Can the Council outline the likely timeframe that it intends to pursue to conclude the negotiations concerning the next EU Financial Perspective 2014 - 2021?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Given that the current financial framework covers the period 2007 until 2013, the three institutions agreed in the inter-institutional agreement of 17 May 2006 that “before 1 July 2011” the Commission will present proposals for a new financial framework.

Therefore, the exact timeframe for discussion in the Council is in part dependent on when exactly the Commission will present its proposal and on how the Presidency at the time intends to organize the work of the Council.

It is of course clear that, as soon as the Commission makes its proposal, the Council will examine it with a view to its adoption in good time before the expiry of the current financial framework.

The current IIA of 17 May 2006 and the Financial Framework for 2007-2013 will remain in force until they are amended or replaced by a new legal act and instrument.

If the Lisbon Treaty is adopted, the October European Council will have the opportunity to deal with the nominations for the newly created role of President of the European Council.

The new President will have a very important role in representing the Council on the world stage. It is imperative therefore that those nominations be carefully scrutinised.

What procedure will be put in place for the election of a President of the European Council and how will the Swedish Presidency ensure that the process is fair and democratic and that the successful candidate will represent the principles and values of the citizens of the European Union?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the future President of the European Council will have an important role to play, on the world stage, as the Honourable Member points out, but also more generally, in driving the work of the European Council forward and ensuring its preparation and continuity.

There is as yet no clarity on the date of the entry into force of the new Treaty and on the timing of the designation of the future President of the European Council. The Treaty has been accepted by 26 Member States, but is yet subject to ratification by the Czech Republic.

At the appropriate moment, the President of the European Council will consult all his colleagues, with a view to the Heads of State or Government reaching an agreement on the person best suited for the job. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, it is entirely up to the European Council to elect its President, and this will be done by a qualified majority in the European Council. The President is elected for a term of two and a half years, renewable once.

Can the Council state what programmes it is implementing so that all sectors of European society can benefit from the use of new and evolving technologies, particularly during this very difficult economic period?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council share the view of the Honourable Member that it is essential to ensure that all sectors of European society benefit from the use of new and evolving technologies. It will be essential for Europe in order to respond to our common long term challenges such as globalisation, climate change and an ageing population. It is also, in the short term, vital to pave the way for a sustainable recovery of our economies.

A number of programmes and activities organised by the European Community in the area of research, technological development and innovation. help to ensure that new and evolving technologies benefit all sectors of European society:

- The Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, adopted for the period 2007 to 2013has the overall objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry. Knowledge transfer, making sure that research results and technologies are put to use in society is an integral part of the Framework programme. This programme also seeks to provide a more stable foundation for the European Research Area (ERA) by giving attractive conditions and effective and efficient governance for research and investment in research and technological development and thus make a positive contribution to the social, cultural and economic development of all Member States. Future Framework programmes should better address the major societal challenges. Council conclusions outlining how this should be done, with a high involvement of all stakeholders, is being brought forward during the Swedish Presidency.

- The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), adopted for the period 2007 to 2013has small and medium-sized enterprises as its main target, and the programme supports innovation activities including eco-innovation, provides better access to finance and business support services. It encourages a better take-up and use of information and communications technologies as well as promotes the increased use of renewable energies and energy efficiency.

In addition to the abovementioned programmes, the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), established by a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 2008, is intended to contribute to sustainable European economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing the innovation capacity of the Member States and the Community. This institution builds on the concept of the knowledge triangle where interaction between higher education, research and innovation is promoted to make better use of Europe’s investment in knowledge. Promoting the knowledge triangle is a priority of the Swedish Presidency.

All these programmes are currently being implemented by the Commission; The EIT, for its part, has a high degree of autonomy in its activities.

In addition to these European Community programmes and activities, the Council is engaged in identifying initiatives for joint programming of research in Europe, through the voluntary coordination of Member States’ national programmes. This aims at addressing major global and societal challenges, in order to strengthen Europe’s capacity to transform the results of its research into tangible benefits for society and for the overall competitiveness of its economy.

In the area of innovation policy, the “Lead Market initiative” established by a Commission communication following an invitation by the Council, will focus on promoting markets from innovative services and products in areas such as e-health. It is intended to help draw practical benefit for society as a whole from research and development of new technologies.

In December 2008, the Council adopted the “Vision 2020”, in which it expressed that by 2020, all players would fully benefit from the “fifth freedom” across the ERA: free circulation of researchers, knowledge and technology. A new governance scheme which includes a more coherent strategy is expected to be approved under the Swedish Presidency.

The i2010-strategy brings together all European Union policies, initiatives and actions that aim to boost the development and the use of digital technologies in every day working and private life. The i2010 strategy include various actions such as regulation, funding for research and pilot projects, promotion activities and partnerships with stakeholders. To respond to the challenges of continued growth and a more eco-efficient development, the Council is currently promoting efforts for a renewed European policy agenda for ICT.

Finally, I would like to recall that the European Economic Recovery Plan adopted by the European Council in December 2008 includes measures in the area of research and technological development, such as developing broadband internet, including in areas that are poorly served. The European Council has agreed to achieve 100% high-speed internet coverage in the EU by 2013. The EU Member States have endorsed the proposals of the European Commission from January 2009 to earmark € 1 billion to help rural areas get online, bring new jobs and help businesses growth.

Can the Council make a statement outlining the state of play concerning Icelandic accession negotiations with the European Union?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Iceland’s application for membership of the European Union has been submitted officially on 16 July 2009 to the President of the European Council, The Swedish Prime Minister Mr Fredrik Reinfeldt and also to the President of the General and External Affairs Council, Mr Carl Bildt, and forwarded immediately to the members of the Council. The Swedish Presidency welcomes Iceland’s application for membership.

At its meeting of 27 July 2009, the Council recalled the renewed consensus on enlargement as expressed in the conclusions of the European Council of 14/15 December 2006, including the principle that each applicant country is assessed on its own merits, and decided to implement the procedure laid down in Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union. Accordingly, the Commission was invited to submit to the Council its opinion on this application.

The Council will examine this opinion once it has been provided.

Is the Council prepared to request that the Israeli authorities allow the opening up of sea routes in order to facilitate the provision of vital supplies to the Palestinian population of Gaza and is the Council satisfied that the Israeli Authorities are abiding by the conditions of the Euro-Med agreements?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has reiterated on a number occasions the urgency of a durable solution on the Gaza crisis through the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860. As far as the specific issue of access is concerned, I can confirm that the EU regularly calls for the immediate and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza, without which the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, reconstruction and economic recovery will not be possible, and on the basis of the full implementation of the Agreement on Access and Movement of 2005.

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Israel provides a framework for political dialogue, allowing the development of close political relations between the parties. This dialogue and cooperation can help develop better mutual understanding and provides us with an opportunity to raise all relevant issues with the Israeli authorities at various different levels.

I would also like to add that the Council maintains its view that the political process, based on the parties’ previous commitments, represents the only route to achieving a negotiated two-state solution agreed between the parties, which would result in an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with the State of Israel.

A total of 1 041 821 persons entering or leaving Greece had their personal data recorded in a large-scale exercise carried out in 24 EU Member States during one week from 31 August to 6 September 2009. The total number of those who had their data recorded and were registered electronically at EU level was 12 907 581. This exercise took place in accordance with document No. 10410/09 of the EU Strategic Committee for Immigration, and its object was to gather the personal data of all those entering or departing through EU borders. In implementing the EU institutional framework which Nea Dimokratia and PASOK governments had agreed to, Greece swiftly implemented the data-gathering measures, logging up the fifth largest number of people recorded.

How does the Council view exercises of this kind which form part of designs to build a ‘Fortress Europe’ and create a gigantic system of electronic border controls and surveillance of all travellers, thereby drastically curtailing fundamental democratic rights and freedoms?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable member to the fact that the data collection exercise carried out from 31 August to 6 September 2009 was limited to the registration of the number of entries and exits of different categories of travellers at different types of external borders. It did not involve the registration of personal data.

Indeed, the aim of the exercise was the gathering of comparable data on entries and exits of different categories of travellers at different types of external borders, given that currently they are not available in all Member States. This data would be useful in preparatory work within the Commission. The aim would be to submit a legislative proposal on the creation of a system of electronic recording of entry and exit data in the beginning of 2010. The purpose of such a system will be, if presented, to facilitate the detection of overstayers and the identification of undocumented persons.

The idea of creating such a system was launched by the Commission in its Communication of February 2008 on “Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union”. The communication was supported by the Council.

In its “Conclusions on the management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union” of June 2008, the Council stressed the need to make use of available technology to better manage the external borders and illegal immigration. Therefore, the Council called upon the Commission to present, if considered appropriate proposals for an entry/exit and registered traveller system for third country nationals by the beginning of the 2010,.

In the examination of such a proposal, the Council will take into account the resolution adopted by the European Parliament in March 2009 on “the next steps in border management in the European Union and similar experiences in third countries”. The aforementioned conclusions emphasised the requirement for new systems to comply in full with Community law, principles on data protection, human rights, international protection and proportionality as well as reflecting a cost benefit approach and added value of technology.

I can assure the Honourable member that the purpose of an entry/exit system is not to stop people from travelling to the European Union or to create a “Fortress Europe”, but to get a better picture of who is actually staying here. When it comes to the balance between security and integrity this is something that the Swedish presidency, and I believe also the other Member States, is now following very closely and as the Commission presents its proposal, we will continue to do so.

On 30 September 2009, the EU-commissioned independent fact-finding mission on Georgia released its report on the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. The report has been interpreted differently by the opposing camps as regards who is actually to blame for military actions and hundreds of lost lives. However, the report is rather explicit about the provocations on the Russian side prior to the war and it states that issuing passports to the citizens of Georgia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia for some years had been illegal.

What is the actual position of the Council on the report and its findings? How does the report change the political situation in the region? Does the Council now see a need to engage more actively in the region to prevent further escalation of the conflict? How does the Council intend to react to the report and its findings?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council expressed its appreciation to Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini, and the entire staff of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG), for the work they have accomplished in carrying out this very challenging task. Nevertheless, I would like to underline that this is an independent report. The EU supported the idea of an inquiry, commissioned a fact-finding mission and provided it with financial support, but was in no way involved either in the investigation, or in its findings. The EU has welcomed the presentation of the report. The EU hopes that the findings can contribute towards a better understanding of the origins, and the course of the August 2008 conflict, and, in a broader perspective, serve as an input to future international efforts in the field of preventive diplomacy.

The Council considers that a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflicts in Georgia must be based on full respect for the principles of independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity as recognised by international law, including the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and United Nations Security Council resolutions and we remain committed to achieving this.

In this sense, the Council remains fully committed to the Geneva international discussions. Despite existing difficulties and differences amongst participants, the Council considers the continuation of the Geneva discussions to be of great importance as they are the only forum in which all sides are represented and three major international actors - the EU, the OSCE and the UN - work in close cooperation in support of security and stability in the region. We look forward for the next round of consultations on 11 November.

I would like to also underline that the EU will continue to be actively engaged in Georgia. Its commitment is tangible in several ways. First of all, through the continued presence on the ground - the only international presence after the OSCE and UN missions had to be discontinued - of the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM in Georgia) in order to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire agreements of 12 August and 8 September 2008, which remains to be fulfilled, and to contribute to the stabilisation and the normalisation of the situation in the areas affected by the war, and to observe the compliance with human rights and the rule of law. The mandate of EUMM has been extended until September 2010.

In this sense, and as the Honourable Member already know, the EU played a leading role, through the EUSR for the Crisis in Georgia, together with the UN and OSCE, as Co-Chair of the Geneva international discussions, the sole international forum where all the parties are represented.

The EU also pledged increased financial assistance in the framework of the International Donors’ Conference on 22 October 2008, aimed at post-conflict rehabilitation, support to internally displaced people (IDPs) and economic stability.

The EU furthermore provides continuous support, through the activity of the EUSR for the South Caucasus and financial assistance, to Georgia in its process of internal reforms aiming at strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law, as well as fostering people-to-people contacts and civil society dialogue.

Finally, the EU’s commitment is mirrored in the objective and the offer of developing an increasingly close relationship with Georgia, as well as with the other South Caucasus countries, within the Eastern Partnership.

The countries of Europe are dedicated to the integrity and strengthening of pluralistic democracies. What steps does the Council propose to prevent groups like the Khalistanis seeking the dismemberment of a liberal, democratic nation like India?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The European Union actively promotes values that serve to support peace and democracy. These include fundamental values such as human rights and the rule of law, freedom, solidarity and the respect for diversity.

India is one of the largest and most pluralistic societies in the world. All the major religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism have a number of followers in India. The EU recognises the fact that India’s constitution secures individual as well as group rights in the constitutional framework.

The European Union strongly opposes the use of force to attempt to weaken the existing democratic institutions of States such as India. This is why the Council agreed in 2005 to include the ‘Khalistan Zindabad Force - KZF’ on the list of certain persons and entities subject to specific restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism. When this list was reviewed in June 2009, the Council decided to maintain the KZF on the list.

Is the Council aware that the accession of the territory of the province of Baluchistan to Pakistan was engineered through force and manipulation? If so, does the Council believe that the countries of Europe must give full support to the quest for self-rule and self-determination of the people of Baluchistan?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The question of self-determination of the people of Baluchistan has not been addressed by the Council. It therefore has no position on the specific issue raised in the question by the Honourable Member.

According to the Information Sheet of the General Secretariat of the Council on ‘Openness and transparency of Council proceedings’ of 22 December 2005, ‘all citizens can access Council documents under the conditions laid down by the texts in force. A public register of Council documents is available on the Council Internet site (http://register.consilium.eu.int)’.

So why does the Council website (http://www.consilium.europa.eu) have no link to this register?

Why do the register (http://register.consilium.eu.int) and the Council website as a whole not meet the international standards on transparency, clarity and simplicity that have meanwhile become established?

How does the Council intend to remedy the situation?

The present answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members as such, was not presented orally at Question Time to the Council during the October 2009 part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council website does indeed have a link to the Public Register. This link can most easily be reached by clicking on the banner named “Access to Documents: Public Register” which can be found directly on the Council home page. In order to facilitate access to the Register, this link is available in all 23 official languages of the European Union.

The Public Register was established in 1999 as a means for the general public to access Council documents, increasing thereby the transparency of the Council’s work. It has since grown dramatically and now contains more than one million documents, almost three quarts of which are directly available in full text. The register has been visited almost 900 000 times last year, another sign of its appreciation by users who are able through this instrument to access Council documents in a simple way.

I would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the information sheet to which he refers is obsolete and does no longer reflect the current situation. It has been replaced in January 2009 by a new leaflet “How to get information on the activities of the Council of the EU”, available in all EU official languages for download on the Council website.

In fact, the Council Register is regularly updated in order to respond to the increasing need for information expressed by the public. The user-friendly access to the Register via the internet and the respect of the principle of multilingualism have led not only to a consistent increase in the number of consultations and requests for documents, but also to a wider professional and geographical spread of web users who access this instrument.

Of course, there is always room for improvement, and the Council is working on a modernisation of its website. The first stage - restyling - is in progress. In any case, the links to the public register on the home page will be maintained.

Taking into account the positive measures which the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) have taken to ensure that SMEs have access to much-needed finance (the SME guarantee facility, the high-growth and innovative SME facility and the EIB’s loans for SMEs), and in the light of a recent survey in Ireland which revealed that since January 2009 more than 54% of SMEs in Ireland have been refused access to finance by financial institutions administering EIB loans - what concrete steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the financial institutions which are administering these funds are granting SMEs access to finance? What mechanisms has the European Commission put in place in order to monitor the effectiveness, impact and additionality of these loans to SMEs?

The Commission implements the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) within the Member States and other participating countries.

Of the two facilities available under this programme, the High Growth and Innovative Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) Facility has led to one deal signed with an Irish venture capital company since the start of the programme, for a total EU investment of € 15 million. One contract has also been signed to date under the SME Guarantee Facility with an Irish financial intermediary, First Step Ltd., a microfinance provider, guaranteeing loans up to a maximum volume of € 3 million, to be used for business development.

Notices of implementation, informing prospective financial intermediaries how to apply for participation in the programme, were published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26/09/2007 and 14/12/2007, and all such applications are examined by the European Investment Fund (EIF) acting on behalf of the Commission.

Guarantees and investments under these facilities are made on the condition that such funding is used to make loans or investments in the target sectors set out in the legal base of the CIP.

The Commission uses the mechanisms required by the Financial Regulation and the CIP legal base to monitor the effectiveness, impact and additionality of the facilities:

the effectiveness of the facilities is monitored through quarterly reporting from the financial intermediaries and through external evaluations;

the impact is monitored by, among others, statistics concerning the number of companies supported, the amount of investment realised and the number of jobs in the small companies that benefit from the EU guarantee or investment;

the additionality is achieved by, among others, helping intermediaries to substantially increase lending volumes and to make venture capital investments.

In addition to funding made available by the Commission under the CIP, the European Investment Bank (EIB) provides loans for SMEs which are designed to support their investments through medium and long term finance. This support is provided through local banking intermediaries who in turn on-lend to final beneficiary SMEs in accordance with their individual credit policies.

While the Commission is not involved in the arrangements between the EIB and the banking intermediaries, the EIB is actively monitoring the allocation to SMEs of those funds that have been drawn by the EIB’s Irish intermediaries (€ 125 million have already been drawn and € 50 million are expected to be drawn shortly out of a total € 350 million EIB commitment). Under the EIB’s agreement with the banking intermediaries, the banks have a deadline by which they must allocate the funds to SMEs. Banks have reported to the EIB that allocations are progressing relatively slowly at a rate reflecting a lower demand by Irish SMEs for medium to long term investment credit.

According to the EIB, while under current circumstances SMEs have had greater difficulty obtaining credit, the continuation of the Irish banks’ support to the SME sector remains one of their top priorities. In particular, the EIB’s intermediaries have not suggested that they are turning aside a significantly higher proportion of SMEs eligible and relevant requests for funding their medium to long term investments. The EIB staff will be meeting the Irish banks soon to investigate whether there are any unforeseen obstacles in distributing EIB’s financing, and to work on accelerating the banks’ allocation of funding to their SME customers.

What information does the Commission have with regard to money laundering in the European football market? What measures does it propose to combat this phenomenon?

In its White Paper on Sport, published in July 2007⁽¹⁾, the Commission noted that corruption, money laundering and other forms of financial crime may affect sport at the local, national and international levels. The White Paper contains the Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan, which namely through actions 44 and 45 proposes to tackle cross-border corruption-related issues at the European level and to monitor the implementation of the EU anti-money laundering legislation with regard to the sport sector.

At this stage, the Commission has no direct evidence of money laundering in the European football market. The FATF (Financial Action Task Force), the international body setting the global standards on the prevention of and the fight against money laundering, published a Report in July 2009on money laundering through the football sector. The report examines the sector in economic and social terms and provides case examples identifying areas that could be exploited by those who want to invest illegal money into football. The vulnerable areas relate to ownership of football clubs; the transfer market and ownership of players; betting activities; image rights; sponsorship and advertising arrangements. The report is however not conclusive on the extent of money laundering within the football sector in Europe.

Besides and also as part of the implementation of the Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan a number of studies have been launched by the Commission or are in preparation concerning the issues covered by the FATF report. A study on sports agents (action 41) should be completed by the end of 2009. The study will address problems posed by the activities of sports agents in Europe. Another study on internal market barriers to the financing of sport will be carried out in 2010 (action 37). It will address, among other things, the issue of sports betting.

Finally, it should be underlined that the Commission does not have competence to investigate specific claims regarding money laundering or other criminal activity unless related to the protection of the financial interests of the Community and falling under the competencies of OLAF.

Does the Commission intend to provide economic support for Member States’ regions that are affected by the influx of large numbers of illegal immigrants (e.g. central Athens), and what does the EU plan to do in the short and long term to tackle the flow of immigrants to Europe? Specifically, is there a plan to put pressure on the countries from which immigrants come and also those allowing them to transit (e.g. Turkey) to take them back, and does the Commission intend to accept an equal distribution of clandestine immigrants in the Member States in proportion to their populations, so that pressure is not placed only on the Mediterranean countries?

The European Union provides financial assistance to Member States in the area of migration through the four Funds established within the framework of the General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration flows, which are the European Fund for the integration of third country nationals, the European Refugee Fund, the European External Borders Fund and the European Return Fund. The last two in particular help Member States to prevent and address the consequences of irregular migration. The Funds are managed in a decentralised manner by national authorities of each Member State.

In addition to that, the European Commission is already providing technical and financial assistance to, developing a dialogue, and in some cases it is also carrying out negotiations with third countries of origin and of transit of migration, in order to promote their capacities to tackle irregular migration in accordance with international standards and to facilitate their cooperation with the European Union in this matter.

As regards cooperation with third countries of transit, it should be underlined that the Commission, on behalf of the European Community, is negotiating a readmission agreement with Turkey which should also include provisions related to the readmission of third-country nationals. In addition, the Commission, which is already financing projects for up to approximately €90 million in Turkey to support its capacity to align its legislation and the practices of its administration up to European Union standards in the area of border surveillance, prevention and management of irregular migration, and asylum, is pushing Turkish authorities to further enhance their cooperation with the European Union in all these areas.

Within this context, and to give an immediate follow-up to the June 2009 European Council, a delegation of senior officials of the Commission, visited Ankara on 16 and 17 September 2009, with the aim of discussing with the Turkish authorities the possibilities for resuming formal negotiations on a readmission agreement between Turkey and the European Community, and of discussing ways and means to raise their engagement in the prevention of irregular migration and in the management of mixed migratory flows. The mission provided the indication that the Turkish authorities are ready to intensify the cooperation with the EU and to formally agree a stable commitment and a number of concrete measures at the occasion of a visit of Vice-President Barrot and of Minister Billström in early November 2009.

The Commission is fully aware that specific and disproportionate migratory pressures are put on certain Member States and notes that the European Council underlined in its Conclusions of 18/19 June 2009 that it welcomes the intention of the Commission to take initiatives in this respect. While the issue of redistribution of illegally staying migrants is not currently envisaged at EU level, the Commission considers it crucial to provide practical help to the Mediterranean countries that are mostly affected. It is, therefore pursuing initiatives of new forms of solidarity, such as the redistribution of beneficiaries of international protection between Member States on a voluntary basis, with the aim of reducing the disproportionate burden placed on some Member States with the assistance of others. The first pilot project is being developed in Malta.

In this time of economic and financial crisis, EU Member States are making particular efforts to reduce the administrative costs of state apparatus and to make the most economical use of funds and resources. The Member States and, more importantly, EU citizens undoubtedly expect to see similar steps from Brussels as well.

What measures has the Commission already taken to this end, and what further action is planned for the future?

The Commission is fully committed to making the most economic use of its administration resources. For 2010, the Commission has proposed a modest increase of 0.9 % for its own administrative expenditure.

This small increase budget covers the effect of the growing security needs, an important redeployment from Headquarters to Delegations to reinforce the external projection of internal policies as well as the increase in energy prices.

To reconcile political priorities with budgetary constraints, the Commission has made particular efforts to limit expenditure and use resources in the best possible way.

Firstly, for 2010 the Commission has requested no new posts. Human resources needs for political priorities will be met by internal redeployment (around 600 in total in 2010).

Secondly, a careful vetting of all items of expenditure has brought savings due to the decreasing costs of some goods, the application of ecological principles and the exploitation of technology.

Thirdly, the Commission is already committed to meeting all staffing needs up to 2013 under constant resources unless significant events occur which would have a serious impact on the Commission competences or its linguistic regime. It will also continue a careful screening of the various types of expenditure and take advantage of all opportunities for savings.

To conclude: the Commission will implement its ambitious political objectives while limiting administrative expenditure to the maximum extent possible.

It is nearly three years since we adopted the EU’s alcohol strategy. The intention was that it should be assessed by the summer of 2009.

I understand that the Commission has opted to postpone this assessment.

Why has the strategy not been assessed? When can we expect an assessment of the EU’s alcohol strategy? How has the Commission supervised the implementation of the strategy in the various Member States?

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for her interest in an important aspect of public health policy: alcohol policy.

During the Expert Conference on Alcohol and Health (21-22 September), organised by the Swedish EU Presidency and the Commission, the first Progress Report on the Implementation of the EU Alcohol Strategy was presented by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection. The Report is available on the Commission’s Public Health Directorate web pages⁽¹⁾.

The Commission is supporting Member States in implementing the strategy at national level in a number of ways, as the Progress Report describes. These include the setting up of a Committee on National Alcohol Policy and Action as a forum for Member States to share experiences and develop common approaches. This Committee has met five times so far.

The Commission has also facilitated the work of a Committee to develop common indicators to allow for comparative analysis within the EU. The Progress Report describes actions taken so far in the Member States, with particular reference to good practice that was agreed in the Council Recommendation of 2001⁽²⁾. The Commission has also carried out two surveys of Member States activity in the priority areas identified in the strategy. Annex 1 of the Progress Report provides an update of Member States activities since the adoption of the Strategy.

Is the difficult economic situation in the EU Member States, including Lithuania, not sufficient grounds to apply the provisions of Article 37 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia and of Article 4 of Protocol No 4, and for the Commission to take a decision to extend the deadline by which Lithuania is committed to closing the Ignalina nuclear power plant from 2009 to 2012?

Nuclear safety is an absolute priority for the EU, as demonstrated by the unanimous adoption by the Council of the Nuclear Safety Directive on 25 June 2009⁽¹⁾. Given inherent weaknesses in the reactor design (in particular the lack of secondary containment of the reactor), it is impossible to upgrade the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP) to appropriate standards of safety. Upgrades that were made in the past only allow basic safety for operation until the end of 2009, when the second unit of INPP must be closed down as part of Lithuania’s EU accession commitments. The safeguard clause contained in Article 37 of Lithuania’s Act of Accession, referring to serious economic difficulties, could be invoked only for three years after Lithuania’s accession.

The EU has provided and continues to provide a total of € 1.3 billion to support decommissioning of the INPP and the development of alternative power supplies in Lithuania. This funding is conditional on Lithuania respecting the agreed date for the closure of the INPP.

The protocol no 4 to the Act of Accession recognises the environmental upgrading of the Lithuanian Thermal Power Plant as the major replacement of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. This upgrade was finalised in September 2008, and therefore no shortfall is expected in available energy supplies after the closure of INPP. In addition, district heating projects at Ignalina and energy efficiency measures for residential buildings have been supported by the Commission, as well as a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plant (CCGT) project which is foreseen to be completed by 2013.

It is important to continue the work on ensuring energy security in the Baltic region, including improving energy efficiency and cross border connections. The Commission is committed, together with the support from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to continue to work closely with Lithuania to ensure the efficient decommissioning of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant.

Most European countries have introduced motorway or expressway tolls. The way in which these tolls are regulated varies from one country to the next. Tolls may be paid directly at tollgates for a particular stretch of road or in the form of toll stickers valid for a certain period. Each Member State decides freely on how charges for these stickers are fixed.

In some Member States, however, the way in which tolls are charged is unfair to vehicles in transit to another country. As a rule, drivers of these vehicles cross the country in question within one day and yet are unable to purchase a one-day sticker (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic).

There is no question that each Member State is entitled to set and charge tolls for the use of its motorways. However, the lack of uniform rules on how charges should be adjusted to take account of the actual period of road use could pose a serious threat to a fundamental EU principle, the free movement of persons. In the light of the above and the principle of the free movement of EU citizens, should the European Community not be required to draw up guidelines for the Member States that would provide a framework to ensure equal treatment for all citizens in this matter?

A framework to ensure equal treatment of road users exists as far as it concerns commercial transport. The Directive 1999/62 on road user charges (Eurovignette)⁽¹⁾ as amended by Directive 2006/38⁽²⁾ regulates the charging framework for heavy goods vehicles in a way that the imposition of distance-based tolls or user charges does not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of nationality, the country or place of establishment or of the registration of the vehicle, or the origin or destination of the transport operation. The Directive stipulates that time-based user charges must be available for periods between one day and one year.

Member States are free to apply tolls and user charges also to other vehicles, such as light goods vehicles, buses and passenger cars, under national legislation and provided that the Treaty principles of non discrimination and proportionality are respected. Proportionately-priced charges for transit or shorter term usage of the infrastructure should be available inside and outside the Member State in which they are applied, and with as little hindrance to the flow of traffic as possible.

In July 2009, the Commission adopted a long-term plan for the recovery of anchovy stocks in the Bay of Biscay. According to the competent services in the Commission’s Directorate-General for Fisheries, this proposal was drawn up in line with the demands made by representatives of the sector.

Commissioner Joe Borg wishes to reach an agreement before the end of the year. Does this mean that the Commission sees a possibility of lifting the anchovy fishery closure next year? Does the plan make any changes to the scientific criteria followed until now when setting TACs?

The Commission would like to emphasise that any possible lifting of the current closure will depend on the status of the stock, as assessed by the relevant scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to the Commission. The next occasion on which this assessment will be available will be June 2010, once the results of the spring scientific survey are processed. According to the proposed plan, which the Commission hopes to see in force by then, the anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay could proceed if the scientific advice assesses that the stock’s biomass is above 24 000 tones. At lower levels, the plan stipulates that the fishery should remain closed.

Moving to a long-term management approach does not guarantee an automatic re-opening of the fishery if the current low biomass levels persist. What the plan does provide is exploitation boundaries for the stock that reduce the risk of collapse. It therefore aims at guaranteeing the industry the best chances for a stable fishery, as well as the highest yields that the stock can produce within the limits of sustainability. The Commission has always based its proposals on the best science available and taken the long-term interests of the industry at heart. The method followed by the plan to determine the annual fishing possibilities has the full support of the South Western Waters Regional Advisory Council.

Does the Commission propose to introduce a directive to lay down a maximum limit for hydrogenated acids/trans-fasts in foodstuffs in view of the fact that this ingredient is a proven contributory factor to coronary diseases?

The Commission is committed to using the appropriate means available to promote consumer protection and health. It encourages initiatives that can help prevent the development of cardiovascular disease in Europe. Trans fatty acid consumption is one of the risk factors of cardiovascular disease in Europe along with overall fat intake and the intake of saturated fatty acids.

The Commission believes that dietary habits depend on many different factors. Influencing them is a very complex exercise that requires a variety of actions. These should be proportionate and take into account the respective competence and responsibilities of the European Community and its Member States. In that framework the Commission is both encouraging the adoption of self-regulatory measures and considering regulatory ones. The extent of the regulatory measures would certainly be influenced by the effectiveness of self-regulatory measures.

At the moment, a legal restriction regarding the content of trans fat in food is seen by the Commission as neither an appropriate nor a proportionate measure on the EU level.

The economic downturn has led to a significant decline in the sale value of bloodstock. There has been a marked increase in the number of abandoned horses in many Member States, with owners unable to pay for the care of their animals. Does the Commission share the concerns expressed by animal welfare organisations regarding the well-being of horses at this time? Has the Commission any plans to examine this issue, or indeed any proposed action on it?

The Commission has not received information from the Member States or complaints from non governmental organisations for the protection of animals regarding a marked increase of abandoned horses due to the decline of sale values of bloodstock. However, the Commission is aware of the issue through articles published in the press.

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998⁽¹⁾ lays down general minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes, including horses. The Directive does not apply to horses intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities. The Directive requires that Member States ensure that the owners or keepers take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.

Member States are primarily responsible to implement this Directive and, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004⁽²⁾ on official controls, they must take all the necessary measures to ensure that Community provisions relating to the protection of animal health and welfare are implemented.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that the opportunities provided by Community legislation are used in a sensible way and thus help to prevent neglect and abandoning of horses that for economical reasons can no longer be kept under adequate conditions. In this respect, the Commission wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to Regulation (EC) No 504/2008⁽³⁾ on the identification of equidae, which is important when considering, under controlled conditions regarding food safety, the slaughter option for equine animals.

In March of this year, the European Parliament voted on the motion for resolution on the Commission’s 2008 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (P6_TA(2009)0135). Article 10 states that it is regrettable that ‘three years after (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) was granted the status of candidate for membership of the EU, accession negotiations have not yet started, which is an unsustainable situation having demotivating effects for the country; and risks destabilising the region; considers it desirable that this exceptional situation should end; urges that the process be accelerated…’

The Parliament of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has now passed the four remaining pieces of legislation to fully implement the key priorities of the Accession Partnership, namely the laws on internal affairs, on public servants, on the financing of political parties and on parliament.

In light of the ongoing reforms in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the unprecedented length of delay in giving a start date for negotiations, does the Commission plan to recommend a start date for negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in its upcoming progress report?

The Commission adopted its annual strategy on enlargement on October 14. In this framework, the Commission found that since achieving candidate status in 2005 the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has consolidated the functioning of its democracy and ensured the stability of institutions guaranteeing the rule of law and respect of fundamental rights, although of course these efforts need to continue.

Furthermore, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has substantially addressed the key priorities of the Accession Partnership. In view of the overall progress of reforms, the Commission considers that the country does sufficiently fulfil the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and the Stabilisation and Association Process. The country has moved closer to becoming a functioning market economy and has made progress in a number of areas linked to its ability to take on the obligations of membership.

In the light of the above considerations, and taking into account the European Council conclusions of December 2005 and December 2006, the Commission therefore recommends that negotiations for accession to the European Union should be opened with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Maintaining good neighbourly relations, including a negotiated and mutually accepted solution to the name issue, under the auspices of the United Nations, remains essential.

A recently published study (SVT Plus, Swedish TV) showed that high levels, clearly exceeding the permitted limit values, of various chemical substances including dimethyl fumarate, nonylphenol ethoxylates and heavy metals, could be detected in jeans. Several of these substances are highly allergenic and should not come into direct contact with the skin. In spite of this, producers and retailers clearly do not check that their goods are safe.

What measures has the Commission taken, or does it plan to take, to ensure that legislation in this area is complied with by market operators?

Enforcement of Community legislation, such as product controls, is within the competence of Member States. To this end, Article 125 of the chemicals legislation REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)⁽¹⁾ requires Member States to maintain a system of official controls and other activities as appropriate, whereas Article 126 requires the Member States to lay down sanctions for infringement of the REACH Regulation. The Accreditation and Market Surveillance Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, entering into application as of 1 January 2010⁽²⁾) is another instrument for Member States to take appropriate measures.

The Commission was informed that the majority of Member States (MS) expected their enforcement authorities to be fully operational in 2008, most of the MS using existing enforcement structures from earlier legislation.

The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) plays an assisting role by facilitating the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement. The ECHA Forum deals with enforcement issues at Community level specifically. The Forum serves as a platform for the exchange of information on enforcement, and co-ordinates a network of enforcement authorities of the MS. Some of the tasks of the Forum are to propose, coordinate and evaluate harmonised enforcement projects and joint inspections. The first meeting of the Forum took place in December 2007 and since then it has been meeting twice a year.

Some of the substances such as nonylphenol ethoxylates and heavy metals were regulated through restrictions by Council Directive 76/769/EEC⁽³⁾ which is now repealed by REACH and included in its Annex XVII.

The Commission may revise the current measures on the basis of additional information. This means that whenever the Commission or a MS will consider that unacceptable risks to human health and the environment need to be addressed at Community level, REACH provides for a process to enable that appropriate measures are taken on these substances leading, where appropriate, to an amendment of Annex XVII of REACH.

As regards dimethylfumarate (DMF), Commission Decision 2009/251/EC⁽⁴⁾, established under Directive 2001/95/EC on General Product Safety⁽⁵⁾, requires MS to ensure that products containing this chemical are not placed or made available on the market, and that such products have to be recalled from consumers, while informing consumers of the risks of DMF. Thus, any consumer product containing DMF is banned in the European Union.

The entry into force of REACH introduced new obligations for producers and/or importers of articles. From 1 June 2008, any producer or importer of articles has to register substances that are intended to be released from those articles during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use when substances are present in those articles in quantities exceeding 1 tonne. Furthermore, producers and importers of articles have to notify to ECHA the presence of substances of very high concern in accordance with the conditions set in Article 7(2) if the substances have been identified in accordance with Article 59(1) and placed on the candidate list. This will increase the information about substances of very high concern released and contained in articles.

In short, having said that enforcement of the Community legislation on chemicals is primarily the responsibility of the MS, the Honourable Member can be reassured of the Commission’s full commitment towards encouraging a comprehensive implementation of the REACH obligations, and actively supports the work of the ECHA, which is responsible for certain scientific and technical tasks concerning the implementation of the REACH requirements. Also, in the consumer product area, MS have the prime responsibility for enforcement, and the Commission encourages and supports them in this task. The publication of MS’ notifications of products containing DMF⁽⁶⁾ is a practical example of this.

In March 2007, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Danish Government regarding Denmark’s implementation of Directive 2002/73/EC⁽¹⁾. On 4 November 2008 I asked the Commission for the first time how the matter stood and when new developments could be expected. On 20 November 2008 the Commission replied that it was currently finalising the assessment of the conformity of Danish law with Directive 2002/73/EC.

I should like to ask the Commission once again when measures will be taken to ensure that Denmark complies with the provisions of the directive, and what form these measures will take?

I refer the Commission to my earlier question (H-0863/08) and the Commission’s answer.

The Danish Government has notified the Commission of the adoption of Act No 387 of 27 May 2008 establishing a new Board of Equal Treatment. In the light of this development, the Commission has decided to review its assessment of the conformity of Danish law with Directive 2002/73/EC⁽²⁾. The Commission will decide on follow-up in the coming weeks and will inform the Honourable Member thereof.

At the end of 2008, the Commission issued a Green Paper on the management of bio-waste and later began public consultations, a process which ended in March of this year. In December it is due to submit the resulting findings to the Council working party, together with any proposal or initiative that it might think fit to produce on bio-waste management strategy.

Bearing in mind that

– the impact assessment for the purposes of a possible legislative proposal should likewise be completed at the end of the year,

– the legislation in question constitutes a priority for the Council, as was reflected in the conclusions of the Council meeting given over on 25 June 2009 to the Green Paper, which stated that ‘improving the management of bio-waste will contribute, on the one hand, to a sustainable management of resources and to improved protection of soil and, on the other, to the fight against climate change and to the reaching of targets for landfill diversion, recycling and renewable energy’.

Could the Commission say whether it will be able to meet the target dates laid down and thus have a legislative proposal to submit early in 2010?

The work on the impact assessment on the management of bio-waste is one of the priorities of Directorate General Environment of the Commission. The Commission is now finalising the draft impact assessment and in November will submit it for internal approval.

Further steps regarding the management of bio-waste in the EU, including possible measures (legislative proposal or a communication), will depend on the outcome of the assessment of the pros and cons of different bio-waste management options. This decision is, therefore, not expected to be taken before the finalisation of the said impact assessment, which is planned for December 2009. If the assessment proves that there is a need for adopting legislative measures, a proposal could be adopted by the Commission in spring 2010.

Can the European Commission make a comprehensive statement outlining the practical steps that have been taken from January 2007 to date to integrate Irish as a working language within the EU?

As the Commission indicated already in its replies to oral questions H-0622/08 and H-0636/08 by virtue of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 of 13 June 2005, Irish has had the status of an official language and a working language of the institutions of the European Union since 1 January 2007.

TRANSLATIONS

Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 contain a partial, renewable 5-year derogation on the use of Irish by the EU institutions. In practice, this derogation implies that only proposals for co-decision regulations (and certain related documents⁽¹⁾) as well as direct correspondence with the public are translated for the time being into (or out of) Irish.

Thus, in line with these provisions, the Commission has been able to produce all the translations required in Irish in the legislative process and to ensure their timely delivery. Moreover, replies in Irish have been made to citizens or legal persons who have addressed the Commission in this language.

The Commission – within its Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) – has established an independent Irish language unit to this end. It is currently staffed by an acting Head of Unit, an assistant, five full-time translators and a seconded national expert. This is sufficient to deal with current workload levels but the situation is constantly monitored. Moreover, another national expert has been seconded to work in the web translating unit. The staff of the unit has received the IT training needed to do their jobs and thematic training is also organised on regular occasions within the DGT. Irish translation benefits from collaboration with the national authorities, particularly in the field of terminology development, which is especially positive and also very welcome, given the absence of much of the Community acquis in Irish. Since 2007 the DGT has also made a number of calls for tender for freelance translators into Irish, and as a result the unit also works with a number of professional Irish translation agencies able to offer translation services at times of peak demand.

A joint Council/Commission competition is currently underway with a view to establishing a reserve list from which unit heads for both the Council’s and Commission’s Irish language units will be recruited. The reserve list is expected to be published shortly. Also a new competition for Irish-language translators will be organised in due course.

Beyond its obligations under the amended Regulation No 1, and within the limits of resources available, the Commission has also begun providing some of its upper level website pages in Irish, giving priority to content of particular interest to Irish speaking citizens. A growing amount of web pages has been published by the Commission in Irish since 2007, this work being recognised in Ireland, different media incorporating them.

As an official language of the EU, Irish is one of the languages offered in the DGT’s annual Juvenes Translatores translation competition for secondary school pupils. The very first winner from Ireland (in 2007) translated into Irish.

In view of its recruitment needs, the DGT takes an interest in the development of translation courses in the Member States and the Commission recently launched a European Master in Translation network, involving 34 high-quality university programmes in translation studies at Masters level. Two of the first successful applicants were the MA Léann an Aistriúcháin offered by Acadamh na hOllscolaíochta Gaeilge (Galway NUI) and the MA in Translation Studies, Dublin City University, School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies. The Commission is looking forward to working closely with those two programmes and with other universities offering professional translation programmes with an Irish option. By so doing, the Commission is hopeful that sufficient Irish language translators meeting the particular requirements for working in or for the EU institutions in a freelance capacity will begin to enter the market.

Moreover, at the policy level DGT has taken a very proactive stance vis-à-vis the Irish authorities in order to ensure sufficient attention in Ireland to the university education of translators, to the development of Irish terminology and to the recruitment of Irish translators. This has been done i.a. through missions by the Director general, DGT staff and through other initiatives.

INTERPRETATION

At the request of the Irish authorities, Irish interpretation has been provided in meetings of the Commission, Council of Ministers, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Parliament since January 2007.

The Directorate-General for Interpretation of the Commission has sufficient resources to cover current demand for Irish in the Council and the Committee of the Regions. In the Parliament (which draws on the same pool of freelances) the concentration of demand in the plenary weeks can give rise to difficulties. After the recent Parliament elections it would seem that the demand for Irish there will rise rather than fall.

There are currently two staff interpreters in DG Interpretation who can work from Irish. In addition there are now 11 EU-accredited freelance interpreters who can work from Irish into English. Five of these also have a ‘retour’ into Irish. At present, there is also one accredited freelance interpreter with Irish mother tongue and ‘retour’ into English and a further two are temporarily accredited. Two candidates passed the accreditation test in June 2009.

Regarding training, the University of Westminster ran a special course (with financial support from the Parliament and training support from DG Interpretation) for Irish interpreters in 2006-2007, and again in 2007-2008. In total, six Westminster graduates have now passed the accreditation test (three in 2007, three in 2008). The University of Galway started a new postgraduate interpreting course in autumn 2008. Four students completed the first year of the course, with one of them passing the inter-institutional accreditation test in June 2009. The course is now entering its second year. Eight students have signed up so far with language combinations including French or German in addition to Irish and English.

LEGAL REVISION

As is the case for the other legislative institutions, the Commission Legal Service has a Group of legal revisers capable of working in all the official languages. In the Commission’s case, this involves two legal revisers who can work in Irish. This is consistent with the situation for the other official languages.

Does the EU and particularly the Commission intend to support the request from the lawful inhabitants of the occupied town of Famagusta for the immediate return of their town, which is under the control of the Turkish army, as a confidence-building measure with a view to finally solving the Cyprus problem?

The immediate return of this town is a provision of the 1979 Kyprianou - Denktash summit agreements and of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on this subject.

It is in the common interest to see the reunification of Cyprus and the end of this 40-year-old conflict on European soil. The division of the island is unacceptable within the European Union.

The Commission reiterates its full commitment to supporting efforts of the leaders of the two communities under UN auspices to reach a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem.

Given the concrete opportunity of a settlement and reunification of the island, the Commission hopes that Varosha will soon be given back to its lawful inhabitants.

Should the two leaders decide on the early return of Varosha to its owners as a confidence building measure, as the Honourable Member suggests, they will have the full support of the Commission.

It is recognised in Article 158 of the Amsterdam Treaty and Declaration No 30 annexed to the Final Act that island regions suffer from structural handicaps linked to their island status, the permanence of which impairs their economic and social development. It is also established that Community legislation must take account of these handicaps and that specific measures may be taken in favour of these regions in order to integrate them better into the internal market on fair conditions. The Lisbon Treaty contains these same provisions and strengthens them by including territorial cohesion as one of its main objectives.

The implementation and development of this Article 158 has been virtually non-existent. There is a need for a specific integrated European policy to help compensate for the handicaps associated with island status and to put island regions on an equal footing with mainland regions.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to comply with the provisions of Article 158 of the Amsterdam Treaty and with the provisions relating to island status contained in the Lisbon Treaty when it enters into force?

Islands with their considerable diversity caused by their geographic peculiarities (e.g. accessibility, climate conditions) constitute a particular challenge for regional policy.

The Commission is of course aware of this situation and attaches great importance to achieving better economic, social and territorial cohesion in Europe. It is of paramount importance for the Commission to ensure a harmonious and balanced development of the European Union while avoiding the fragmentation of European policies.

Especially Cohesion Policy offers many possibilities for supporting and strengthening the development of areas with specific geographical features, such as islands. It provides, for example, the possibility of modulating co-financing rates under the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective. Moreover, Member States and regions may adapt to the particular socio-economic and territorial characteristics of specific territories through other means such as particular territorial provisions in Operational Programmes.

Other Community policies also provide possibilities for specific territories. For example State-aid regulations allow the granting of aid to promote the economic development of certain areas. This concerns – amongst others – islands, mountains and low density regions provided that they meet certain conditions.

In addition, those island communities which depend on fisheries related activities can receive assistance from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the intervention of which is also based on a territorial dimension. In particular, under axis 4 of the EFF, support is available to implement local development strategies which help local fishing communities diversify their activities and improve the quality of life in their area. Those strategies can address specific handicaps or built on particular territorial assets of island areas.

There is, of course, room for further developing the available instruments in this domain if citizens should become or remain able to make the most of the inherent features of the territories they are living in, as the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion states.

However, it has to be emphasised that geographical specificity in itself does not necessarily constitute a problem. Statistics suggest that these territories are far from being homogeneous in socio-economic terms. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach (e.g. a general island policy) does not make much sense. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of respondents to the Green Paper denied the necessity of particular policies for these areas.

Nevertheless, the Commission needs to develop further the available analytical tools (e.g. data, indicators, impact assessment). The aim would be to enhance the knowledge about and to be able to better take into account the special characteristics of these areas. The European Union has to fully capture the extent of their development dynamics and help them to strengthen their comparative and competitive advantages.

Therefore, the Commission has prepared a Working Paper on “Territories with specific geographical features” which should be published later in the autumn of this year. Additional food for thought can be expected from the forthcoming ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network) study on “A European perspective on specific types of territories”.

These two studies should help the Commission to prepare proposals for additional measures leading to the further improvement of the situation of areas with specific geographical features, in particular islands.

When people from countries outside the EU travel to a Member State, it is not unusual for them to need to make a transfer to another Member State before continuing to their end destination. However, there are concrete examples of persons from third countries being refused transfer, despite fulfilling the visa requirements for their final destination. Furthermore, in a specific example, a third country resident was subsequently banned from entering the EU for 6 months.

Does the Commission agree that transfers should be accommodated if visa requirements to the final destination are fulfilled?

Does the Commission agree that it is a breach of the fundamental right of free movement within the Community if Member State authorities in the transfer country prevent the third country national from reaching his or her final destination?

Will the Commission act to ensure that third country nationals are not randomly denied access to their final destination? Does the Commission agree that if such a transfer is denied a sound justification with the right of appeal should be presented?

The rules applicable to the crossing of external borders and the conditions for entry of third-country nationals to the Member States are regulated in Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)⁽¹⁾.

The Schengen Borders Code respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognized in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It needs to be underlined that an unconditional fundamental right to free movement – as endorsed by Article 45 of the Charter - only exists for citizens of the Union and not for third country nationals. A right of free movement of third-country nationals within the EU only exists to the extent that it is provided for under specific rules of Community legislation.

When arriving from outside the EU and before making their way to a connecting internal flight, passengers shall be – in accordance with Article 7 Schengen Border Code - subject to systematic border checks, aimed at verifying that the entry conditions fixed by the Schengen Border Code are fulfilled. This includes notably to be in possession of a valid travel document, a valid visa if required, justifying the purpose and conditions of stay, not being subject to an alert in the SIS, and not being considered a threat to public policy.

A detailed non-exhaustive list of supporting documents which the border guard may request from the third-country national in order to verify the fulfilment of the conditions set out in paragraph 1, point c, is included in Annex I of the Schengen Border Code.

It results that the existence or non-existence of a visa is one, but not the only requirement which must be taken into account by border guards when conducting border checks.

Article 13 provides that a third-country national who does not fulfil all the entry conditions laid down in Article 5(1) shall be refused entry to the territories of the Member States. Entry may, however, only be refused by a substantiated decision stating the precise reasons for the refusal. Persons refused entry shall have the right to appeal – in accordance with national law - against the refusal of entry decision taken by the national authority

It results that the Schengen Border Code fully respects the right of individuals to have a negative decision reviewed by an appeals body.

Based on the information provided by the Honourable Member and in the absence of more precise details (such as the citizenship of the persons concerned; the Member States concerned and the reasons given by national authorities for refusing entry) the Commission is not in a position to assess whether an infringement of the abovementioned rules of the Schengen Border Code has taken place in the cases referred to by the Honourable Member.

The tragic suicide rate among the staff of the privatised French telecommunications company ‘France Telecom’ has reached alarming proportions, 24 employees having killed themselves because they were unable to cope with the ‘medieval working conditions’ prevalent in the French multinational and indeed in all monopolistic business groups. These suicides are the tragic outcome of the generalised implementation of the notorious ‘flexisecurity’ arrangements, the undermining and weakening of labour relations, ruthless workload intensification and the fear and insecurity of employees faced with the dismal prospect of galloping unemployment. This strategy has been a fundamental political choice on the part of the EU and the governments of the Member States, including Greece, under successive ND and PASOK governments.

Does the Commission consider that the strategy being followed by the EU, seeking to generalise ‘flexisecurity’, weaken labour relations, put an end to collective labour agreements and abolish or undermine all legislation seeking to protect workers, is of benefit to workers or solely and exclusively in the interests of company competitivity and profitability, literally sacrificing workers’ lives on the altar of profit?

The Commission stresses that flexicurity should not be confused with flexibility or a policy designed to make it easier to lay off workers. On the contrary, flexicurity’s main aim is to increase employment security. It does this by providing support for transitions to new jobs in order to make them as secure as possible for the workers and to ensure, as far as possible, that such transitions entail a move upwards.

Flexicurity involves a combination of measures to provide suitable support for people to remain in, or return quickly to, employment when they lose their jobs. It aims to strike the right balance between security and flexibility: both of these components are essential to flexicurity, and they are both indispensable if workers are to be supported effectively and companies are to find it easier to adapt and to create jobs.

The Common Principles of Flexicurity adopted by the Member States in December 2007 stress that sufficient contractual flexibility must be accompanied by secure transitions from job to job. The application of flexicurity does not imply the rescinding of core labour agreements or the repeal of protective legislation. It is a question of identifying the right combination of measures and garnering the active involvement and support of all major players, including the social partners. The promotion of high-quality, productive jobs and sound work organisation are also essential to the flexicurity concept, and cooperation between and the involvement of all the main actors are a prerequisite for the approach to function properly.

The Commission believes that flexicurity remains crucial if labour market policy is to meet the challenges facing the EU. That flexicurity is the right policy for combating the crisis and bolstering the recovery was confirmed by the June 2009 European Council and by the European Economic and Social Committee, whose recent opinion⁽¹⁾ underlines flexicurity’s key role in reducing unemployment.

On 10 February 2009, International Safer Internet Day, the EU launched an information campaign against cyberbullying among minors. As part of this campaign, a short video film aimed at encouraging children to maintain controls when they are on the internet is being shown on public and private TV channels throughout 2009. Cyberbullying with schoolchildren as victims and persecutors is a serious problem which affects all EU Member States. The Commission endeavoured to persuade internet companies to sign an agreement in which they undertook to contribute to the more effective protection of young people using the internet, and it succeeded in doing so. Given that this agreement is only the first step towards protecting young people using the internet, will the Commission say:

What other actions does it intend to take? Does it consider that school as an institution can play a decisive role in restricting and preventing internet violence between minors? If so, how?

In reply to the Honourable Member’s question, the Commission considers that the campaign against cyberbullying launched in February 2009 has been a success. The clip has been disseminated via television but also via the Internet: more than 200 national and regional TV channels and 230 websites participated in the campaign. The clip provided young people with a better understanding of cyberbullying and of the ability to report it.

The self-regulatory agreement “Safer Social Networking Principles”, signed in February 2009 by 18 leading web companies, is an important process towards improved safety and privacy of children online. Since February, two other companies have joined the agreement, the Spanish Tuenti and the Estonian Rate. So far, 19 companies have provided the Commission with “self-declarations” explaining on how they implement this agreement in their safety policies. This information is now publicly available.

The Commission has ordered an independent assessment of the implementation of this self-voluntary agreement, to be published on Safer Internet Day, 9th February 2010. The assessment will focus on the compliance of companies’ policies with the Principles, and the effectiveness in terms of protection of minors. The Commission will draw conclusions from this report and follow this up with proposals on new rules if necessary.

To respond to the need for concrete action against bullying in schools and the growing problem of cyber bullying, the Commission has financed, and will continue to finance, several projects regarding all forms of bullying through the Daphne Programme. The emphasis on bullying has in fact increased in recent years and there are several interesting ongoing projects still to be completed. The Daphne Programme has described the results of projects regarding bullying in schools in a publication “Violence and School” and cyber-related violence in particular in the publication “Violence and Technology”, which are available on the Daphne Toolkit website:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/daphnetoolkit/html/booklets/dpt_booklets_en.html"

Finally, on the initiative of the European Crime Prevention Network, which focuses on juvenile crime, the Commission undertook in 2004 a study on good practices implemented by schools in preventing and reducing bullying.

The Commission believes that making children’s experience online safer is a shared responsibility of public authorities, parents, schools and industry. It is already one of the missions of the awareness centres that the Safer Internet Programme supports to inform teachers and children at school about online risks and how to deal with them - some of them have specific train-the-teachers programmes in this regard. The school as an arena to reach all children is one of our priorities. This is why the Commission organises a conference on “Promoting online safety in schools” in Luxembourg on 22-23 October 2009, including a youth panel and a teachers’ panel. As a result, I expect to get an assessment of the level of Safer Internet education in Europe as well as recommendations to the Commission and to other stakeholders on how to promote effective safer Internet education in schools.

Can the Commission provide any information about average electricity prices for private households and businesses in Belgium, in comparison with those in neighbouring countries?

Does the Commission agree that the relatively high prices in Belgium are due to a lack of competition on the electricity market?

Does the Commission agree that keeping nuclear power stations open for longer after they have been written off creates financial scope for significantly reducing the high prices charged to consumers?

Can the Commission indicate, according to its calculations, the absolute value of the windfall profits from nuclear power stations in a scenario in which three nuclear power stations are allowed to remain open for longer?

Will the Commission support initiatives to invest the ‘dividend’ from keeping nuclear power stations open for longer in, firstly, lower prices and, secondly, renewable sources?

The 2008 Benchmark report⁽¹⁾ showed that, in parallel to the increasing oil prices on the international market, electricity prices also increased, although the changes in electricity prices varied widely amongst Member States. The report showed that household and industrial electricity prices rose particularly in some Member States, amongst them Belgium. The figures also show that the end user prices in Belgium (including VAT and taxes) for households and industrial users were among the highest in the EU.

Various factors explain the differences in electricity prices between Member States. First, there are the differing costs of generating electricity depending on the distinct fuel mixes of producers. The second element is the availability of sufficient generation and (cross-border) transmission capacity. Thirdly, there is the important role played by the level of competition on the wholesale and retail markets.

The Belgian electricity markets are still highly concentrated. Very recently the Commission noted the decision of the Belgian national competition authorities to launch unannounced inspections in the offices of the two major electricity suppliers. At this date the Commission has not yet been informed of the results of these investigations. The Commission is currently investigating whether GDF Suez (Electrabel) may have abused its dominant position on the Belgian electricity market for large industrial consumers. Moreover the Commission is also scrutinising the impact that mergers and acquisitions may have on competition in the Belgian electricity markets.

A decision to keep open nuclear power plants scheduled for closure (whether depreciated or not) will lead to more production capacity being available to satisfy consumer demand. This might in the future lead to lower prices than would have been the case if such capacity would no longer be available.

The Commission is not in a position to quantify the absolute value of the windfall profits generated by the lifetime extension of nuclear power stations in Belgium since, not only is this not part of its mandate, but it also does not have access to the data necessary to perform such a calculation.

If the competent national authorities would decide to allow the company owning nuclear power plants to prolong their operation, it will remain in the authorities’ hands to negotiate with the company concerned the conditions for such an extension. Evidently, any measures will have to be compatible with the rules concerning the internal market and the competition rules enshrined in the EC Treaty.

With the launch of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy the EU has committed itself to move towards eventual deep and comprehensive free trade agreements with the six Eastern European neighbours - Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Will such agreements be concluded in the coming few years?

Where do negotiations on a free trade agreement with Ukraine stand? When should we expect the conclusion of the agreement? What is the position of the EU in terms of Ukrainian demands to include agricultural products in the agreement? Is it justified to state that negotiations with Ukraine set the example for negotiations with other EaP countries as well?

As stated in the Prague Joint Declaration of 7 May 2009, the main objective of the Eastern Partnership is “to create the necessary conditions to accelerate political association and further economic integration between the European Union and the interested partner countries”.

Bilateral cooperation should provide the foundation for a new generation of Association Agreements that include the establishment or the objective of establishing Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs).

No time frame for the realisation of DCFTAs has been given, as each country will individually be assessed for its readiness. The decision to start negotiations between the EU and an Eastern Partner will be taken once the necessary conditions have been met, namely once

- the Partner has accomplished its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO);

- the viability of the future DCFTA has been proven by a thorough feasibility study;

- the Partner has confirmed sharing the high level of ambition for the future FTA, i.e. “deep and comprehensive” and

- the Partner has become able to negotiate a DCFTA and subsequently implement the commitments undertaken in a sustainable manner.

In line with the Council conclusions of 14-15 September 2009, the Commission is currently preparing directives for negotiating an Association Agreement, including i.e. the establishment or objective of establishing a DCFTA, with each of the three South Caucasus countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Similar negotiating directives for negotiations with Moldova were adopted earlier in 2009. Negotiations could begin once the above conditions are met.

Negotiations on the DCFTA with Ukraine started in 2008, one year later than those on the political and cooperation-related parts of the Association Agreement (AA), since Ukraine joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) only in May 2008. The FTA with Ukraine will be part of an overall AA with Ukraine and is designed to deepen Ukraine’s access to the European market and to encourage further European investment in Ukraine. The FTA with Ukraine will be a deep and comprehensive one, i.e. it offers a comprehensive ‘beyond-the-border approach’ to economic integration and covers substantially all trade in goods and services. It also contains provisions for the implementation of trade and economic commitments, including concrete targets for the approximation with the EU acquis. Negotiations are complex and demand a high level of expertise, which is a real challenge to the Ukrainians and to the EU. The Commission expects FTA negotiations with other Eastern Partner countries to be equally demanding.

The 8th round of FTA negotiations was held in Brussels on 5-9 October. Both the EU and Ukraine remain committed to finalising the negotiations as soon as possible.

There is an elected civilian government in Pakistan. Does the Commission believe that the civilian government is in full control or does the Commission believe that, as in the past, Pakistan’s army is the real power in the country?

The European Commission is committed to building a strong and long-term relationship with Pakistan. The Commission believes that the EU should engage closely with Pakistan on a range of areas of common interest including political and regional issues, democracy and human rights, security questions, trade and development assistance.

Reinforcing governance and democratic secular institutions in particular are key elements of this approach. This point was stressed at the EU-Pakistan Summit in June 2009. The Joint Summit Communiqué offers a roadmap to further advance relations.

We are dealing with, for the first time in many years, a democratically elected government in Pakistan. The Commission’s chief aim is to give political and material support to the country’s democratic government.

There have been positive developments. The Government of Pakistan has now taken decisive action against insurgents in the Malakand Division, including the Swat valley, which should also contribute to wider regional stability.

The immediate challenge now is to deliver on the Commission’s commitments to assist rehabilitation and reconstruction in the Malakand Division. In addition to €72 million for humanitarian assistance, the Commission has allocated €52 million for rehabilitation and reconstruction, so far. It is also stepping up its engagement on security sector reform, electoral framework and enhancing human rights dialogue.

The Commission encourages Pakistan to consolidate the transition to stable democracy so that the days of military rule are over once and for all. Important steps were taken to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. There is the need for more institutional strengthening at the core of government, including accountability to parliament itself.

The Commission is ready to support this process in line with the recommendations put forward by the EU Election Observation Mission following the February 2008 elections.

Pakistan’s determination to show that the state can provide effective and impartial justice and can defeat the scourge of corruption will be crucial to its efforts in defeating extremists and consolidating democratic rule.

The Indian state of Punjab is an example of a liberal society comprising various religious communities which has stood up against terrorism and is committed to democracy. Does the Commission intend to prevail upon European countries not to support extremists in Khalistan who are trying to use religion to destabilise the Indian Punjab? If so, how?

It should be noted that the Indian state of Punjab, marred by violence for over 15 years in the 1980s, returned to normalcy after the movement was successfully handled in the mid-1990s. After years of direct rule from New Delhi, the democratic process was successfully revived with a democratically elected government in 1997. The latest State election in 2007 resulted in putting back the Akali Dal party (representing exclusively the interests of the Sikhs) at the helm.

Despite irregular reports on risks related to a surviving network of Sikh activism, the Commission’s analysis is that the ideology that inspired a decade and a half of violence in Punjab has been rejected by the population.

As a consequence, there is no need to prevail upon European countries not to support extremists in Khalistan. In any event, it is first for India to act on any concern it could have about this issue. This being said, it should be recalled that India has recently referred to the EU Member States’ solidarity in this issue at the time as both laudable and useful.

How does the Commission intend to uphold the freedom publicly to voice one’s opposition and different political views in India’s border provinces while ensuring that that freedom is not used in support of separatist tendencies opposed to the Indian State?

Freedom of expression is a core right recognised by both the EU and India. The responsibility to ensure that the right to freedom of expression is not being misused to support separatist movements in India however seems to lie primarily with the Indian government and within it in the Indian Home Ministry.