 |  |  |  |
 |
|
|
Brussels, 25 April 2003
 Increasing the use of combined heat and power |
|
|
The Industry Committee adopted a first-reading report on Wednesday on the promotion of "cogeneration" (the combined production of heat and power, or CHP), which forms part of efforts to complete the single market in electricity and gas. There was a lively debate on the report and 240 - sometimes conflicting - amendments were tabled. Rapporteur Norbert GLANTE (PES, D) then proposed four compromise amendments which enabled the committee to adopt this complex report by 32 votes to 0 with 11 abstentions. CHP is a process whereby input energy is transformed simultaneously into mechanical and electrical energy. The heat produced by cogeneration must be used outside the plant for purposes such as district heating, water heating, refrigeration or as industrial heat. The advantage of cogeneration as compared to separate generation is that, thanks to efficient fuel use, energy is saved and CO2 emissions are reduced. A Community strategy to promote CHP has been in place since 1997. The Commission's proposal has been awaited for some time but, according to MEPs, it lacks ambition, since it does not set targets for cogeneration nor propose Community rules on financial support. The proposal focuses on the "guarantee of origin" of electricity produced by cogeneration, the provisions requiring Member States to evaluate their national potential for cogeneration, the assessment of experience gained with the application of various support schemes and the evaluation of national administrative procedures so as to reduce obstacles to the development of CHP. Mr Glante highlighted the need for a definition of CHP and a method for calculating the electricity produced. He also suggested speeding up the timetable proposed by the Commission. In the compromise amendments adopted on Wednesday, MEPs suggest a methodology for determining the efficiency of the cogeneration process and propose that the Commission should publish harmonised reference values for comparing cogeneration and separate production. Given that the two main goals are energy savings and cuts in CO2 emissions, the Industry Committee proposes a list of criteria for making fair comparisons between cogeneration and separate production. It also advocates a procedure for setting a harmonised calculation method which could be adopted within reasonable period. The use of reference values harmonised at European level would enable better comparisons to be made between systems and thus allow energy savings to be measured. The committee also put forward a scientific definition of electricity produced by cogeneration. 23.04.2003 Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Press enquiries: |
| Transport Committee: lower insurance cover requirements for smaller aircraft |
|
|
The Transport Committee had good news this morning for operators of smaller aircraft who, following Commission proposals, were facing bankruptcy because of onerous insurance cover requirements. The Commission has published a draft regulation seeking to re-establish equilibrium in the aviation insurance market in Europe following the events of 11 September 2001 in the US, when airlines were suddenly left without insurance and governments had to step in and take on the role of insurers. Committee members almost unanimously welcomed the Commission initiative itself, but adopted a compromise amendment demanding special insurance categories for smaller aircraft. Rapporteur Jim Nicholson (EPP-ED, UK) argued that the minimum insurance requirements in the case of accidents as well as acts of terrorism and war were not sufficiently differentiated. The Commission had proposed that the suggested minimum insurance figure be 80 million Special Drawing Rights or SDR (an international reserve asset defined by the International Monetary Fund with 0.74 Euro for one SDR) for aircraft with a MTOW (maximum take off weight) of less than 25.000 kg. The committee considered this an intolerable burden for the smaller aircraft sector and therefore demanded that three extra subcategories be introduced: a Category 1 of 1.5 million SDR for aircraft less than 2000 kg, a Category 2 of 4.5 million for aircraft less than 6.000 kg and a Category 3 of 9 million SDR for aircraft less than 14.000 kg. The categories proposed by the committee for heavier aircraft would also entail considerably lower figures:
A number of other amendments were adopted on third country air carriers, a call for Member States to oblige overfliers to meet the same requirements as those laid down in the regulation, the inclusion of aircraft taking off and landing at the same airport (e.g. day trips and excursion flights) and a better definition of a short-term lease. The committee is also demanding that third country aircraft not meeting the conditions of the regulation should be refused access to routes to, or within, the Community. This report was adopted with 39 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention. 24.04.2003 Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Press enquiries: |
| No improvement in human rights in EU in 2002 |
|
|
The Citizens’ Rights Committee held a public hearing on Thursday on respect for fundamental rights within the EU in 2002. The aim of the hearing was to explore ways for the European Parliament to cooperate with national parliaments and NGOs and to highlight violations and shortcomings of fundamental rights. Parliament’s annual report, by Fodé SYLLA (EUL/NGL, F), is due to be adopted in plenary in September 2003. Opening the hearing, Charlotte CEDERSCHIÖLD (EPP-ED, S), Vice-President of the European Parliament, particularly stressed the need to protect children and the elderly and the dignity of women, some of whom are vulnerable to trafficking. Ambassador Aristidis AGATHOCLES, representing the Greek Council Presidency, stated that human rights questions were of constant concern to the Council. Commissioner António VITORINO emphasised that legislative powers should be used to promote fundamental rights and that these rights must be observed by current and new Member States. Alvaro GIL-ROBLES, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, warned that in certain countries security rights were prevailing over fundamental rights, and the right to asylum was suffering, a point endorsed by Maria Teresa GIL-BAZO, of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, who regarded the fight against terrorism and moves to tighten up national security as problematic. Mr Gil-Robles considered the situation in psychiatric hospitals and prisons to be particularly worrying, saying fundamental rights were often violated and that ”disabled people are excluded in silence”. Rapporteur Fodé SYLLA (EUL/NGL, F) stressed the value of the annual reports, saying that for example prisons were overpopulated in many European countries, that suspected terrorists faced torture in Spain and that France and Germany had conducted brutal and illegal expulsions of immigrants. He also mentioned social and economic human rights, stating that, on average, women in the EU were paid only 84% of the amount paid to men for the same work. Amnesty International’s director Dick OOSTING said that the EU left the observance of human rights up to the Member States. ”While the EU is lecturing the rest of the world on how it should behave, it is utterly silent when human rights are violated at home”, he said. Instead, the Union should protect human rights internally and conduct a credible human rights policy externally. Although Mr Oosting welcomed the idea of future incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the new constitutional treaty, he believed this should be matched by an improvement in actual observance. Lotte LEICHT, Director of Human Rights Watch, said anti-terrorism measures might lead to torture. This was especially true of detention conditions and interrogation of suspected terrorists. For example, in the UK dozens of people had been detained under anti-terrorism legislation and were said to have been subjected to long periods of solitary confinement and lack of exercise. They had also been denied regular visits from their family. Immigrants, she said, tended to be treated as potential terrorists and immigration laws in Austria, Denmark, Greece, Sweden and The Netherlands did not follow UNHCR guidelines. Jean NOKIN, Chairman of FECRIS, highlighted the problem of cults and their totalitarian nature, saying that anybody could start up a church. Lydia ZIJDEL-LARIVERE of European Women’s Lobby told the hearing ”Women’s rights still continue to be secondary rights”. She added ”For women between 16 and 44 years of age, domestic violence is a major cause of death” and stressing the importance of gender mainstreaming. Speakers at the hearing also discussed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and ways of combating exclusion. Stephen JAKOBI, director of Free Trials Abroad, argued that people in foreign prisons were notably vulnerable, as was demonstrated during the trial of the plane spotters in Greece. In a few months, there would be a European arrest warrant, whereas procedural safeguards, like the right to translation at trials, were still lacking. Mr Jakobi stressed ”Freedom, security and justice should go hand in hand”. The first annual report of the network of national experts on fundamental rights - set up at the request of the European Parliament - was introduced by coordinator of the network, Olivier DE SCHUTTER, who focused on prison overpopulation in the EU and the balance between freedom and security following the terrorist attacks in September 2001. Europe is faced by another threat to human rights as well, said Beate WINKLER, director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, namely racism. Anti-semitism within Europe is on the increase. Moreover, racial violence is directed towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The situation has almost become such that Muslims have to prove they are not terrorists. On behalf of the UNHCR, Johannes van der KLAAUW agreed that asylum seekers must not be demonised. In the aftermath of 11 September, the EU Member States were trying to reduce the number of asylum seekers and even detain them on a discriminatory basis. Mr Van der Klaauw argued that the European Parliament should be a co-legislator in the field of immigration and asylum and that the national parliaments should be involved in the legislative process. But he added ”the momentum and political will of 1999 are no longer there”. Rapporteur Fodé SYLLA concluded the hearing by saying the 21st century should be a "century of humanity". 24.04.2003 Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Press enquiries: |
| EU funding and the bio-ethics of stem-cell research |
|
|
In the context of an inter-institutional seminar on bio-ethics, MEPs, eminent scientists and representatives of Member States and accession countries debated the question of whether stem-cell research should be financed through EU funding. Following on from the adoption on 10 April of the report by Peter LIESE (EPP-ED, D) on standards of quality and safety of human tissues and cells, the debate focused on when human life starts and the moral and legal status of the human embryo. Commissioner Philip BUSQUIN pointed out, however, that the goal of the seminar was not to reach concrete conclusions about what was ethically viable, a domain for the Member States, but rather assist in the drawing up of a new Commission proposal for establishing guidelines for deciding on EU funding of research projects involving the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells. Mr Apostolos Tschatazoupoulos, President-in-office of the Competitiveness Council and Minister for Development of Greece, recognised the differing legal and political positions of the Member States with regard to stem cell research. Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PES, E), Chair of the Industry Committee, recognised the importance of the seminar in helping to achieve an eventual compromise on many of the issues since all the institutions had been divided in the past on this subject. Professor Linda NIELSEN, Vice-Chair of the European Group on Ethics, gave an overview of the legal provisions on human embryonic stem cells. She drew attention to both UNESCO and Council of Europe Conventions which ban both the use of stem cells for reproductive human cloning and the creation of human embryos for research purposes. She did however point out that more and more ”supernumerary” or spare embryos were being produced by means of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) but subsequently not used for this purpose. Professor Angelo VESCOVI spoke about the therapeutic potential of human brain stem cells. He pointed out that these cells do not grow well in culture, were difficult to regenerate and were located deep within the human brain thus making them problematic to procure. An alternative, he said was the use of human embryonic stem cells which were easier to multiply and use. Citing the example of a mouse with multiple sclerosis, after injecting these types of cell, 40% of mice with this brain disorder recovered completely, he said. However, he was cautious about transferring this technology and research to humans. Professor Austin SMITH, Head of the Institute for Stem Cell Research at University of Edinburgh, stated that stem cell research would not only lead to therapeutic uses in the fight against disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, Huntingdon’s or diabetes but also lead to the discovery of new drugs which pharmaceutical industries would exploit. He stated that the stem cells that had already been produced were insufficient and were produced under sub-optimal conditions and were not ideal for research purposes. Overall, he welcomed the UK’s regulatory approach and strict oversight on licensing. Professor Göran Hemerén from the Department of Medical Ethics at Lund University addressed some of the ethical questions on the moral and legal status of the human embryo, i.e. whether it enjoyed the full rights of a human being, some rights and therefore some protection or no protection or moral status at all. He also raised the issues of tolerance for the points of view of different Member States, human dignity, confidentiality, consent, traceability and anonymity. In a lively debate that followed John PURVIS (EPP-ED, UK) was one speaker to favour the use of stem cells that would be otherwise discarded or frozen. On the other hand, Elizabeth MONTFORT (IND, F) defended the legal status of all human life including human embryos. Michael GAHLER (EPP-ED, D) questioned why Germany should pay for stem cell research funding at EU level since it was banned at national level in Germany but allowed in some countries such as the UK. Carlos WESTENDORP Y CABEZA (PES, E) in his concluding remarks stated that if Europe was to lead in research, such compromises on funding were necessary, citing Austria and Luxembourg contributing to the EU’s common fisheries policy despite being landlocked. 24.04.2003 Inter-Institutional Seminar on Bio-ethics Press enquiries: |
| Last updated: 28 April 2003 | Legal notice |