every second asylum-seeker in Sweden is now an Iraqi. Nothing suggests that the numbers leaving Iraq are likely to be reduced: indeed, the opposite is more likely. What will the Commission do to encourage Member States to display greater solidarity in sharing responsibility for these people who are coming to Europe from Iraq?

(EN) The Commission is closely monitoring the evolution of the situation and is in constant contact with several International Organisations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Should the situation further deteriorate in the coming months, two measures could be contemplated.

First, the Commission will examine the situation in the light of the criteria of the Temporary Protection Directive,⁽¹⁾ in order to decide whether to submit to the Council a request to activate the temporary protection mechanism.

A Temporary Protection regime can be established by a Decision of the Council taken by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. The Commission may submit such a proposal on its own initiative if it is satisfied that the conditions set out in the Directive are met. It is also obliged to examine any request by a Member State that it submit such a proposal to the Council.

The establishment of a Temporary Protection regime for the Iraqi asylum seekers may offer them immediate protection while at the same time providing financial support for their actual reception as well as setting up modalities for an eventual re-distribution of asylum seekers amongst Member States.

Secondly, the Commission will explore, in close cooperation with UNHCR, the possibility for a coordinated effort by EU Member States to resettle refugees from the region. Such a resettlement effort could target particularly vulnerable categories of persons, such as women-at-risk and unaccompanied minors.

In 2006, € 10 million was allocated to support internally displaced persons via the United Nations. On 15 February 2007 a new announcement was made for more than € 10 million for humanitarian assistance.

In addition, the Commission is currently providing through the Aeneas programme € 1 million for actions implemented by UNHCR in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, which are the countries where the vast majority of Iraqi refugees is hosted, with the objective to enhance protection, to provide targeted emergency assistance to the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees and to prepare refugees for resettlement.

For 2007, € 1,5 million have been allocated under the Aeneas programme for projects aimed at enhancing, inter alia, protection capacities in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt. Projects are currently under selection.

Fighting cocks are part of the cultural heritage of northern France, and therefore of the European Union. They belong to a highly-respected species of fowl which is always bred in an aviary.

In order for them to take part in cock fights without the risk of contracting the H5N1 avian influenza virus they need to be systematically vaccinated against it.

In the Nord-Pas de Calais region of France there are between 60 000 and 80 000 fighting birds that need vaccinating

Does the Commission intend to accept the inclusion of these galliformes among the species that can be vaccinated, and therefore include them in the summary table of bird orders that can be vaccinated and in its vaccination programme?

(EN) Council Directive 2005/94/EC on the control of avian influenza allows Member States to implement preventive vaccination, based on national risk assessments.

The Commission has recently received a plan from France for the vaccination of non-commercial poultry and other birds kept in captivity in view of its approval. The plan includes birds of the order galliformes, however no specific reference is made to fighting cocks.

The plan was discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 6 February 2007 and several issues were raised that need to be further clarified by France. The Commission is currently waiting for a response from France.

The Commission does not intend to discourage Member States to apply vaccination against avian influenza. Vaccination protects against clinical signs of the disease while it does not fully protect against the infection. When vaccinated birds come in contact with the virus they may still become infected and contribute to virus spread.

Appropriate surveillance by clinical and laboratory investigations, tracing and controls of movements of vaccinated birds must therefore be put in place when vaccination is applied.

However, in case of disease outbreaks, gathering of either vaccinated or non-vaccinated birds must be forbidden.

In connection with a discussion in the Committee on Petitions (Petition No. 665/2006) on the need to protect property rights in the European Union and the western Balkans, will the Commission answer the following related question: Does it intend to protect the individual rights of European citizens and put an end to the illegal purchase and sale of land and immovable property in the occupied northern part of Cyprus where, according to judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey controls and has responsibility for the situation by virtue of the illegal presence of its army on the island? If so, which measures does it intend to take? Is Turkey, a candidate country for accession to the European Union, to be allowed to violate the individual rights of the citizens of one or more Member States of the EU?

(EN) The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to Protocol 10 to the Act of Accession 2003. According to Article 1 (1) of this Protocol the application of the acquis is suspended in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

The Commission supports any efforts leading rapidly to the resumption of full fledged talks under United Nations auspices aimed at finding a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. Such a settlement would bring about a solution to the property issues and the question of the presence of the Turkish army on the island.

In the framework of the accession negotiations the Commission monitors Turkey's compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria.

Why are details announced on the home page only three months before the new EU support programme period begins? Why is there no explicit reference to substantial changes? Why is the programme not translated into all the languages in time? Why is the closing date for applications not extended when there are such serious shortcomings?

(FR) The questions raised by the honourable Member refer to the launch of the ‘Youth in Action’ Programme.

The Commission was anxious to ensure that the Youth in Action Programme was launched effectively as soon as possible. In fact, from the application deadline date of 1 February 2007, hundreds of projects have been submitted for financing under the programme. From this point of view, the situation is distinctly more favourable than at the time of the launch of the previous programme in 2000.

That has been achieved in spite of the late adoption of the decision setting up the programme. It was adopted on 15 November 2006 and published in the Official Journal on 24 November and the basic instrument came into force on 14 December, the date on which the management priorities for 2007 could be decided after consultation with the programme’s Committee. These circumstances made it impossible to publish the programme guide very early in 2006, even if the Commission went ahead with this publication, subject to the adoption of the decision, before the programme effectively came into force.

The programme guide has been prepared in close consultation with the national agencies responsible for the implementation of the programme at national level and in consultation with other parties engaged in the programme. It did not seem desirable to refer to differences from the conditions for submission that applied under the previous programme, but rather to present a guide that was appropriate for the new programme. In this context, and in order to avoid any confusion, attention has not been drawn specifically to the differences between the two programmes in the programme guide. Various parties engaged in the programme, who act as information resources for the final beneficiaries, have, however, been made aware of these differences during the information sessions and have been able to pass on this information to potential beneficiaries who would have benefited from the previous programme.

The Commission has endeavoured to make the programme guide available to potential beneficiaries in all the Community languages as soon as possible, taking into account the time needed for drafting and translation of this document. This publication in all the languages was available on 17 January 2007, that is, two weeks before the first date for submitting requests for subsidy.

In spite of the late adoption of the decision setting up ‘Youth in Action’, the Commission wanted, in the interests of potential beneficiaries, proposals to be submitted by the first annual application deadline, which is 1 February. It is true that, considering the difficulties encountered (notably in the matter of translation), the wish to make the new programme available from the beginning of 2007, hence without any break in continuity with the programme that came to an end on 31 December 2006, gave rise to circumstances at the start that were sometimes less comfortable than if the start had been postponed. We should, however, note the following features of the ‘Youth in Action’ programme: the timetable for submission of projects under this programme, with five annual application deadlines, means that there is virtually a continuous call for proposals, a project that is not submitted for 1 February could be submitted for 1 April. Consequently, to offer applicants who were ready for the first date the possibility of submitting a project for 1 February was not prejudicial to other applicants. The Commission therefore considered that this approach was the one that offered the greatest flexibility to the beneficiaries of the programme.

In November 2006 the Commission launched an initiative to reduce the administrative burden on European business by 25% by 2012. In recent weeks the SME Union has met with the Commission to urge it to reduce statistical reporting requirements for SMEs over the next three years by 30% and to target the practice known as 'gold-plating' at national level.

Can the Commission explain its concrete plans and time-frame for implementing this urgently needed reform agenda?

(EN) Statistical legislation at EU level is very often concerned with output harmonisation, i.e. Member States are free to decide how to collect information. The Commission encourages Member States to do so while minimising the burden on respondents, e.g. through the use of administrative data. As a result, most of the very small enterprises are already excluded from statistical surveys. In some cases, a threshold is used in statistical Regulations to exclude small enterprises completely, e.g. there is a 20-employee threshold in the survey on industrial production (Prodcom) and in the annex on business services in the recast of the Structural Business Statistics.

To support Member States' endeavours to lower the burden on businesses, the Commission intends to launch a programme on the modernisation of enterprise and trade statistics (MEETS), through which support will be given to promote smarter ways of collecting data, such as (a) data linking, (b) estimations, (c) use of administrative data, (d) use of accounting data. The programme will run from 2008 to 2013.

As far as gold-plating is concerned, the Commission is aware of the fact that Member States' statistical surveys implementing EU legislation sometimes contain more questions than the EU legislation requires. In the context of the Better Regulation initiative⁽¹⁾, the Commission has already addressed this issue with Member States and will continue to make sure that any unnecessary burden is avoided.

There is concern in the Philippines that the country's economic partnership agreement with Japan (JPEPA) provides for Japan to dump its toxic waste in the Philippines. For a rich country to dump environmentally hazardous waste in a less rich country is surely a violation of international conventions on the export of hazardous waste (e.g. the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions).

Is action needed to enforce international conventions and to prevent the use of the Philippines as a hazardous waste dump?

(EN) The Commission is aware that Article 29 of the 2006 Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement imposes a zero preferential tariff rate on imports of certain waste materials from the entry into force of the Agreement (which requires a 2/3rds senate approval in Philippines). However, Philippines currently has national legislation (Republic Act No. 6969) prohibiting the entry of hazardous waste onto its territory, even for purposes of transit, and imposing tough criminal penalties in case of violation of this law. Moreover, both Japan and the Philippines are Parties to the Basel Convention, which while not prohibiting hazardous waste exports altogether, regulates such shipments through a system of prior notification and consent. Parties to the Convention may not export to Parties which explicitly prohibit such imports. Both countries are also Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, but it is important to note that while this Convention covers certain chemicals and pesticides, waste is excluded from its scope.

The effectiveness of these Conventions depends on States Parties not merely having adequate legislation but also proper monitoring and enforcement capacity to prevent illegal shipments of such hazardous wastes from entering their territory. A number of developing countries have been advocating for many years for stricter provisions in relation to exports of hazardous wastes to developing countries.

In 1995, the Conference of the Parties unanimously adopted an amendment to the Basel Convention, which bans hazardous waste exports for final disposal and recovery from Basel Convention parties that are EU and/or OECD⁽¹⁾ members to any other Party of the Convention (the so-called "Ban Amendment"). The threshold of ratifications needed for the amendment to come into force has not yet been reached, and the EU actively encourages States that have not yet done so to ratify it. To date, neither Japan nor Philippines have ratified the amendment.

The EU has for its part already fully implemented the Ban Amendment through its Waste Shipment Regulation, and is committed to pursuing global harmonisation in the area of transboundary shipments of waste.

Portuguese workers from the UK turkey producer at the centre of an outbreak of bird flu say they were not informed about the infection. It appears that Bernard Matthews's workers were not offered vaccinations to protect them against the virus until several days after the outbreak emerged. Along with this serious public health case, the workers fear for their jobs and their labour rights.

Following the growing worries regarding workers’ rights, and the constant rise of recruitment of workers from abroad by employers that recruit them directly from the home country and rely on agencies to do the same, or use other agencies that rely on workers from abroad already resident in Britain, and following several examples of disrespect of workers’ rights within the European Union, in areas where gang labour is commonly used, is the Commission working to guarantee that enforceable social and labour provisions are going to be taken in this case?

(EN) The specific obligations of employers as regards the protection of workers' health and safety against bird flu (such as risk avoidance, risk assessment, prevention and protection measures, training, information and workers’ consultation) are laid down in several Community directives⁽¹⁾.

In particular, individual Directive 2000/54 on the protection of workers against the risks arising from exposure to biological agents contains specific provisions on information and notification to the competent authority, hygiene and individual protection, information and training of workers, list of exposed workers and health surveillance, as well as special measures for industrial processes, laboratories and animal rooms. The full and accurate implementation of the national legislation transposing the Community Directives on health and safety at work is essential to ensure appropriate protection of workers. According to Article 4 of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that employers, workers and worker's representatives take the necessary steps for the implementation of this Directive. In particular, Member States shall ensure adequate controls and supervision. All prevention measures have to carry out a local risk assessment. The employer is responsible for this assessment and for establishing protective and preventive measures.

The Commission is of the opinion that the above mentioned Community legislation, if applied correctly, can help to protect workers' rights in case of an outbreak of bird flu like the one mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Can the Commission provide information on the prospects for integration of the neighbourhood policies concerning non-EU countries into its proposals for the development of the most remote regions?

(FR) As far as the European Neighbourhood policy is concerned, cooperation between regions along the external border of the Union is possible from 2007 thanks to the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)⁽¹⁾, which contains specific measures for cross-border cooperation. This instrument has an innovative approach, making joint operations easier between partners inside and outside the Union, with actions being implemented on an equal basis.

To this end, partners in the zones concerned are in the process of setting up 15 local cross-border cooperation programmes, covering the external (land or sea) frontiers of the Union. Therefore, the Canary Islands will be able to benefit from support for cross-border cooperation with the corresponding Moroccan regions. The budget, EUR 1.1 billion, comes from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the ENPI.

The programmes pursue four major objectives: promoting economic and social development; responding to common challenges, ensuring safe, effective management of borders, and supporting local cooperation between peoples. The partners in the programmes are free to choose local priorities within this framework.

The action of the Community, however, would not be complete without an intervention specifically designed to strengthen economic and social links between the outermost regions (OR) and the third countries bordering on these European regions, in particular the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. These actions are included in the Action Plan for ‘Grand Voisinage’. This Action Plan is not a separate financial instrument but a Commission Initiative whose goal is to better coordinate the Community’s efforts in Community policy as a whole, especially cohesion policy, development policy and common trade policy, in order to better integrate the outermost regions into the geographical zone to which they belong.

Since the Commission’s Communication on the outermost regions in 2004⁽²⁾, significant progress has been achieved in the implementation of this action plan:

Concerning trade aspects, the Commission has made progress in the negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreements and has regularly kept the outermost regions informed. The Commission has also, on several occasions, called upon the outermost regions to communicate their interests in relation to the negotiations in order to be able to include them, especially in the last phase of negotiation relating to access to markets. At the moment, only Spain has communicated its interests, and they are currently in the process of being examined by the Commission.

As regards the implementation of regional cooperation programmes and their link with the 10th European Development Fund (EDF), significant progress has been achieved in terms of taking into account the theme of cooperation between ACP countries and the outermost regions in the programming of the European Development Fund (EDF) and the European territorial cooperation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). In this way the work led by the Commission within the services and with Member States has resulted in progress towards programming that is better organised: the reservation of a financial envelope in the 10th EDF and the 2007/2013 ERDF allocated to this cooperation, common identification of priorities, indicative allocation of resources to this cooperation and joint preselection of projects, while respecting the mechanisms of programming, of management and of monitoring that are appropriate to each Fund.

In other Community policies, the Commission has likewise adopted proposals to support efforts towards regional integration of the outermost regions.

In the field of transport, the Commission has granted permission for aid to be given for the setting up of air transport services between the outermost regions and the neighbouring third countries. Furthermore, in its recent communication on the extension of trans- European transport networks to third countries, it proposes the inclusion of the outermost regions of the Iberian region in the extension of the motorways of the sea axis to the EU’s neighbouring countries.

Concerning research and development, the Seventh Framework Programme stresses the importance of cooperation between ACP countries and the outermost regions for the development of international cooperation activities under this programme.

Similar actions have also been taken in the field of fisheries, in particular, the setting up of Fisheries Consultative Councils.

Finally, as far as the specific question on immigration is concerned, the Commission is very concerned about the ever-increasing number of migrants attempting to reach EU territory by unauthorised means and, indeed, at risk of their lives. The treatment of the question of immigration in the outermost regions must be balanced.

The fight against illegal immigration must be accompanied by measures to integrate legal migrants. Indeed, the fight against illegal immigration must not harm the free circulation of legitimate foreign nationals from neighbouring third states because this free circulation is necessary for the economic integration of the outermost regions into their geographical zone and reduces their dependency in relation to the mainland.

Emergency measures taken in order to deal with certain situations such as those implemented in the Canary Islands must be accompanied by development policy in the countries of origin. The EU’s financial resources within the context of its Development Policy (EDF) and its Cohesion Policy (Structural Funds) may be used for this purpose.

On a recent visit to Djibouti, in recognition of Djibouti's contribution to regional stability and its role as a mediator, messenger and peace-maker, Commissioner Michel asked President Guelleh to step up political relations between Djibouti and the EU, which, among other things, is one the largest development aid donors. Although the Republic of Djibouti is of clear strategic importance in both regional and global terms, it has an authoritarian presidential regime. No more than a few days after the Commissioner's visit, a number of journalists and members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Renewal (MRD) were arbitrarily arrested, as reported by Reporters Without Borders, among others. The regime's treatment of opponents in Djibouti raises a number of questions, particularly in the light of the fact that parliamentary elections are to be held there in January 2008.

How does the Commission intend to go about ensuring long-term respect for human rights in Djibouti and, with this in mind, does it intend to organise – or to support the organisation of – a European election observation mission to the country in 2008?

(FR) The Commission has followed closely the political situation in the country and in particular the arrests of several journalists and representatives of the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Renewal (MRD). It has been pleased to learn that the people arrested have finally been acquitted, despite the fact that the Republic’s public prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision to release Mr Houssein Ahmed Farah, journalist for Djibouti Renewal and brother of the president of the MRD.

As the Commmissioner responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid has again stressed during his mission in the Horn of Africa, the Commission attaches particular importance to political dialogue as the framework within which issues as important as governance, right to opposition, reform and human rights should be discussed

Political dialogue between the Commission and the Djibouti authorities began in 2004. The country’s authorities participated actively and at the highest level in these meetings.

Despite the significant problems and challenges that remain, some progress has been made in the field of human rights and, more particularly, of social, economic and cultural rights. This is particularly marked in relation to the status of women, especially the efforts towards emancipation, education, information and advancement of women. Progress has been made in the field of the right to work, right to social security, right to health care, especially for AIDS and tuberculosis, and the right to participate in cultural life.

The Commission intends, of course, to pursue a constructive and frank political dialogue with the Djibouti authorities in order to support and encourage efforts regarding good political governance and human rights.

Concerning the organisation of a European observation mission for the legislative elections in 2008, this possibility could be explored as soon as the Djibouti Government requests it. The Commission, however, wishes to draw the honourable Member’s attention to the limited number of electoral observations that the EU can carry out in view of the resources available and the order of priority that it has to decide among the requests received.

Gerhard Schröder, the former Federal Chancellor of Germany, now chairman of the board of the company Nord Stream, has said on Swedish TV (SVT Rapport, 8 February 2007) that the Ministers in the Council had decided that Member States were obliged to facilitate and support the building of Trans-European energy networks (TENs). Mr Schröder's conclusion was that the proposed Russo-German gas pipeline in the Baltic had therefore been given the Council's blessing. The decision on Trans-European networks was taken at the Energy Council meeting on 17 June 2005. Commission document COM(2003)0742 final was the basis for the Council's decision on that occasion. Does the Commission consider that that Commission document lays down the route of the so-called North Transgas pipeline? Indeed, has any decision at all been taken on the route of this gas pipeline?

(EN) The Commission supports a policy aiming at diversification of gas supplies as well as diversification of routes. This is considered an important element to enhance security of gas supplies to the EU as well as an important contribution to a supply of energy to the EU. The proposed project would be a new supply route of particular importance to Germany, Denmark, United Kingdom, and other EU States.

The TEN-E Guidelines⁽¹⁾, adopted following the Commission's proposal have selected the North European Gas Pipeline as one of projects of European interest in the gas sector. The North European Gas Pipeline and Yamal II will provide for new inter-connections with Russia.

While the Commission supports new routes for gas supply it does not express its preference for a particular routing in this context.

Following the Tuareg rebellion in Mali on 23 May 2006, an agreement known as the Algiers Agreement was signed on 4 July 2006 by the Malian Government and the Democratic Alliance of 23 May for Change with a view to resolving the conflict.

The agreement provides for a Forum for Development in North Mali to be held in the Kidal region, with the Tuareg participating.

The Government of Mali plans to hold the forum next March, but without the participation of the Democratic Alliance of 23 May for Change.

Since the European Union has been asked by the State of Mali to assist with the organisation of the forum, what does the European Commission intend to do to ensure that the Tuareg take part in the forum and to initiate the development of the Kidal region?

(FR) The international community has always supported the negotiations undertaken by the authorities in order to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis in the Kidal region. In this respect, the Algiers Agreements make provision, after disarmament and demobilisation of the rebels, for a meeting to be organised to involve sponsors in the financing of development of the region, the Forum of Kidal.

Nonetheless, the implementation of the Agreements has encountered difficulties and the organisation of the Forum has already been postponed several times. It was only on 8 February that the Government announced that the Forum would be held on 23 March.

Diplomatic representatives from the Member States of the EU and of the Commission have received letters from the Democratic Alliance of 23 May for Change sent on 15 February and asking about the Alliance’s participation in the Forum. The Heads of the Diplomatic Mission of the Member States and of the Commission discussed this and contacted the Malian authorities to clarify this matter. A meeting took place in Algiers between the different Malian parties to clarify certain points in the Algiers Agreement and it appears that the Democratic Alliance of 23 May will take part in the Forum of Kidal.

Trade in registration services for generic domain names (e.g. those ending in .com, .net or .org) is controlled by an incorporated private industry body in the United States (ICANN) which also operates an office in Belgium.

ICANN sets minimum wholesale prices for domain name registration and awards the right to run Internet generic domain registries which offer services within the Single Market as well as globally. ICANN collects a levy on every generic domain name that is registered worldwide, including all such registrations for companies, organisations and consumers throughout the Member States and the European Economic Area.

ICANN has recently entered into a number of arrangements with other undertakings, including one with the largest domain name registry company (Verisign), to which ICANN has granted the exclusive right to the .com and .net name registries in return for a levy on the end to the consumer, which bears no relation to the cost of providing the service, and which levy has resulted in price hikes to European consumers.

Has the Commission received any complaints from European citizens or businesses, and, in any event, will the Commission investigate whether the arrangements between ICANN, Verisign, and European domain name registrar companies are subject to Art 81 and/or Art. 82 of the Treaties ?

(EN) The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information he has provided.

The Commission has also been contacted by undertakings raising concerns about the ".com" registry agreement entered into between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) and VeriSign.

At present, the information in the Commission's possession is not sufficient to allow it to conclude whether there are grounds to open an investigation relating to possible infringements of the EC competition rules.

Ideas and knowledge account for an increasingly large proportion of trade, including at international level. The value of the cultural goods and services placed on the market stems resides in the talent, inventiveness, creativeness and innovative capacities of their originators.

During the Doha Round, the WTO reduced, through the TRIPS Agreement, the disparities existing between various countries and established common international rules providing for a minimum level of protection for copyright. It struck a balance between the possible short-term costs for society and the long-term benefits deriving from public access to the works.

Discussions are currently in progress within the EU on the proposal for a directive on cross-border collective management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services and on respect for intellectual property rights. How does the Commission think the Doha Round negotiations in this area will affect its proposed reform? Does it believe that it will be possible to maintain the competitiveness of originating companies, the effectiveness of the services provided by collective rights managers and the competitiveness of user companies, particularly small right holders and users, and at the same time ensure creativity and cultural diversity?

(EN) The Commission currently has no plans to propose a Community Directive on the cross-border management of copyright and related rights in the music sector. Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services set forth a variety of policy choices on how the cross-border management for online services could evolve in a digital marketplace. This recommendation is concerned with how online rights are managed at Community level and would apply to all online services that are consumed in the European Union. The Commission's online policy strictly adheres to the principle of equal treatment of all authors and other right-holders that are protected under all relevant international conventions that either the Community or its Member States adhere to.

The Commission intends to assess the development of Europe's online music sector in the light of the aforementioned Recommendation. The Commission has invited all interested stakeholders to submit views and comments by 1 July 2007 on their initial experience with the Recommendation and, in general, on their views on how the online music sector has developed since its adoption.

The notion of EU support for Phase I of the 'Plan Colombia' - seen as a military initiative - was roundly rejected by the Council and the Commission, as well as by Parliament (on 1 February 2001, by 474 votes to 1).

This decision appears as the right one with hindsight: the Plan was a failure. In the words of Mr Alfredo Rangel, security expert and adviser to President Uribe (and a supporter of the Plan at the beginning), 'Today the drug trafficking problem is far greater than it was before the "Plan Colombia". Much more cocaine is being exported, and there is far more illegal cultivation across Colombia'. Mr Rangel states that when the Plan was launched drug production existed in four of Colombia's provinces, whereas now it is present 'in more than twenty'.

The US authorities have now announced that they will reduce their funding for Phase II of the 'Plan Colombia', and the Colombian government is making active diplomatic efforts to secure alternatives. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs Maria Consuelo Araújo, visited Brussels on 1 February 2007, followed on 8 February by the Minister of Defence, Mr Juan Manuel Santos.

Can the Commission tell Parliament whether it is intending to provide direct or indirect financing for Phase II of the 'Plan Colombia'?

(FR) The Commission does not envisage financing directly or indirectly Phase II of the ‘Plan Colombia’, just as it did not finance its first phase.

The cooperation that will be financed in the coming years from the Community budget is set out in the draft Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 which should be adopted by the Commission in the coming weeks.

The draft makes provision for a financial envelope of EUR160 million and defines three sectors of priority intervention:

1) Peace and stability, including alternative development: 70% of the budget;

2) Rule of Law, justice and human rights: 20% of the budget;

3) Productivity, competitiveness and trade: 10% of the budget.

In the context of the search for greater social cohesion in this country in conflict, the intention under sector 1 is to consolidate and extend the strategy developed by the Peace Laboratories with greater attention given to alternative development actions. This sector will also include actions in favour of displaced persons.

Sector 2 of the CSP (Country Strategy Paper) aims to continue with the work carried out in strengthening the legal institution and to improve on it by including for the first time a share in direct cooperation with the State in the area of human rights.

In the context of a globalised economy the objective of sector 3 is to strengthen the competitiveness of the Colombian economy.

In view of the outcome of the Six-Party Talks in Beijing, can the Commission detail how it sees the EU’s involvement in the process and whether a Troika visit will be considered?

(EN) The Commission considers that the outcome of the Six Party Talks in Beijing on 13 February 2007, including the establishment of Working Groups, is potentially an important and positive development towards resolving the nuclear and other issues with North Korea.

The EU has indicated that it will continue to consult with the Six to establish the best means by which the EU can assist the process.

An EU troika (regional directors’ level) was dispatched to Pyongyang from 6-8 March 2007.

Given the recent reports of bird flu cases in EU countries, especially the United Kingdom and Hungary, and bearing in mind Parliament’s resolutions on programmes to eradicate, control, and monitor specific animal diseases, relating to cases of bird flu in particular, can the Commission say what action it is taking to deal with this matter?

(EN) A very wide set of harmonised Community measures is in place in relation to avian influenza prevention, surveillance and control, and can be found on the website of Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO)⁽¹⁾.

These measures proved to be very effective last year, when the disease was introduced via wild birds in 14 Member States and also spread to poultry in five of them.

The measures in place have also enabled a very rapid and effective control of the recent outbreaks in two geese farms in Hungary and one turkey farm in the United Kingdom.

Those outbreaks were rapidly detected and eradicated without consequences on human health, thanks to the very effective actions undertaken by the competent authorities in the two Member States, which have worked in close cooperation with the Commission.

Adequate investigations have also been made to identify the origin of these outbreaks; however, these investigations have not yet led to conclusive results.

The Commission keeps under continuous review the measures in place and is ready to adapt them to take into account new scientific evidence and experience gained in disease prevention and control.

Recent reports from Water Aid show that, in the developing world, 1.1 billion lack access to clean water and 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation. This results in the death of as many as 5000 children a day. In addition, these deficits have societal and economic consequences. Young women are denied an education because they are tasked with fetching water and, as adults, women inevitably look after their sick children. The economy is also affected: in Africa, for example, an estimated 5% of GDP is lost to illnesses and deaths caused by dirty water and the absence of sanitation.

In the light of this, what plans does the Commission have to increase the targeting of aid to the sector on the poorest countries with the greatest need? When will the EC achieve 70% of aid targeted at low-income countries? Does the Commission plan to promote a Global Action Plan for Sanitation and Water signed up to by the international development community as recommended in the recent UNDP Human Development Report?

(EN) The European Commission delivers assistance to its development partners through the European Development Fund (EDF), which is for countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific who are signatories to the Cotonou Agreement, and from the General Commission Budget, which focuses on other regions of the world including the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, Caucuses and Central Asia (EECCA), Asia and Latin America. The European Development Fund is predominantly focussed on least developed and low income countries and these countries have been the beneficiaries of around 70% of commitments made in the water and sanitation sector under the EDF.

The EC’s activities in the water and sanitation sector are taking place and being prepared as part of the Country Strategies and National and Regional Indicative Programmes. These documents are elaborated in consultation with the partner countries and reflect the partner country national priorities.

Under the 9th EDF, which operates for the period 2002 to 2007, approximately € 475 million was allocated to water and sanitation in 16 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. In addition, a further € 500 million has been made available through the ACP-EU Water Facility to focus on delivery and leveraging of investment in water and sanitation services. Programming for the 10th EDF, which will operate for the period 2008 to 2013, is currently being completed and it is too early to quantify the overall level of allocations to water and sanitation. In addition, the EU-Africa Partnership on Infrastructure and its Trust Fund will support regional water programmes that contribute to sustainable economic growth, promote regional trade, foster regional integration and reduce poverty. The water component of the Partnership is intended to cover sustainable use of regional water resources and improved water resources management at river and groundwater basin, national and transboundary levels.

A global action plan for sanitation and water, as a framework of policy actions and to mobilise financing, is promoted in the UNDP⁽¹⁾ Human Development Report published in November 2006. It is also being promoted through the recently launched Non-Governmental Organisations (Water Aid, Tear Fund & Streams of Knowledge) campaign "End Water Poverty". The EC has welcomed the UNDP 2006 Human Development Report and the renewed attention it brings to the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene for human development. The EU Water Initiative is a concerted effort of the European Commission, the EU Member States, partner countries and other stakeholders including civil society organisations, the private sector, local government organisations to work together and with other interested bilateral and multilateral donors to contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The EU Water Initiative is noted in the EU Consensus on Development as contributing towards our policy objectives in water and sanitation, and in the EU Strategy for Africa.

Epirus is one of the poorest regions of the EU; it has no rail network, no motorways or airports. What specific appropriations have been granted to date via the 3rd CSF to the prefectures of Thesprotia, Preveza, Ioannina and Arta and what is the take-up rate of those appropriations for each of those four prefectures?

(EN) On the issue of Community assistance for the four prefectures of Epirus, the Commission would like to emphasise that the prefecture is not an administrative level which plays a role in the programming of Community support. Community assistance is programmed at national and regional level. Its allocation and implementation at lower administrative levels is the responsibility of the Member State, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. Therefore the Commission does not dispose of details on the programming or absorption of Community assistance at the level of Greek prefectures.

As concerns the Epirus region as a whole, it benefits first and foremost from the regional operational programme "Epirus", with a total budget of € 625 million, of which € 450 million in Community assistance. By mid February 2007, € 356 million in expenditure had been realised, which is equal to an absorption rate of 57%. This is close to the average absorption rate of 59% for Greece as a whole. As the Commission has stated at previous occasions, this level of absorption represents a clear improvement with respect to the situation of two-three years ago, for Greece as a whole and for Epirus. Nevertheless, a further significant acceleration of the implementation of co-financed projects is necessary to diminish the risk of loss of Community funds between now and the end of 2008.

The Epirus region also benefits substantially from Community assistance programmed at national level, for instance through the national operational programme for the highways. This programme currently co-finances important sections of the Egnatia highway in Epirus, which links the region to the rest of northern and eastern Greece. The programmes of the 2007-2013 period are planned to co-finance the Ionian highway, which will link the Epirus region to western and southern Greece, as well as a capacity increase of the airport at Ioannina.

Last but not least, Epirus benefits from Community assistance allocated under the Cohesion Fund. This Fund currently co-finances the extension of the port of Igoumenitsa, projects to construct or improve water and waste water treatment systems in Ioannina, Preveza, Igoumenitsa, Parga and Arta, as well as a project for solid waste management in various parts of the region.

From the Commission's answer to my question H-1083/06⁽¹⁾ it appears that anyone asking for the opening of independent quotas has to do so on the supposition that no tuna steak is produced on the EU or in the ACP or GSP countries. Is this the case with those who have asked for the opening of new increased quotas for tuna steak?

Is the Commission aware of the contradiction existing between the fact that imports of canned tuna (heading 16-04) from third countries are subject to a tariff of 24%, whereas tuna steak (which also falls under heading 16-04) is, via the quotas, entering the EU at a lower tariff of 6%? Since both products come under the same chapter, would it not make more sense to treat both in the same way?

Does the Commission realise that, even though tuna steak is prepared from the same raw material, caught by, among others, the EU fleet and those of the ACP and GSP countries (amounting to more than 500 000 tonnes all told), the opening of quotas such as that proposed for 2007 means that vessel owners in the Community are having to accept prices for frozen tuna that are the same as those of 15 years ago?

(EN) The Commission does not share or accept the view that autonomous tariff quotas can only be opened if there is no production either within the EU or within the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) or the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) countries. In fact the trigger for the opening or the increase of autonomous tariff quotas can be a serious supply problem for the European processing industry and/or the need to guarantee equal access to raw material for all Member States concerned.

As a matter of principle duty rates for canned tuna and tuna loins are established at the same level of 24%. Only in the particular case where tuna loins are destined for further processing does the autonomous tariff quota regime provide for a very limited quantity of tuna loins to be imported with a reduced duty rate of 6%. The scope of this measure is to make available supplementary raw material which can not be provided solely by Community catches and from GSP+ or ACP countries.

It should be noted that most of the traditional suppliers of tuna loins for processing benefit from preferential regimes. Around 80% derive from GSP+ countries and around another 5% from ACP countries. Tuna loins from both of these blocs being imported into the EU at 0% duty. The autonomous tariff quota at 6% is therefore only applicable to 15% of the relevant imports. Since import data have shown a significant increase of prices in the course of the years 2004 to 2006, the Commission is not of the view that the opening of an autonomous tariff quota will have a negative effect on prices of tuna loins for processing.

The Commission recently underscored its firm commitment to combating climate change by proposing legislation to bring greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The draft directive is currently under discussion, but will only come into effect in 2011.

The Commission's stakeholder consultation on this subject made clear that en-route charges on aircraft emissions and impacts are regarded as the second most effective instrument in reducing the impact of the aviation sector on climate change.

While airlines and airport operators might be afraid of a compulsory system (since this will increase prices for passengers), a system based on voluntary contributions would remove this concern. Such a voluntary contribution would amount to no more than 2 to 5% of the ticket price. The revenues from such contributions are invested in afforestation or renewable energy projects in developing countries.

Would the Commission consider joining a voluntary system to include a compensation option in ticket booking procedures, so that Commissioners and EC officials can take their responsibility and compensate the emissions related to their flights?

(EN) The Commission believes that it is important that measures are introduced to address the greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation and that its proposal to include civil aviation in the emissions trading scheme is the most cost-effective way of achieving this. The concept of replacing this with a voluntary system is not an option that the Commission considers to be effective.

The question of off-setting emissions from international travel and other operational activities of the Commission is currently under examination. This could potentially involve either purchasing credits under the emissions trading scheme or investing in clean development mechanism projects which can provide reliable assurances as to CO2 reduction achievements.

In reply to Written Questions P-4666/06, P-5186/06 and P-5449/06, the Commission states that action has been taken by the Italian authorities against the cartel-like conduct of mobile telecommunications operators who set high charges for topping up prepaid mobile telephone cards.

Can the Commission indicate the progress and the outcome of this action to date?

(EN) The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that on 25 January 2007 the Italian Ministry of Economic Development adopted a decree that abolished top up costs for mobile telephones⁽¹⁾ in Italy.

The European IT industry is being penalised by excessive demands for the payment of unjustified royalties. In 2005, the Commission concluded that the 2001 legislation on copyright needed to be reformed. In September 2006, it announced a 10-point programme to foster innovation as a main asset of the EU economy. At the same time, it declared copyright levy reform to be the first important key factor in raising the EU’s competitiveness with a view to increasing the transparency and effectiveness of the rules on the collection and redistribution of fees in the EU. In January of this year, the Commission decided to postpone the reform indefinitely without giving a reason. This has caused concern throughout the whole information-communication sector. Why has the Commission decided to delay copyright levy reform, and when does it intend to return to the matter?

(EN) The Commission will closely monitor future developments with respect to levy systems that operate at national level to compensate right-holder for any harm that results from consumers copying protected works for private use. The Commission will also continue to evaluate how levies interact with digital services and the information technology sector in general.

According to the Commission’s final report on retail banking transactions, there are varying practices among the Member States in regard to current accounts and related services which obstruct competition and adversely affect consumers.

What data does the Commission have available, particularly in relation to Greece, concerning the charges for transnational card transactions, the high commissions in respect of payment cards, cooperation among banks of an anti-competitive nature, and methods of ‘tying’ customers to particular credit institutions? What specific measures does the Commission consider should be taken in the case of Greece and how can Greek consumers be protected and claim their money back if the above charges are considered to be abusive?

(EN) In June 2005 the Commission launched a sector inquiry in the field of retail banking services. The first interim report⁽¹⁾ on payment cards was published on 12 April 2006. A second interim report⁽²⁾ was published on 17 July 2006, discussing inter alia competition in current accounts and related services. After taking into account the findings of the two interim reports and comments from all stakeholders, on 31 January 2007 the Commission published a final report and assessed in a communication⁽³⁾ the appropriate actions that could be taken on the basis of the report’s findings.

The Sector Inquiry found that some aspects of cooperation among banks, including savings and cooperative banks, could reduce competition and deter market entry. However, this subject requires further information gathering and analysis before conclusions on the situations in particular Member States can be drawn.

The sector inquiry assessed the extent of product tying in the member states, and found tying to be more common in Greece than the EU average for most products.⁽⁴⁾ For example, 69% of Greek banks (weighted average) tie current accounts to mortgages, well above the EU average of 39%. Nonetheless, seven other countries are shown to have an even higher incidence of this practice.

Finally, the sector inquiry found that the prices charged for making a non-cash payment in Greece are the highest in Europe. The Commission has already indicated this situation in several previous answers to questions of Members of the Parliament⁽⁵⁾.

The evidence gathered by the sector inquiry shows an average price of € 10 per credit transfer, which is more than 10 times the average price in the Euro-area. At the same time, statistics show that Greece is the country with the lowest number of non-cash payments per capita. There is likely to be a link between the low usage of non-cash payment instruments, the very high prices paid by Greek consumers and the level of competition in the payment market.

The Commission intends to follow up these issues. As a first step, the Commission will discuss with the Greek competition authority how best to follow up the findings of the sectoral inquiry concerning Greece.

On 29 March 2005, following decisions No. 1043 of 30 December 2004, No. 88 of 11 February 2005 and No. 190 of 15 March 2005 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria, a contract was concluded between the Bulgarian state and the Portuguese-Bulgarian company Trakia motorway JSC concerning the Trakia motorway concession.

Does the Commission share the view that the concession contract in question was concluded without any tender or competition procedure, in the absence of any transparency whatsoever, contrary to Chapter 3 on transport of the Accession Treaty of the Republic of Bulgaria, given that the Trakia motorway is going to be constructed with EU's financial resources, and with explicit and implicit state guarantees, and also contrary to the Lisbon Strategy with respect to the abolition of the toll system and the introduction of an electronic eurovignette system?

(FR) As the honourable Member has pointed out, the concession for the Trakia motorway was awarded without any call for competition. Nevertheless, the matter in question arose prior to accession, and is therefore subject to national law only and occurred while Bulgarian law in this respect was still not in line with the acquis communautaire. This circumstance was pointed out by the Commission, which impressed upon the Bulgarian authorities how regrettable this was. The Commission’s action was, however, limited, above all because pre-accession funds were not at stake in the financing of the project.

This point was clearly established at an ad hoc bilateral technical meeting on 27 January 2005 as well as at the meeting of the Association Committee on 15 June 2005. A technical solution was agreed upon that was acceptable in terms of Community transport law and, in particular, for the application of measures relating to tolls and rights of use under Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 June 1999, in relation to the taxation of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. In reply to the honourable Member’s specific question, compatibility with Community law imposes respect for certain principles in calculating toll charges and makes provision for interoperability of electronic systems for the collection of tolls. On the other hand, it does not insist upon tolls being put in place or removed or being replaced by electronic vignettes.

The legal qualification of the State guarantees for the project rest also in Article 65 of the European Association Agreement relating to competition and public aid. This question has been the subject of detailed discussions between the European Commission services and the Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, which ultimately ruled on 3 May 2005 that, subject to certain conditions, the concession contract awarded to Trakia Motorway JSC included no element of State aid.

Finally, this matter has revealed the necessity for a thorough reform of Bulgarian law in this respect to bring it into compliance with the acquis communautaire. To this end a new law on concessions (SG No. 36/2.05.2006) has been prepared with the help of the Commission services. It came into force on 1 July 2006 and will not allow a contract to be awarded under the conditions that the honourable Member has so deplored.

For reasons previously explained, it must be stressed that, with regard to the different problems presented by this project, the Commission has always intervened only in a consultative capacity.

In all cases, projects cofinanced by Structural Funds or by the Cohesion Fund since Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union are conditional upon respect for Community law and for all other applicable national legislation brought into compliance if necessary with Community law. The project in question is not financed by Structural Funds nor by the Cohesion Fund and the Bulgarian authorities did not submit the project for such financing.

In October 2006, the Commission introduced provisional anti-dumping duties on Chinese frozen strawberries, in the light of the dumping prices applied by China and the fact that Polish producers meet 60% of the European processing industry's needs. It is widely reported that the duties will not be extended, which will result in the collapse of many Union producers, particularly in Poland, causing the Union to become dependent on frozen strawberries from China and Morocco. These fears have caused concern among Polish strawberry producers and processors. On 18 February this year, a protest call was issued and an organising committee appointed. The protest action will take place in Poland and the European Union. In the light of this situation, is the Commission aware of the danger posed by any further failure to heed the threats facing Polish and European farmers?

(EN) Provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of frozen strawberries from China were imposed by the Commission in October 2006. The question of whether provisional measures should now be confirmed is the subject of careful assessment. During this assessment, the Commission is required to take full account of the interests of all stakeholders, including the situation of the producers, processors and end-users of frozen strawberries in Poland and in the European Union. In particular, it must be determined whether definitive anti-dumping measures would or would not be in the overall Community interest.

The outcome must be decided no later than 19 April 2007. The Commission cannot, at this stage, comment on any final position it will take in this case.

When will a final decision be taken on the location of the European Institute of Technology? Will it be based in several places, each enjoying the same status? Is it likely that one of these places will be Wrocław?

(EN) The Commission's proposal for a Regulation to create a European Institute of Technology (EIT) is currently under discussion in the Council and the Parliament. The decision concerning the location of the headquarters of the EIT, consisting of the Governing Board and its support staff, is expected to be taken once the Regulation is adopted and the EIT is formally established.

The remarks concerning the Via Baltica motorway made by Commissioner Stavros Dimas in 'New Europe' (issue No 718 of 25 February) are arousing public concern in Poland.

Any plans to build motorways, waste tips, recycling plants or reservoirs in Poland generate protests, especially when work on their construction is about to begin.

Commissioner Dimas' remarks are an embarrassing interference in Poland's internal affairs and will hamper the building of roads and other infrastructures important for improving transport in Poland,. which is a country of transit between eastern and western Europe.

The Commission's stance on road investment needs to be clearly spelled out.

What will the Commission do to ensure there is no further interference on the part of the European Union in the building of roads and other infrastructures in Poland?

With reference to the Polish Government's adoption of a plan to build a ring road by-passing the city of Augustow, despite doubts concerning its compatibility with EU law, in particular the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC⁽¹⁾) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC⁽²⁾), will the Commission say what its position is on this matter and whether it intends to bring proceedings against Poland before the European Court of Justice, if it is found that Union law has been infringed?

(EN) The Commission has a fundamental obligation to ensure that EC law is complied with by the Member States. Poland by its Act of Accession has accepted the basic rules of law governing the EU and its acquis communautaire. Poland – as any other Member State – is obliged therefore to conform to EC law. The Habitats and Birds Directives form an integral part of the EC environmental law and need to be complied with.

When a Member State breaches the law, the Commission reserves the right to take any action it considers appropriate and necessary in accordance with the powers granted to it under the EC Treaty. The Commission would welcome those actions undertaken by the Member States to ensure full compliance with EC law.

The Commission strongly supports the upgrading of infrastructure being part of the Trans-European Transport Network which comprises also road infrastructure in Poland, including along the Helsinki-Warsaw road corridor in the North-Eastern part of the country. The Commission believes however, that a sustainable approach must be achieved in order to find the right balance between the transport needs and the protection of precious natural heritage in conformity with the relevant EU legislation.

As regards the motorway project of Rospuda Valley, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Poland on 1 March 2007. Poland has one week to respond. The Commission will then need to evaluate that response.

At this stage, and until the Commission has received and evaluated the Polish response, it is thus premature to consider the subsequent course of action. However, the Commission has already made it clear that it considers the matter as important and urgent and it will continue to take these factors into account.

The judgment handed down by the Court of Justice on 23 November 2006 in the case of Lidl Italia has the effect of bringing about a deterioration in the situation of many retail traders who, with their SMEs, may in future be held liable for the accuracy of the compulsory information on labels, although in practice they cannot possibly check it. This could considerably increase the administrative burden involved in enforcing Community law. It also runs counter to the initiatives of DG Enterprise (Better Law-making, cutting red tape). The other consequences are the creation of barriers to trade and a reduction in consumer protection.

Is the Commission aware of the problems arising from this judgment, and will it, in particular, take advantage of the revision of Directive 2000/13/EC⁽¹⁾ which is currently under way to lay down exactly who is responsible for the inclusion and accuracy of the information which appears on the label of a prepackaged food product?

(FR) The ‘Lidl Italia’ case is about the question of traders’ liability in the food sector. The Court ruled that Directive 2000/13 does not prevent a national regulation from stipulating that responsibility for failing to respect the labelling obligations laid down in the said Directive rests with all operators in the food chain including distributors. In this case, it is Italian law that made provision for such a liability and fixed the system of penalties in the event of any infringement.

The Commission is examining the legal implications of this judgment in the context of the revision of labelling legislation.

In practice, as far as liability is concerned, one must not forget that interaction between producers, manufacturers and distributors is becoming more and more complex. Thus, for example, very often primary producers are tied to manufacturers and distributors by contractual obligations that require compliance with standards in relation to quality or safety.

More and more distributors are offering products prepared under their own brand and they play a key role in various stages of the design of the products.

This situation results in greater joint liability for the various operators throughout the food chain, which is in contrast with the individual responsibilities in the past.

In any case, the exercise that is under way with a view to revising Community legislation in relation to labelling will provide an opportunity to study this question and to evaluate the potential necessity for harmonisation at Community level in order to avoid the inherent drawbacks of divergence between national legislations with regard to liability.

Can the Commission state whether it is running drugs awareness programmes in Europe and, if so, how a voluntary group goes about securing funding for the running of such drugs awareness programmes?

(EN) For the moment, the Commission is not running drugs awareness programmes in Europe. However, the Commission is financing drug prevention projects through programme on Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008). The Commission has also presented a proposal for a Decision of the Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme "Drugs prevention and information" as part of the General programme "Fundamental Rights and Justice". The proposal is currently under discussion in the Parliament and Council.

Voluntary groups may apply for funding for drug awareness programmes under these programmes provided that their project has EU added value. Community action in the field of public health, including drug prevention, complements the actions of the Member States and therefore most drug awareness programmes receive financing from national, regional or local sources.

Can the Commission state how much money in total will be given to Ireland, both North and South, under the provisions of the Interrreg programme 2007-2013, and can the Commission state how this money will be spent?

(EN) In line with the new regulations for Cohesion Policy for 2007-2013, the Commission adopted on 4 August 2006 decisions establishing the list of eligible regions and fixing the annual breakdown by Member State of commitment appropriations for 2007-2013 for the three objectives of cohesion policy. In this context, the Commission also determined the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocations for the European Territorial Co-operation Objective (which will replace the INTERREG Community Initiative in 2007-2013) by Member State with separate amounts for cross-border and transnational co-operation. It is however for the Member States to decide on the allocations to the individual cross-border and transnational programmes in which they will be involved.

Ireland will participate in two cross-border programmes: one with Wales (allocation from the ERDF is EUR 53m) and one with Northern Ireland and Scotland (€ 192 million). Both Ireland and Northern Ireland will also be involved in the Northern Periphery (€ 35 million), Atlantic Space (€ 104 million) and North-West Europe (c. € 350 million) transnational co-operation programmes. In addition, the PEACE programme will operate within the framework of the territorial co-operation objective for the first time, with an allocation from the ERDF of € 225 million.

The Ireland-Wales programme was officially submitted to the Commission on 6 March 2007. The Commission is awaiting the formal submission of the other programmes mentioned in the spring of this year.

Given that no programme involving Ireland and Northern Ireland has yet been adopted, and only one has been formally presented, it is not possible to specify precisely how the funding will be used. However, by looking at the on-going public consultation exercise for the Ireland/Northern Ireland/Scotland programme, it is clear that the programme partners intend to focus their financing on issues such as regional co-operation for enterprise, tourism, co-operation for development and cross-border infrastructure.

Can the Commission produce any studies which show that introducing a common corporate tax base in Europe will actually help to improve the competitiveness of the European economy?

Is it not the case that a 'one-fits-all solution' will not solve the structural difficulties that exist within many parts of the European economy at this time?

(EN) A number of studies have been carried out the over last few years on company taxation and the European economy. A few of the more relevant ones are mentioned below.

The Commission itself published a major study prepared by its staff, assisted by two panels of experts from academia and the business sector and social partners in 2001⁽¹⁾. This study, inter alia, identified a number of tax obstacles to the efficient working of the Internal Market. As a result of these obstacles the costs of doing business and investing cross border within the EU are higher than for the equivalent national activities. This leads to less competitiveness in the EU. In order to promote investment, growth and employment the Commission subsequently concluded that the best way to remove these obstacles is to work towards the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB).

In 2004 a further study was published by the Commission on tax compliance costs⁽²⁾ which found that tax compliance costs arising from cross border operations are significantly above those arising from purely national operations. The provision of the CCCTB, reducing the number of potentially applicable national sets of tax rules from twenty seven to one, is expected to reduce these costs which currently have a damaging effect on the competitiveness of the European economy.

At the academic level, a number of studies on these issues have been carried out in recent years⁽³⁾. These studies simulate the growth, employment and welfare effects of different tax coordination policies in the field of corporate taxation (normally within an applied general equilibrium framework). These studies show that the gains from increased coordination in the corporate tax field at the EU level, of which the CCCTB is an example, depend on the details of the policy. But in general, an overall welfare gain from 0.18% to 0.94% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated. No study has simulated so far the economic effects of the specific details of the CCCTB proposal based on assumptions such as its optionality for firms, consolidation together with an apportionment mechanism, no harmonization of tax rates, etc as the preparatory work is not yet completed. However the Commission will prepare a full Impact Assessment to accompany the legislative proposal which will cover these areas.

Whether a 'one fits all solution' would solve the structural difficulties of the European economy or not is open to debate. However, in the context of the question, which relates to the CCCTB, it is clear that the CCCTB is not a 'one fits all solution'. The Commission plans to propose this as an optional measure for companies, not a compulsory measure. More fundamentally, the CCCTB concerns only the tax base. The tax rate would remain a matter for individual Member States. The Commission consistently and carefully avoids promoting a 'one fits all solution' as regards company taxation as is further illustrated in the recent Coordination Communications⁽⁴⁾.

The recent Commission communication (COM(2007)0013 fin.) gives notice of a new round of reactionary measures to the detriment of workers and pensioners. With a view to boosting the role and profits of the monopoly concerns which operate in the pensions, health and welfare sectors and on the pretext of the ageing of the population and the viability of pension schemes, it is proposed to extend flexible forms of employment, worsen social security, raise the retirement age, and drastically reduce pensions in the health and welfare sector. Workers and pensioners are radically opposed to these options.

Does the Commission consider that raising the retirement age and further privatisation of the pensions, health and welfare sectors improve workers' standard of living? In the Commission's view, what steps should be taken to ensure that pensions and, more generally, social benefits enable all pensioners to lead a dignified life?

(EN) The European Union is committed to modernising the European social model based on the shared values of social justice and active participation of all citizens in economic and social life.

The Council adopted the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion on 22 February 2007 on the basis of the Commission Communication⁽¹⁾. The report summarises the conclusions of the first round of the streamlined open method of coordination, covering social inclusion, pensions, healthcare and long term care. As mentioned in the report, a detailed analysis of pension provision was carried out in the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion of 2006 and its annexes⁽²⁾.

The 2006 report underlines that there has been a sharp increase in life expectancy over the last 40 years (an increase of 4 years between 1960 and 2000, and a further increase of 4 years projected until 2050) coupled with earlier exits from the labour market (average exit age is currently below its level in the late 1960s). As a result, the number of years of contributions to social security systems has decreased whilst the years spent in retirement and in receipt of old age benefits have increased, placing increased pressure on the financing of pension systems.

Member States have recently undertaken significant reforms of their pension systems to respond to the consequences of an ageing population and of the baby-boomer generation reaching retirement. These reforms aim to ensure the financial sustainability of social security systems. The Commission is of the opinion that such reforms should not undermine the provision of decent income for retired people. According to the Commission, the most effective way of ensuring both the sustainability and adequacy of pension systems is to ensure that more people are in work and that they work longer. As part of the Lisbon Strategy, the Union has set the objective of increasing the employment rate of older workers (55-64) to 50% and of increasing by 5 years the effective age of exit from the labour. Pension systems should therefore support employment and discourage early retirement. Similarly, it is essential to open up employment opportunities for older workers through appropriate labour market reforms.

The 2006 report also underlines that the public pay-as-you-go pension schemes are expected to remain the main source of income for pensioners. The trend towards a broader use of privately managed pension provision does not mean that the State should withdraw from this area. Public authorities should play a key-role in monitoring and regulating private pension provision.

In line with established custom, northern Portugal's sardine seine fishermen began a biological pause of approximately two months (for some 50% of the fleet in February and March and for the rest in March and April).

The objective of this pause is to protect the stocks of sardine, which represent a major fishery resource for the region, during the time of year when conditions are most suitable.

In view of the existence of a common fisheries policy, the objective of the social and economic development of the fisheries sector, and the need to preserve fish stocks, it is clearly vital to protect fishermen's incomes during the pause.

What measures can or will the Commission take with a view to ensuring the protection of fishermen's incomes over this period?

(EN) The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) provides for the granting of compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels for temporary cessation of activities, under specific circumstances.

The Member States can grant aid, with Community co-financing, in the event of non-foreseeable circumstances, particularly those caused by biological factors. The management authority has to provide in advance to the Commission the scientific basis of its proposal.

In this case, the maximum duration for granting the allowance is six months over the whole of the period 2000-2006. Also for each Member State, the ceiling for the Community financial contribution from the FIFG to these compensation measures, for the entire period from 2000 to 2006, is € one million or 4% of the Community financial assistance allocated to the sector in the Member State concerned. The Community financial contribution may not exceed the higher of these two amounts.

For the 2007-2013 period for which a new Portuguese operational programme will be adopted during the year 2007, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides for the financing of aid measures for the temporary cessation of fishing activities for fishers and owners of vessels, but this has mainly to be within the context of fishing effort adjustment plans. The Portuguese authorities responsible for the management of the sector must guarantee compliance with the provisions of the EFF Regulation before granting assistance.