Can the European Council make a statement as to when it is going to classify different regions in Ireland for the purposes of drawing down funding under a variety of different programmes that come under the remit of the Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2007-2013?

(DE) Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the EAFRD provides for natural handicap payments in mountain areas and payments in other areas with handicaps.

These payments are intended to compensate for farmers’ additional costs and income forgone on account of the handicap for agricultural production in the area concerned, the relevant characteristics being defined in Commission Decision 2000/115/EC.

At the beginning of 2008, the Commission intends to submit a proposal for a regulation amending certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 so as to lay down the criteria for designating areas with natural handicaps. This would enter into force on 1 January 2010.

It is a matter for the Member States to lay down criteria for the classification of the various regions under their national programmes with a view to the distribution of the funds allocated.

Given that genetically modified crops are an increasingly common feature of European agriculture and that the EU is under pressure from the WTO not to allow individual countries to ban these crops, does the Council have any plans to develop a coherent policy in relation to the regulation and authorisation of GMOs across the EU?

This appears to be particularly important in the event of the Council failing to reach a qualified majority either in favour of or against the authorisation of certain GMOs, in which case the Commission can adopt measures to implement a proposal in this area.

(DE) I fully and entirely understand the honourable Member’s concerns as regards genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and I can assure her that the Council shares most of these concerns. For this reason intensive discussions have been underway in the Council since December 2005 on this issue and various options have been examined as to how the European approach to GMOs could be improved. These discussions, which are being held in the ‘Environment’ and ‘Agriculture and Fisheries’ Councils, are not yet finished.

I would also like to draw the honourable Member’s attention to the conference on the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic methods of cultivation organised in Vienna in April this year (by the Presidency and the Commission). The long-term goal here is to guarantee freedom of choice between these different methods of cultivation. The encouraging results achieved at the conference were incorporated in the Council conclusions for May, in which the next steps towards coexistence of cultivation methods are presented.

In April the EU Presidency also held another conference, this time on the precautionary principle in GMO policy. This event showed that there is broad consensus among the participants on the importance of this principle in the European legal framework on GMOs.

On 15 May the Commission presented to the European Parliament and the Council its first report on the implementation of Regulation 1830/2003 on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms. Further reports on the implementation of Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 will shortly be presented. As the honourable Member is certainly aware, these instruments constitute the EU’s new legal framework for GMOs.

The Council will examine this report carefully.

The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recently found that many plants and animals are at risk of extinction in Europe, and in May of this year the Commission marked World Biodiversity Day by calling on Member States to take preventative action against the increasing extinction rates of plants and animals in Europe.

What action will the Council take to ensure that Italy controls the alien American grey squirrel and prevents its spread into neighbouring countries?

Will the Council ensure that the red squirrel has proper protection under the Habitats Directive and will it place an obligation on the relevant European countries to remove the alien grey squirrel?

(DE) As the honourable Member knows, the Council - in line with the commitment given at the June 2001 meeting of the European Council (Goteborg) to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2010 - has repeatedly stressed the need to preserve biodiversity. It would also highlight the efforts made by the Community and the Member States to raise the issue of invasive alien species in pan-European and international fora (in connection with the Bern Convention or the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, for example).

The Council is aware of the concerns regarding the spread of the grey squirrel, introduced from North America, to various parts of the EU, particularly certain regions in northern Italy, and fears that it could drive the native red squirrel away from many of its established habitats and ultimately replace it. The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) calls on Member States to ensure that 'the deliberate introduction into the wild of any species which is not native to their territory is regulated so as not to prejudice [...] the wild native fauna and flora'. However, the Directive does not contain any provisions stipulating how the spread of invasive alien species already present on a Member State's territory might be brought under control.

The red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) does not currently figure on any of the lists annexed to the Habitats Directive. Nevertheless, the honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission will be reviewing the Habitats Directive in 2007 with the aim of adapting it to new scientific findings. Furthermore, in its recent communication 'Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 - and beyond', the Commission calls for a Community strategy on invasive alien species.

To sum up, it should be noted that biodiversity was given high priority on the agenda for the outgoing Presidency, and that the Council will continue to devote particular attention to safeguarding biodiversity in the second half of the year.

Will the Austrian Presidency be passing on to the Finnish and succeeding presidencies suggestions for changes to the CAP? Such a move would be extremely badly received by the general public in various EU Member States.

(DE) It should be emphasised that it is not the role of the Council presidency to formulate legislative proposals, since this falls within the ambit of the Commission.

In January the Austrian Presidency announced, as part of its work programme, that it would focus particularly on the consolidation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) with a view to offering European farmers a certain degree of stability and reliability, since such consolidation seems necessary if farmers are to be able to adapt to the new rules introduced by the far-reaching CAP reforms of 2003 and 2004.

During its term in office, the Austrian Presidency has therefore concentrated on moving the Council’s deliberations forward on the basis of the Commission’s proposals for the extension of the reform process into new areas. As a result, the Council was able to adopt measures reforming the sugar market in February of this year and the new European rules for rice imports at the end of last month. In addition, the Council is currently studying the proposal for an amendment of the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp.

Other proposals for reform of the common organisation of markets are expected for fruit and vegetables, bananas and wine. The aim of the forthcoming presidencies is to treat these matters with due priority.

What initiatives will the Council take to broaden the definition of 'farmer' to include those individuals who have more than one occupation in areas with low income from farming?

(DE) The Community attaches great importance to the development of economic activity in rural areas, since these are one of the main components of the socio-economic structure of Europe. The strategy underlying the present shaping of the common agricultural policy, which is based on the gradual decoupling of conventional agricultural grants, takes more account of the development of rural areas and particularly of the people who live in such areas.

The new Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development, most of the provisions of which will enter into force on 1 January 2007, provides for measures that are not necessarily connected with agricultural activity. The beneficiary of a measure is very broadly defined in Article 2(h) as ‘an operator, body or firm, whether public or private, responsible for implementing operations or receiving support’; this new strategy was chosen with a view to conserving the natural and historical heritage and supporting the continuation and development of economic activity.

Axis 3 of the Regulation contains measures contributing to the development of the local infrastructure and human resources in rural areas for the purpose of improving the conditions for growth and job creation in all sectors and diversifying the rural economy in the broader sense of the term. People living in rural areas receive aid for measures designed to diversify the local economy and improve the quality of life in their areas. Provision is made within this axis for measures of support for the creation and development of microenterprises and the promotion of tourism. These measures will also be accompanied by activities designed to improve the quality of life in rural areas, particularly as regards village renewal and development and the conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage.

Axis 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, moreover, provides for measures to improve the environment and the countryside; support for non-productive investments is one such measure.

The Member States must draw up their national strategy plans on the basis of the strategic guidelines for the development of rural areas, which were approved by the Council on 20 February and contain the priority axes prescribed by the Regulation. Some of these guidelines are intended to diversify the economy in rural areas, while others are targeted at the creation of local employment and diversification capacities.

The Alpine Convention and its protocols form a very complex set of treaties, the implementation of which affects many specialist areas and presents the Alpine states and the Community with new challenges. In its capacity as the country currently holding the Presidency, what encouragement will Austria be giving with a view to meeting these challenges?

(DE) The Convention on the Protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention) was signed by the European Economic Community on 7 November 1991 and then ratified on 26 February 1996. It finally entered into force on 4 April 1998.

As the honourable Member acknowledges, the Alpine Convention and its protocols form a highly complex contractual instrument whose implementation touches on numerous policy areas.

As far as sustainable development is concerned, the Alpine Convention and its protocols form the framework for international efforts designed to protect the Alps as a single area spanning several countries instead of each nation protecting its own Alpine territory. The Alpine Convention and its protocols constitute a legal framework based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle and on subsidiarity, prevention and cooperation – the same foundations that underlie the policies of the European Community.

The Austrian Presidency included in its work programme the ratification by the European Community of the protocols on soil protection, energy and tourism and hopes that the Council will soon adopt the relevant decision. The ratification of the protocols is a building block in the structure of international environmental cooperation and is also consistent with the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.

The ratification of these protocols by the European Community would highlight its efforts to promote the sustainable development of this mountainous region and would thus accelerate the implementation of European measures in areas such as soil protection, energy and tourism. The protocols will enable the European Community to enhance the protection of the environment in a sensitive area encompassing parts of several countries.

With regard to transport, the Austrian Presidency attaches great importance to the signing by the Community of the Protocol on the implementation of the Alpine Convention in the field of transport (Transport Protocol), since it would emphasise that the Community supports measures for the protection of the Alpine environment.

As far as mountain agriculture is concerned, the protocol relating to that area of activity was signed on behalf of the Community at the international conference held in Chambéry on 20 December 1994. The ratification of that protocol, which is currently being examined by the various Council bodies, dovetails with the agricultural policy of the European Community, particularly with the rural-development dimension which forms the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. The Austrian Presidency takes the view that ratification should reaffirm the commitment of the Community and send out a strong political signal; at the same time, it will serve to foster the environmental-protection process throughout a region to which Europe attaches great importance.

How does the Council assess Parliament's and its own respective standpoints on the Reach system: what are the most significant differences, and which approach is better suited to achieving the objectives of the Reach system?

(DE) Before I deal with this question in detail, let me make a few remarks on the procedure to date:

Over the past two years, the Council has carefully examined the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) proposal with the aim of arriving at a solution in which the right balance was struck between the various objectives of REACH. During this process the Council maintained close contact with the European Parliament in order to achieve the greatest possible degree of convergence between the positions of the two institutions. The benefit of these contacts is clearly reflected in the political agreement on a common position which was achieved at the extraordinary meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 13 December 2005.

On this basis, the Council is currently compiling the final version of its Common Position along with the accompanying statement of the Council’s reasons, which will then be communicated to Parliament for its second reading. On the basis of the common ground that now exists between the two positions, the Council will endeavour to reach agreement with the European Parliament at second reading so that this important legal instrument can be adopted speedily and enter into force without delay.

In connection with the rapid conclusion of this matter, it is gratifying to note that, for the core element of REACH, namely the registration of 30 000 substances manufactured in or imported into the EU, both institutions have devised very similar and rational solutions.

The same applies to the evaluation component, where the transfer of powers to a central agency is one of the keys to the efficient functioning of the system as well as being essential to uniform EU-wide implementation.

The main differences between the positions undoubtedly relate to the authorisation of substances of serious concern. The authorisation system was deliberately designed by the Council in such a way that the essential protective function is guaranteed, while unnecessary red tape is avoided as far as possible.

Mauritania, a member of the EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly, has been undergoing democratic transition since the overthrow of President Ould Taya's dictatorial regime on 4 August 2005.

The Military Council has pledged to carry out the reforms required to achieve democratisation and to lead the country into free elections and has also promised to ensure that no member of the current government stands in the elections.

Although reforms are under way and the election timetable has been set, Mauritania is appealing to the international community, and the European Union in particular, to assist it in its transition to democracy.

What is the Council's position regarding potential EU aid and support to Mauritania to help it conclude the process of democratisation and to hold fair elections?

(DE) On 30 November 2005, the European Union began consultations under Article 96 of the amended Cotonou Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Mauritania at the latter’s request. At the meeting, the Mauritanian delegation provided information on the development of the situation in Mauritania since the coup d’état of 3 August and on the Government’s programme for the transitional period. At the meeting, Mauritania gave 23 undertakings concerning adherence to democratic principles, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law and responsible governance.

In the spirit of partnership that underlies the Cotonou Agreement and in view of the undertakings given by Mauritania, the EU expressed its willingness to support the transitional process in order to ensure the quickest possible restoration of democracy and the rule of law.

In the intervening period, the EU has been following developments in Mauritania very closely, and in May 2006, in view of the extent to which the 23 undertakings were being fulfilled and in view of the progress made in the democratisation process, decided to conclude the consultations under Article 96 and to take appropriate measures under Article 96(2)(c) of the amended Cotonou Agreement to support the process of transition, in which recognisable progress had been made, while pressing the Government to consolidate the progress towards fulfilment of its undertakings with regard to democratisation and to lead the country without delay towards transparent and democratic parliamentary elections in November 2006 and presidential elections in March 2007.

The Council presidency and the Commission will regularly conduct joint reviews, the first of which will take place within the next six months. The European Union will continue to monitor the situation in Mauritania very closely. On the basis of Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, an intensive political dialogue will be conducted with the transitional Mauritanian Government so that it can restore democracy and the rule of law, particularly by holding free and transparent local, parliamentary, senatorial and presidential elections, and improve respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

With a view to supporting the process of transition in Mauritania, a number of institutional-assistance projects were agreed at the opening of the consultations; these projects have now been launched and include the following:

Election-assistance project: EUR 6m. Approved in April 2006. The EU is contributing about 75% of the budget for this project, which makes it the main donor to the UNDP trust fund.

Support programme for the reform of the judiciary: EUR 4m. In the context of the transition process, reform of the judiciary has become one of the Government’s political priorities. The funding decision is expected at the end of 2006.

Support programme for local development (decentralisation and regionalisation): EUR 6m.

Support programme for civil society: EUR 4.5m. The funding decision is expected in June 2006.

Project for the provision of institutional assistance to the public treasury for the purpose of good economic governance and reform of budgetary execution procedures: EUR 2m.

Support project for the media sector: EUR 2m. This project covers a review of the statutory provisions governing the press and other media as well as support for the media sector during the transitional period.

Support project for the reform of the transport sector: EUR 3.5m.

In December last year, the Council invited the Presidency, with regard to formal sessions of the Council, to ensure that all proposals under the codecision procedure are presented orally by the Commission and that the ensuing debate on them is open to the public.

According to its meeting agendas, the Council debated 14 codecision matters with the public excluded between 1 January and 10 April 2006.

Will the Council explain why the Presidency appears not to have acted in accordance with the wishes of the Council?

(DE) In answer to this question relating to Council meetings being open to the public, the Council would refer the honourable Member to paragraph 1 of its conclusions of 21 December 2005. This states that under the codecision procedure the Council deliberations are open to the public with regard to the presentation by the Commission of all legislative proposals which, in view of their importance, are presented orally in a Council meeting, and the ensuing debate on them; this actually means that all initial discussions of matters covered by the codecision procedure are open to the public.

Similarly, all of the Council's final deliberations under the codecision procedure are open to the public.

During the first four months of 2006, the Commission did not present orally any legislative proposals subject to the codecision procedure; consequently no initial deliberations have so far taken place in public.

The deliberations on matters coming under the codecision procedure, to which the honourable Member refers in his question, were neither initial deliberations or final deliberations, but interim deliberations. From January to April 2006 all of the final deliberations of the Council, which took place before the vote on 25 legal measures (including six common positions) were held in public; on four occasions the Council's deliberations on matters coming under the codecision procedure at the interim stage were also open to the public.

In this context, the Presidency would like to point out that it is committed to ensuring greater transparency in the Council, in accordance with the Council's conclusions of 21 December 2005. Consequently, the Presidency has proposed, among other things, that the European Council should decide that all stages of the codecision procedure should be opened to the public.

In addition, as the honourable Member should be aware, the Council is currently reviewing the way in which the agreed measures are working and is examining all other options to improve openness and transparency, including the possibility of an amendment to its Rules of Procedure.

Is the European Council satisfied that the European Food Safety Authority is operating in an effective manner and that it is properly financed to carry out its work?

(DE) The Council wishes to await publication of the recommendations of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority on improvements to the authority's working practices and effectiveness before taking up a position on this question.

These recommendations, which must be based on an independent external evaluation pursuant to Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 establishing the Authority, are expected to be published shortly.

The Commission, to which these recommendations are primarily addressed, is also likely to take up a position, and this will have a decisive influence on the discussions that the Council is required to hold on this topic.

Despite the presence of an African Union peace-keeping mission in Darfur, fighting is continuing and the security situation in the region is worse than ever. If the UN decides that the existing African Union peace-keepers should be merged with a UN peace-keeping force, would the European Union be willing to contribute by sending European troops?

Despite export controls and international arms embargoes, an astronomically large quantity of arms is circulating in Darfur. In February 2006, an American journalist discovered a Glock pistol (serial number: HAP850) in the hands of the rebel group FUC in Darfur. What practical measures is the European Union taking to monitor compliance with the arms embargo on Sudan?

(DE) The Council has repeatedly expressed its support for the despatch of a UN mission to Darfur. As with all other UN missions, however, the decision whether to contribute to a United Nations mission by sending troops is a matter for each Member State.

The EU imposed an arms embargo on the whole of Sudan, which has been in force since 1994. UN Security Council resolutions 1556 (2004) and 1591 (2005) imposed an international arms embargo relating to Darfur. By virtue of Council Common Position 2005/411/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Sudan,⁽¹⁾ the measures based on resolution 1591 (2005) were consolidated with the EU measures.

In the European Community, the embargo is enforced through Council Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan,⁽²⁾ which is directly applicable in all Member States. Under that Regulation, the Commission and the Member States must inform each other immediately of measures taken on the basis of the Regulation and supply each other with any other relevant information at their disposal, in particular information in respect of violation and enforcement problems and judgments handed down by national courts. In addition, if the provisions of the Regulation are infringed, Member States of the EU are required to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and to take all necessary measures to ensure that they are applied.

In accordance with resolution 1591, the implementation of the United Nations’ arms embargo is monitored by a committee of the Security Council.

On 14 July 2005 I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Council regarding use of EU territory and airspace for extraordinary renditions (P-2684/05), following a wholly unsatisfactory response from Douglas Alexander to my oral question submitted on 26 May 2005 (H-0449/05⁽¹⁾). I finally received a response to my written question on 27 April 2006 (P-2684/05, E-4212/05, E-4335/05, E-4350/05, E-4451/05, E-4649/05 and P-4826/05), although this was joined with responses to seven other questions, spanning a variety of related but different issues, which spanned a six month period. The response itself was wholly unsatisfactory; merely providing information that was six months old and publicly known anyway.

Can the Council explain why it took over nine months to respond to my question, in particular, why it took six months to describe the letter from Jack Straw, when it was made public within days of it being written? Can the Council explain how this joint response, which fails to address the individual concerns of the questions posed, reflects any accepted notion of parliamentary democracy? Can the Council actually respond to the substance of my individual question?

(DE) The Council does not agree with the honourable Member that the joint reply to the various written questions was inadequate; the Council considers that, within the limits of its competence, it gave an exhaustive answer to the honourable Member's Written Question P-2684/05 and, previously, to his Oral Question H-0449/05 of July 2005.

As already mentioned in the joint reply to Written Questions P-2684/05, E-4212/05, E-4335/05, E-4350/05, E-4451/05, E-4649/05 and P-4826/05, the British Presidency raised the issue of the alleged detention of terrorist suspects by the USA in EU Member States and the transport of such suspects through their territory in the letter of 29 November 2005 from Jack Straw to the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. However, as Javier Solana and Gijs de Vries already did during their appearances before the Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, the Council must stress that it has no powers to investigate these allegations. As the honourable Member is undoubtedly aware, such investigations are currently under way in the Temporary Committee of the European Parliament and in the Council of Europe.

The Council would also observe that, pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Treaty on European Union, it is only on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament that the Council may determine the existence of a 'serious and persistent breach' by a Member State of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, which are mentioned in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

In the last few days, the Chinese Catholic Church has appointed two bishops without the approval of Pope Benedict XVI. Despite the Vatican’s efforts to prevent the ordinations, the Chinese Church ignored the Pope’s objections. The problems stem in particular from the fact that the ‘Patriotic Catholic Association’, which runs the state church in China, does not acknowledge the Pope as the primate of the Catholic Church. Further appointments are even planned for the future, likewise without the Vatican’s approval.

Does the Council raise this mater, and, more particularly, the unilateral action taken by the Chinese Catholic Church, at meetings with the Chinese leadership?

(DE) The unhindered exercise, both in public and in private, of freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right and one of the key issues on which the European Union seeks progress in its dialogue with China. For this reason, freedom of religion has been high on the agenda of meetings between the EU and China, not only of those forming part of the dialogue on human rights but also of talks at the highest political level.

Freedom of religion has also featured prominently in the last few rounds of the human rights dialogue, most recently at the 21st round of talks in Vienna on 25 and 26 May 2006. Conduct such as the cited appointments gives the EU cause for concern, whether it relates to Tibetan Buddhism or to Catholicism. The EU has also emphasised how unfavourable an impression such conduct makes on the media and parliaments of Europe. It has also raised several specific cases of people, including well-known religious leaders, who are currently in prison for having peacefully expressed their religious or ideological convictions, and it will continue to do so.

At the last round of dialogue on human rights, the EU reiterated emphatically to China how important it is to fix a date for the visit by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations on freedom of religion or belief which China announced last year. The EU will continue to press for the realisation of freedom of religion and belief in China through various channels, including the process of ratification and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the adoption of recommendations by UN bodies and in the context of special UN procedures.

Greece has been rocked by a mobile phone-tapping scandal. It has emerged from testimony given to the parliamentary committee of inquiry that Ericsson, the company which supplied Vodafone with its operating software, had also installed 'non-activated' eavesdropping software which, once activated, was used to intercept conversations. The fact that Ericsson had installed the eavesdropping software without being asked to do so either by Vodafone or the Greek authorities confirms allegations and press reports that the US National Security Agency (NSA), based in Maryland, demands total cooperation of companies such as those referred to above if they wish to operate in the USA as well as the possibility of access to software for surveillance operations even outside the USA.

Can the Council categorically deny that the NSA demands such facilities of companies operating in the EU? Can it categorically deny that the 'free' eavesdropping software, which Ericsson installed in Vodafone Greece, has also been installed in other Member States of the European Union?

(DE) The activities of the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States and the problem of private companies installing software in the Member States does not fall within the purview of the Council.

The Council wishes to point out to the honourable Member that Article 4 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)⁽¹⁾ contains the following provision: ‘The provider of a publicly available electronic communications service must take appropriate technical and organisational measures to safeguard security of its services, if necessary in conjunction with the provider of the public communications network with respect to network security. […] In case of a particular risk of a breach of the security of the network, the provider of a publicly available electronic communications service must inform the subscribers concerning such risk and, where the risk lies outside the scope of the measures to be taken by the service provider, of any possible remedies, including an indication of the likely costs involved.’ Moreover, Article 5 contains the following stipulations: ‘Member States shall ensure the confidentiality of communications and the related traffic data by means of a public communications network and publicly available electronic communications services, through national legislation. In particular, they shall prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications and the related traffic data by persons other than users, without the consent of the users concerned, except when legally authorised to do so …’.

The Directive also prescribes that, where the rights of users and subscribers are not respected, national legislation should provide for judicial remedies and that penalties should be imposed on any person, whether subject to private or public law, who fails to comply with the national measures taken under the Directive.⁽²⁾

It is the responsibility of the Commission to oversee the transposition of the Directive by the Member States.

The figures for recent years show that there has been a gradual fall in the rate at which the population of Europe is increasing. In the ten new Member States, the population remains constant or may even be falling, with the exception of Malta and Cyprus, the population of which is increasing, just as it also is in the 15 old Member States, mainly because of migration to those countries. In the last ten years, more than 80% of the increase in the population of Europe has been attributable to immigration. In addition, the population of Europe has aged significantly, the number of young people having fallen by 20 million over the last 26 years. A contributory factor in this respect is the large number of abortions - one every 30 seconds in Europe. Finally, it is a significant fact that the number of marriages has steadily fallen over the last 24 years in Europe, while Europeans are now marrying later in life and separating at the rate of a divorce every 33 seconds.

Will the Council say what measures the Member States propose to take to reduce the birth deficit and make it feasible to combine work and family life? What are the latest developments in Member States' national law regarding the provision of high-quality childcare, as emphasised in the European Equality Pact?

(DE) The Council shares the honourable Member’s concern about the dwindling population of Europe and subscribes to his view that countermeasures are required, not only in the Member States but ideally at the European level too. The current demographic trend is indeed a key political challenge, but at the same time I should point out that many issues relating to this development fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States, and the Community therefore has no general powers to enact European legislation in this domain. It can, however, avail itself of other important mechanisms, such as the reinvigorated Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment.

Demographic trends are a cross-cutting issue, and the debate that the Commission initiated in March 2005 with its Green Paper entitled ‘Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations’ must be continued at the European level. As far as the low birth rate is concerned, the Commission has concluded that many factors play a part, such as difficulties in finding initial employment, a shortage of reasonably priced living accommodation, couples starting their family later and other decisions relating to education, working life and family life. While the falling birth rate is a challenge that all of us in the European Union must face together, there is no universally applicable panacea; on the contrary, a flexible approach is required. This view was also taken by the European Parliament in its latest resolution on the subject.

In response to the Commission’s Green Paper, the Council conducted an exploratory debate last December, during the British Presidency, on the subject of demography and human capital. It was emphasised in the course of the debate that the desired increase in the overall employment rate could only be achieved if certain other factors were taken into account, especially the need to adopt measures that would make it easier to reconcile family and working life.

Only recently, at its spring meeting, the European Council emphasised the importance of fostering equality between the sexes as a key to economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness, stating that it was time to make a firm commitment at the European level to pursue policies designed to promote the employment of women while ensuring a better work-life balance in order to rise to the demographic challenge.

In this context, the European Council approved the European pact for gender equality, which provides for a number of measures to enhance the compatibility of family and working life. This is not simply a matter of achieving the targets for the provision of childcare facilities that were set at the Barcelona meeting of the European Council in March 2002; it also entails an improvement in the availability of care services for other dependent persons. Another important measure is the promotion of parental leave for both women and men.

In my view it is important that these aims have now become a standard feature of the Member States’ national reform programmes; however, since structural reforms take some time to have an impact, I cannot yet assess the extent to which progress has already been made. A more precise appraisal of the situation will not be possible until the annual evaluation report has been presented in December.

In order to look into ways of supporting families in particular, the presidency held a conference of high-ranking experts in February entitled ‘Demographic challenges – family needs partnership’. Against the backdrop of current demographic trends, the conference focused the political discussion on partnership within the family and partnership with the business community as conditions for a good balance between family and working life and on the role of fathers as pillars of stable family relationships.

Among the main findings of the conference was the recognition that a higher birth rate and higher employment rates for both mothers and fathers can only be achieved if the Member States’ family policies take account of the interests of the various generations and of both sexes. It was also emphasised that the promotion of high-quality childcare facilities which meet demand and are located close to workplaces are prerequisites for an effective family policy.

In addition, the conference concluded that, in the context of supporting a work-life balance, more should be done to promote equal opportunities, with special emphasis on the creation of skilled and well-paid part-time jobs. Moreover, public policies relating to the family should be formulated in consultation with all national, regional and local stakeholders, with the representative bodies of management and labour and with civil society.

Greater compatibility of working, private and family life is also one of the main subjects of the Communication entitled ‘A roadmap for equality between women and men, 2006-2010’, which the Commission presented in March of this year. The Commission has also announced its intention of presenting a communication on demographic trends before the end of this year; this communication would follow on from the Green Paper and, as far as I know, deal directly with the subject of your question.

I should like to thank you for raising this issue, because the falling birth rate in Europe is a problem which concerns us all and which must be addressed by political leaders at all levels throughout the Union.

Almost two months have elapsed since the Spanish Government announced the establishment of an Emergency Cooperation Plan with Mauritania, and none of the measures contained therein has been implemented. Immigrants continue to arrive in large numbers on the cost of the Canary Islands. On 6 and 7 May (Friday and Saturday respectively) 451 immigrants reached the islands. In the first four months of 2006 alone, 4800 immigrants reached the archipelago, equalling the total number who arrived in 2005.

What does the Council think of the Spanish Government's inability to stop the wave of illegal immigration which is reaching the Spanish coast of the Canary Islands? Has the Council realised the sheer scale which the tragedy could reach if the Spanish Government does not put some sort of measures into effect immediately? Does the European Union intend to cooperate with Spain?

Illegal immigration into Spain is being cut thanks to strengthening border controls, developing the Sistema Integral de Vigilancia Exterior (SIVE - Total External Vigilance System) - and stepping up collaboration with third countries like Morocco. In 2006, the Spanish Ministry of the Interior will complete the implementation of SIVE in Almeria and Lanzarote, launch it in Gran Canaria and Huelva, and extend it in Cadiz.

2005 saw the smallest number of immigrants arriving in pateras (small boats) since 1999: 11.797 immigrants landed illegally on the Spanish coast, 24.7% less than in 2004, when the figure was 15.675.

The mafia organisations involved are now securing alternative routes, such as via the Canaries. Even greater collaboration on the part of the European institutions is required in view of the heavy daily pressure on Spain.

Could the Council provide information on the Action Plan of the Rabat EU-Africa Conference, which will for the first time bring together the migration route countries of destination, transit and origin?

The EU-African summit to be held in Rabat on 11 and 12 July 2006 is of particular importance given the numbers of immigrants flocking to various countries of southern Europe, including Spain.

The problems that cause hundreds of men, women and children to flee their countries of origin are well known: extreme poverty and despair. The new agents are also familiar: mafias.

This conference is a good opportunity to reflect jointly on the causes and effects, and for the EU to take practical measures to shoulder its responsibilities, whilst African governments would continue to shoulder theirs.

A coordinated European strategy on Africa is needed, and as far as possible the EU must promote coordination between the African countries present in Rabat, including on readmission agreements with countries of origin.

The dramatic situation affecting thousands of Africans requires a common European position on policy and development and a coordinated political and intelligence strategy.

Does the Council agree with the philosophy and measures outlined above? Is it following the programme of the African Conference which is to be held in Libya in June and possible proposals stemming from that conference?

The Warsaw-located European Member State External Frontiers Agency was set up to coordinate cooperation between Member States on managing the external frontiers and assist the Member States when circumstances required increased technical assistance.

Given that the Union's Hampton Court agreements stress that the implementation of integrated management of external frontiers is one of the bases of a safer Union, how does the Council assess the work done by the Agency?

Given that the Canaries are, with Greece, Italy and Malta, the Union's main southern frontier, and that the islands are under heavy pressure from migrants, and given that this issue has already been discussed, when does the Council think that a European Frontiers Agency External Frontiers Safety Frontiers and Control Coordination Delegation will become operative in the Canary Islands?

As part of the development of a common policy for controlling illegal immigration from West Africa, and bearing in mind that the European Council has adopted the first neighbourhood action plans for Southern Mediterranean countries, will the Council consider developing a policy of 'grand voisinage' between the outermost regions and the countries around them that includes measures similar to the ones envisaged in the neighbourhood action plans, especially as regards immigration, and specifically for the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, which is currently the region worst affected by the phenomenon of migration?

(DE) A European response to the migration issues raised in these questions is currently being prepared in the framework of the Global approach to migration – priority actions focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean, adopted by the European Council in December 2005.

The global approach to migration is intended as part of a balanced, comprehensive and coherent strategy on migration issues to be developed in a spirit of cooperation and partnership with the countries in the targeted regions. The global approach is intended to intensify cooperation among Member States and enhance the effectiveness of their action, to develop dialogue and cooperation with African States and with our neighbours throughout the Mediterranean region and to guarantee the availability of the requisite financial resources.

The pursuit of the global approach, which is already under way, is now the key priority. Its progress is being constantly monitored.

Particular importance attaches in this context to the forthcoming EU-African Ministerial Conference on Migration, which will take place in Rabat on 10 and 11 July 2006. On the table for adoption at the conference are practical measures designed to ensure more efficient cooperation among countries of origin, transit countries and countries of destination along the migration route from Central and West Africa to Europe. Spain, France and Morocco have played a leading role in this initiative. Similar regional initiatives relating to other migration routes, such as that from East Africa to Europe, are to be launched in the near future.

In addition, discussions focused on migration and related issues are currently taking place between the EU and other countries under Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement with a view to arriving, in the spirit of cooperation that prevails between the parties, at effective control of migratory flows on the basis of a common plan. The readmission and return of illegal residents are among the issues being dealt with in these discussions, as are other matters such as the question of legal migration and the integration of legal residents.

The global approach also demands an intensification of the essential dialogue between the European Union and Africa on migration and development in the African continent as a whole. Initial contacts have been made with a view to organising a ministerial conference where these issues, which are of great importance to both sides, will be examined.

With regard to the situation in the Canary Islands, the Council is fully aware of the difficulties with which Spain and Mauritania have to contend. The Union has already responded to the latest sizeable wave of illegal immigrants, most of whom have been arriving in the Canary Islands from Mauritania, by taking initiatives to provide Spain and Mauritania with technical and financial assistance.

These initiatives included a Frontex fact-finding mission to the Canary Islands to observe the situation on the ground. Among other requests, Frontex called for the creation of a joint investigation team comprising its own officials and national experts from the Member States to operate in the Canary Islands.

The Commission has also sent a technical mission to Mauritania to assess the situation there; it is currently ascertaining whether further measures, such as the creation of new capabilities or financial support, are needed in Mauritania in order to bring migration under more effective control.

It has now been made clear that US security police will have access to the data retention information to be collected in the EU. This means that the risk of violations of individual privacy will now be even greater.

In the light of the above, how can the Council guarantee that the privacy of citizens will not be infringed and that individuals will not be mistakenly accused, and how will the Council compensate people who are mistakenly subjected to such treatment?

(DE) Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks establishes a balance between the need for effective criminal prosecution and the right to privacy. Article 4 of the Directive stipulates that Member States shall adopt measures to ensure that data retained in accordance with the Directive (this means traffic data and location data in the broadest sense) are provided only to the competent national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with national law. Consequently, the laws and regulations of each Member State specify when and on what conditions (e.g. prior authorisation by a competent authority) data may be communicated to the national authorities. These national laws and regulations, however, must satisfy the necessity and proportionality requirements enshrined in the European Human Rights Convention. Data may only ever be passed on in special cases: ‘data-mining’, in other words, is out of the question.

The relevant national laws and regulations, particularly the obligation imposed on operators and providers to guarantee confidentiality and security of data, must be based on the Community data-protection provisions (Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC). Under these directives, the Member States must also ensure that persons who suffer loss or injury because of unlawful processing of data receive compensation. Penalties must be laid down for infringements of the provisions governing the confidentiality and security of data.

As for the communication of retained data to the United States for the purposes of criminal prosecution, such data are treated like any other evidence. The existing instruments on judicial assistance concluded between EU Member States and the United States (bilateral treaties) and the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and the United States of America both define the conditions in which a Member State of the EU must pass on evidence, including retained traffic data – to the national authorities of the United States.

As a rule, such data may only be used, subject to prior authorisation, by a competent national authority for the purpose of criminal investigations and in the framework of criminal proceedings.

It is up to the independent courts to establish the extent to which, in the light of all the other available evidence, the data can serve as proof.

Can the Council indicate what steps national governments are taking to properly regulate timeshares and holiday clubs? As MEPs we are constantly receiving complaints from members of the public about misleading advertising and 'hard sell' sales techniques. Once a product has been mis-sold, it is very difficult for an individual to seek redress in another Member State. Given the continuing problems many holidaymakers face when investing with disreputable timeshare and holiday club businesses, will the Council comment on how governments are dealing with such businesses in order to ensure that consumers' rights are respected and that such companies behave in a reputable manner?

(DE) The Council thanks the honourable Member for her interest in this important question.

The Council shares the honourable Member's view that provision should be made to ensure that consumers' rights are respected.

The matter raised is governed by Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis⁽¹⁾.

Under the Treaty, it falls within the Commission's sphere of competence to monitor the application of this Directive and the Council would therefore ask the honourable Member to address her question to the Commission.

The honourable Member also refers in her question to complaints about misleading advertising and 'hard sell' sales techniques. These practices are covered by Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’)⁽²⁾.

The Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 12 June 2007. They shall apply those measures by 12 December 2007.

The Council would ask the honourable Member again to address her question to the Commission as it is the Commission, under the Treaty, which is responsible for monitoring the application of the abovementioned Directive.

Given the current difficult situation in the European Union, following the rejection of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe in certain Member States, the adoption of protectionist measures by certain governments, the reservations being displayed when it comes to reaching agreement on improving the operation of the internal market, or the fact that Europe is registering the lowest growth rate at world level, at a time of international economic expansion,

Does the Council see it as positive that there should be the largest possible number of countries aspiring to form part of the Euro zone if their economies combine both high growth rates and macro-economic stability with streamlined public finances?

Does the Council think it would be counterproductive for European integration to implement a restrictive interpretation of the convergence criteria established in Maastricht?

(DE) Sustained economic convergence is a necessary prerequisite for the successful introduction of the common currency.

The framework for assessing the achievement of sustained convergence is clearly described in Article 121(1) of the EC Treaty in the form of convergence criteria and is defined in greater detail in the Protocol on the convergence criteria annexed to the EC Treaty. As the Treaty and the Protocol both specify, the criteria are to be applied clearly and consistently.

Will the 'back-up teams... of experienced police officers from various Member States' which the G-6 has recently discussed setting up (Council Answer of 19.5.2006 to Question H-0338/06) be able to take action in the territory of a Member State where a serious terrorist attack has taken place if its own police officers are not represented in the back-up team or if it is not part of the G-6 decision?

(DE) The G6 initiative referred to by the honourable Member concerns only the G6 States. It is not an EU instrument that is applicable to all the Member States and cannot therefore be applied to States that are not members of the G6.

In the Council's view, what are sufficient grounds for suspending accession negotiations with Turkey?

(DE) The negotiating framework approved by the Council on 3 October 2005 defines the principles underlying the accession negotiations with Turkey, including the possibility of suspending the negotiations.

Paragraph 5 of the negotiating framework makes the following stipulation: ‘In the case of a serious and persistent breach in Turkey of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law on which the Union is founded, the Commission will, on its own initiative or on the request of one third of the Member States, recommend the suspension of negotiations and propose the conditions for eventual resumption’.

The Council will then decide by qualified majority, after having heard Turkey, whether to suspend the negotiations and on the conditions for their resumption. The Member States will act in the Intergovernmental Conference in accordance with the Council decision, without prejudice to the general requirement for unanimity in the Intergovernmental Conference, and Parliament will be kept informed.

At least 17 civilians, including innocent children, were killed by US occupying forces and their allies during the aerial bombardment of a village in the Panjway district of Afghanistan.

According to the accounts of local inhabitants, the occupying forces began to bombard the Afghan village at midnight and continued throughout the night until morning, while helicopters bombarded the Islamic school ('madrasa'), wreaking death on innocent people.

Does the Council condemn such murderous attacks and the occupation of Afghanistan by US forces and their allies?

(DE) Generally speaking, the European Union expects all parties to a conflict to respect the humanitarian provisions of international law and internationally enshrined human rights and to protect civilians, including children, at all costs in accordance with the relevant international conventions. Special importance attaches in this context to the EU guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law and on children and armed conflict.

What is the current status within the Council of the Commission’s revised proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC⁽¹⁾ as regards value added tax on services provided in the postal sector?

(DE) The Commission's proposal concerning value added tax on services provided in the postal sector has been discussed on several occasions by the working party responsible. A final decision has not yet been taken, however.

The collision of the military aircraft in the Aegean following the violation of the Athens FIR by Turkish fighters, which resulted in the loss of the Greek pilot Kostas Iliakis on 23 May 2006, highlights yet again the aggression of the militarists in Ankara, which is supported by and forms part of the imperialist plans of the USA, NATO and the EU for the Balkans, the Middle East and the wider region of Eurasia. The daily violations of Greek airspace by Turkish fighter aircraft create a serious risk that war may break out with devastating consequences for the population. In recent years, in particular, with NATO having adopted the role of supreme arbiter in the Aegean, the question arises of the partition of the Aegean. Moreover, Turkey's questioning of the sovereign rights of Greece and its aggression are related to the tacit approval and support it receives from the USA, NATO and the EU.

Does the Council condemn the Turkish violations of Greek airspace and the Turkish leadership's questioning of Greek sovereign rights?

(DE) The Union regrets the latest incident, especially as it resulted in the loss of human lives. With regard to Turkey’s relations with its neighbours, and particularly with Greece, may I refer you in quite general terms to the pertinent conclusions adopted at the meetings of the European Council in Helsinki in 1999 and in Brussels in December 2004. As an acceding country, Turkey must share the values and aims of the European Union as defined in the Treaties. This implies an unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations and the resolution of territorial disputes in accordance with the principle of peaceful settlement of conflicts which is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. In this context, Turkey should investigate anything that might cause friction with its neighbours and distance itself from threats and actions that could damage good neighbourly relations and jeopardise the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes. These issues are part of the negotiating framework, constitute short-term priorities of the pre-accession partnership and are raised systematically by the EU at meetings held in the framework of its political dialogue with Turkey.

Against this background, the Council can assure the honourable Member that all of these matters are still being closely monitored and are being raised in discussions at every level, for the maintenance of good neighbourly relations is one of the yardsticks against which Turkey’s progress along the road to accession is measured. It goes without saying that negotiations will advance in proportion as progress is achieved in the aforementioned areas.

Poland's 'Institute of National Memory' has charged Czeslaw Kiszczak, the last Minister of Internal Affairs under socialist government with 'communist crimes based on his participation in an organised criminal group of a military nature and the imposition of martial law'. This is the latest of numerous anti-communist developments taking place throughout Europe with the tacit consent or on the initiative of national governments.

Does the Council condemn such acts, which create a climate of anti-communist hysteria, take the form of ideological persecution and are ultimately to the detriment of the people?

(DE) The Council has never discussed this matter, since it does not fall within its remit.

In the recently adopted European Union Financial Framework for 2007-2013, the Trans-European Networks were allocated, at the instigation of the Council, a ceiling of EUR 7 billion. That was significantly less than the Commission had originally estimated as necessary for the 30 priority projects, approved by the Council.

What priorities does this reflect on the part of the Council? Will there have to be priorities among the 30 prioritised projects? Will some projects have to be postponed – and if so, which? Or will additional national funding have to be found?

(DE) The Council has already reached agreement about the Financial Perspective for 2007 to 2013, although no specific decision has yet been made on the 30 priority trans-European network projects. The Council wishes to point out to the honourable Member that it is a matter for the Commission to decide on the allocation of specific resources in accordance with the appropriate committee procedures.

At the Council meeting of 8 and 9 June 2006, the Ministers held an informal debate on the trans-European networks in the framework of the recently adopted Financial Perspective for the years 2007 to 2013.

Since neither a decision nor conclusions have been adopted on this subject in the intervening period, the Council is not in a position to answer several of the questions that the honourable Member has raised.

In connection with EU competition rules, there is a whole raft of legislation governing consumer rights. In practice, however, consumers are not aware of any EU action protecting them against unwarrantedly high prices for goods such as fuel or pharmaceutical products. Owing to monopolistic practices, the prices for such goods are out of proportion to their usefulness. What steps does the Commission intend to take with a view to curbing the adverse effects of monopolistic agreements on the cost of living for European citizens?

(EN) It is one of the core principles of the Commission’s competition policy that it will take action where there are signs that competition and consumers are being harmed by anti-competitive practices by market operators.

The Commission has taken several prohibition decisions under Article 81 EC to tackle restrictive agreements between pharmaceuticals companies and wholesalers aimed at impeding parallel exports. The Commission also prioritises promoting competition in innovation for patented medicines between pharmaceutical producers and encouraging inter-brand competition from generic substitutes after patent expiry. In time this should contribute to ensuring a wider choice of both patented and generic pharmaceutical products at affordable prices.

As concerns energy in general, the Commission has recently launched a number of case investigations into possible restrictive agreements and abuse of dominant positions in gas and electricity markets. It is clear, however, that agreements and practices can only be prohibited if there is sufficient evidence that they exist and that they are anti-competitive. Detailed analysis is required before such conclusions can be drawn.

As for fuels, the Commission is well aware that the price of oil, gas and other fuels has increased significantly in recent years. The ongoing sector inquiry into gas and electricity markets is intended to uncover the causes of these market developments and develop possible solutions. A preliminary report was published in February 2006 and the inquiry will be completed by the end of 2006.

As regards motor fuels it has so far proven difficult – at national as well as Community level - to prove the existence of anti-competitive practices between motor fuel suppliers. The market is one in which there are few suppliers selling a homogeneous product in a fully transparent market. This makes parallel behaviour by suppliers easy; however, similar prices are not alone evidence of abuse. The Commission is monitoring the situation in each Member State closely in cooperation with the national competition authorities.

Council Directive 1999/74/EC⁽¹⁾ lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Between January and May 2004, the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carried out inspections on the application of that directive in six selected Member States. The FVO presented the

overall result of its inspections in a detailed report (DG(SANCO)/8509/2004-GR). The report shows that Member States are not complying with the directive. The FVO notes that both animal welfare and competitive conditions on the internal market are affected by that fact. The FVO has also presented separate reports on each Member State in which inspections were carried out. The report on Spain puts forward detailed criticism of Spain's failure to apply the directive in a number of respects (DG(SANCO)/7230/2004-MR Final).

What practical measures has the Commission take in response to the FVO's criticism of the inadequate application of the directive? Has the Commission investigated whether all Member States now apply the directive in full? In accordance with Article 10 of the directive, the Commission should have submitted a socio-economic report to the Council, not later than 1 January 2005, on the implications of the directive. Why is it that the Commission has not yet submitted this report to the Council? What measures will the Commission take in cases of non-compliance with the directive?

(EN) The Commission has always opened infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty against those Member States which have failed to observe the provisions of Directive 1999/74/EC. The relevant actions undertaken by the Commission in this context are as follows:

Until October 2005, Belgium was the only Member State which had not notified national transposition measures of the Directive. The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Belgium for non-transposition of the Directive into its national legal system.

The Commission opened infringement proceedings against Italy for wrong transposition of the Directive which are still ongoing. Italy has recently notified national transpositions measures which are currently being analysed by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. A decision on launching infringement proceedings also against Spain and the United Kingdom will be made on the basis of the analysis which is currently underway, and which relates to the correct application of the measures transposed by these two Member States.

The adoption of the Commission’s report on various systems to keep laying hens as foreseen in Article 10 of Directive 1999/74/EC is expected during summer 2006.

A scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority and a socio-economic study carried out by an external consultant are already available on the website of Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection.

To ensure that the report is based on sound scientific evidence, in particular with regard to the new enriched cage systems, it was appropriate to await the results of a research project funded by the Commission and presented earlier this year.

Is the Commission aware that, despite the provisions laid down in the Timeshare Directive, many people are still experiencing frightening difficulties when dealing with what they understand to be timeshares?

Holiday clubs seem to be a major cause of problems. In the past, the Commission has said that it would come forward with new legislation to close the loopholes in timeshare legislation, so that it covers holiday clubs. Can the Commission now indicate when this draft legislation may be published?

(EN) The Commission is well aware of the situation. It receives numerous complaints and is informed of the difficulties experienced by timeshare purchasers from different sources, including the European Consumer Centres Network.

The Commission has included the Timeshare Directive in the review of the consumer acquis. Given the urgency of the problem, priority will be given to the revision of this Directive.

To this end a consultation paper was published on 1 June, and a workshop on timeshare will be held in Brussels on 19 July. The consultation paper covers various issues which may be addressed in the course of a possible revision of the Directive. These issues include the scope of application of the Directive, the resale and exchange of timeshare, and the pre-contractual information requirements. Depending on the results of the consultation, the Commission will determine the next steps in the revision of this Directive.

Given the increased exposure of European consumers to a variety of GMOs in their everyday lives, does the Commission have any concerns about their negative attitude towards GM technology in general, notably the fact that this may result in the EU falling behind in scientific research and development, with the US forging ahead?

In this context could the Commission outline its view of the prevailing attitudes of Europe's consumers to GMOs, as outlined in a number of Eurobarometer surveys on this issue, and in addition does the Commission intend to inform consumers about the complex issues involved in the debate on GM foods in order to bring greater clarity to the public's understanding of this issue?

(EN) Eurobarometer indicates that the attitude of consumers towards biotechnology varies between applications and between Member States.

While there are still resistances in some Member States towards the use of GM technology in the food sector, there are no such reactions in other fields where similar techniques are commonly used. For instance, the Commission is not aware of any negative attitude towards the use of biotech industrial processes in the production of enzymatic products or for medicines, vaccines or therapies.

In relation to the negative attitude of some consumers, the Commission main competence is to make sure that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) authorised in the EU are science-based, safe and that consumers have a real possibility to choose between GM and non GM products. Both objectives are actively pursued by the existing EU regulatory framework.

The Commission would like to point out, in addition, that on 12 April 2006 it dedicated an orientation debate to the issue of improving confidence in the risk assessment procedures linked to GMOs with the broader objective of reaching a better common understanding of the related issues. Following that debate the Commission decided to ask EFSA⁽¹⁾ to: (i) liaise more fully with national scientific bodies as a means to resolve diverging scientific opinions with Member States; (ii) provide more detailed justifications, in its opinion on individual applications, for not accepting scientific objections raised by national competent authorities; (iii) clarify which scientific protocols should be used by applicants to carry out scientific studies demonstrating safety. In the same conclusions, the Commission identified the need to address more explicitly potential long term effects and bio-diversity issues, and the need to introduce, on a case by case basis and where specific risks are identified, additional proportionate risk-management measures in its draft decisions to place GMOs on the market.

The Commission would also like to recall its efforts to promote research and information in this sector via specific projects approved in the context of the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development.

Under this project, comprehensive information sources on GMOs were established. A specific website was realised with the contribution of independent scientists aiming at providing consumers with balanced information on GMOs, including assessment procedures and authorisation status for GM crops in the EU.

What lessons has the Commission drawn from the Watts ECJ decision (Judgment of the Court of Justice in the Case C-372/04) and when does it plan to bring forward proposals on patient mobility?

(EN) The Commission notes carefully the Court judgement in the Watts case delivered on 16 May 2006.

This decision is consistent with the Court’s previous case-law on patient mobility and confirms principles already established by earlier decisions, for example in Kohll; Smits and Peerbooms; or Müller-Fauré.

The Court reiterated the principles regarding patients’ right to receive medical treatment in other Member State and be reimbursed for that treatment.

Most importantly, the Court confirms that the fact that reimbursement is sought from a publicly funded national health service, such as the UK’s National Health Service, does not mean that the Treaty rules on the freedom to provide services do not apply.

It also confirms the right of patients facing in their Member State waiting times exceeding a medically acceptable period having regard to the medical condition and clinical needs of the person concerned to be authorised to receive treatment abroad.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure that Member States comply with the evolving jurisprudence of the Court and will, in particular, address individual complaints from European citizens.

When health services were excluded from the scope of the proposed Directive on services in the Internal Market, the Commission made clear that this does not take away the necessity to address the increasing jurisprudence of the Court in regard to patient mobility. It said that it will come back to those issues in the future. The President of the Commission has asked Commissioners in charge of Health and Consumer Protection, Internal Market and Services and Employment to develop proposals on these issues.

The Commission already indicated in its Annual Policy Strategy for 2007 that it will develop a Community framework for safe, high quality and efficient health services, by reinforcing cooperation between Member States and providing clarity and certainty over the application of Community law to health services and healthcare.

The Council and the Parliament will also soon discuss the Commission proposal of implementing Regulation of the Regulation 883/04, dealing with coordination of social security scheme of the Member States. Some practical issues related to the case law of the Court are dealt with by some provisions in the context of the sickness benefits chapter.

Given the sensitivity and complexity of this issue, the Commission will of course involve all interested parties in the discussion on any future proposals. Proper consultation of broad range of stakeholders is vital for success of any initiative in this field.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to what progress is being made by the European Union to implement substantial debt relief programmes for highly indebted and poorer countries in the world?

(FR) The Commission has supported the Highly Indebted Poorer Countries (HIPC) initiative from the outset. An overall amount of more than € 1.6 billion has been allocated to the initiative. The Commission is involved as a creditor, providing € 680 million from European Development Fund (EDF) resources plus a contribution of € 900 million to the HIPC Trust Fund administered by the World Bank and providing funding for the participation of other multilateral organisations, including the African Development Bank.

The Commission has also gone beyond what is required under the HIPC initiative by cancelling all least advanced country debts on special loans.

As at the end of December 2005, the situation as regards implementation was as follows:

involvement as a creditor: € 344.6 million had been used to relieve the debt of the 24 eligible ACP countries⁽¹⁾;

resources made available to the HIPC Trust Fund administered by the World Bank: USD 697.4 million had been used for debt relief purposes.

In accordance with the terms of the financing agreements, the Commission provides annual reports to the Council and the EDF Committee on the use of the funds. The reports are also available to the general public on the relevant page of the Directorate-General for Development's web site⁽²⁾.

States which have recently acceded to the European Union, such as Lithuania, are involved in development cooperation activities. For countries which not long ago were still receiving aid themselves, this is a completely new field of external policy. Managing development cooperation policy requires very specific know-how and skills, including a knowledge of the methods of implementing this policy and its technical aspects. Newcomers to the EU badly need the support of the old Member States as regards specific experience and training in fields related to the planning, implementation and assessment of development cooperation policy. Hitherto, such specialised direct assistance from the Commission has been lacking, although the new Member States have informed the relevant departments of their needs.

What practical measures will the Commission take to help the new EU Member States to participate fully in development cooperation policy? What share of the Community budget will be allocated to such measures? How will the proposed measures be implemented?

(FR) Firstly, the new Member States have received pre-accession grants designed, among other things, to strengthen the public administration of these countries in different areas including development cooperation. Significant sums have been made available even after accession to enable the 10 countries to propose ‘Twinning’ or ‘Twinning Light’ projects for the provision of training for their staff through quality technical assistance. Hungary and Slovakia have applied for these grants.

Likewise, it should be noted that after accession (1 May 2004 or later in the case of Romania and Bulgaria) specific funds, grouped together in a Transition Facility, are made available to the new Member States and this is for a limited period in order to be able to continue with the development of their administrative and judicial capacity which was started within the framework of the pre-accession funds.

From 2003, the authorities responsible for development policy in the new Member States have been invited to take part in the political dialogue with the Commission and the Member States on a permanent basis.

Furthermore, the Commission regularly reviews the needs of the new Member States as well as the acceding countries and candidate countries and informs those countries about the support operations implemented by the Commission as well as by other countries in the European Union. A working party in which most of the old and new Member States participate, as well as acceding countries and candidate countries, has been meeting at least twice monthly since 2003.

In more concrete terms, the Commission has reserved, for the officials of the new Member States, a limited number of places on specialised courses organised by the Commission (EuropeAid) for its staff. Furthermore, technical assistance has been made available in 2005 for a sum of EUR 200 000 for the purpose of organising training courses, seminars, conferences or specific technical assistance to meet the expressed needs of these countries. A second phase of this project is planned for 2006.

Training activities are provided free through EuropeAid and other ad hoc budget lines have so far made it possible to finance specific support activities insofar as the objective of the budget line was the coordination of the Member States’ policies for the benefit of developing countries.

The implementation of the activities set up by the Commission is described in detail in the annual report which the Commission draws up every year on development policy. Moreover, the Commissioner in charge of development has had the opportunity to explain what the Commission does and how it does it during his visits to some of the new Member States last year.

The implementation of the above-mentioned measures is achieved through constant dialogue with the responsible officials in the new Member States, the acceding countries and the candidate countries. The courses organised by EuropeAid and the activities financed by the Directorate-General for Development are implemented through a ‘based on demand’ system, taking into account the needs presented by the new Member States.

In its communications 'Migration and development' and 'EU Strategy for Africa: Towards a Euro-African pact to accelerate Africa’s development', the Commission states that migration can be a positive factor both for Europe and for Africa if, among other things, links with development are reinforced and co-development is promoted, by turning brain drain into ‘brain gain’, helping African countries to tap into the potential available in their diasporas in Europe and facilitating various forms of 'brain circulation', including return migration and temporary or virtual return through which African migrants can make their skills available to their home countries.

Can the Commission indicate what programmes it has devised to this effect and what funding it has earmarked for them?

What tangible projects has it financed or does it plan to finance for combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings?

In the context of the Aeneas Programme, to what extent is aid for the management of migratory flows being granted to countries that cooperate with EU Member States in drawing up readmission agreements?

(EN) The EU has made major progress in reconciling the migration policy agenda and the development policy agenda. Only a few years back these were different worlds, far apart. Today there is a broad consensus – reflected in numerous EU Council Conclusions – that migration is part and parcel of the development process, and that development policy is an essential component of any migration policy.

Following this inclusive approach the EU has agreed on a broad and balanced agenda of dialogue and action with developing countries. For us, the external dimension of migration policy includes topics such as:

Addressing the root causes of (forced) migration;

Turning brain drain into ‘brain gain’ (through circular migration and return programmes);

Linking migrant diasporas and their remittances to the national development processes of the countries of origin;

Effectively integrating legal migrants in countries of destination;

Strengthening migration management capacities in countries of origin and transit, in view of better addressing illegal migration flows;

Fighting trafficking of human beings;

Supporting refugees and strengthening regional protection capacities.

Turning these objectives into concrete programmes and actions is one of the major challenges in the current 10th European Development Fund programming exercise. In dialogue, cooperation and partnership with ACP⁽¹⁾ countries we will now effectively integrate the migration dimension into our development programmes.

On the specific topic of fighting illegal migration, the Commission has already taken urgent action. Projects have been financed in various regions of the world, in particular for the improvement of border management. A project financed under the AENEAS⁽²⁾ programme has started focussing on joint patrolling between Spanish and Moroccan authorities, Cap Verde, Mauritania and Senegal are associated with the project.

In March 2006, as an immediate response to the crisis in the Canary Islands, Commissioner in charge of External Relations indicated that up to €2 million could be made available under the Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM) to assist Mauritania in dealing with the flow of migrants now travelling from its coastline.

The Commission has been working closely with Spanish and Mauritanian officials to identify concrete measures that could usefully be taken to address this serious situation. These measures include an improved maritime patrolling and search and rescue capacity, and support in the treatment of returnees from Spain and those found at sea, or stranded at the internal borders, with assistance for their care and repatriation, in line with international law and convention for voluntary return. A formal decision on RRM financing will be taken imminently.

In addition, the possibilities of intensified maritime control with the involvement of various EU Member States and coordinated by the European External Border Agency (FRONTEX) is being actively explored. On 24 May, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Justice, Freedom and Security discussed the package of EU support with Spanish Vice-President Fernández de la Vega, expressing the commitment of the Commission to assist Spain in addressing the crisis.

Commissioner in charge of Development and Humanitarian Help met on June 8th with the President of the Canary Islands to explore ways of collaborating in development cooperation, and thus in fighting illegal immigration.

Finally, concerning the AENEAS programme, the relevant Regulation⁽³⁾ stipulates that "The programme is particularly, but not exclusively, intended for those third countries actively engaged in or preparing or implementing a readmission agreement initialled, signed or concluded with the European Community." This was a priority in the call for proposals for 2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2004 two projects were selected, one focussing on Albania and one on Macao. The evaluation of the 2005 Call for Proposals is still ongoing and the results are not known yet.

Migration flows from sub-Saharan Africa to the EU are increasing daily. Spain, like Italy and Greece, has a geographical situation that makes it a natural point of entry to the EU as well as an external border, and the number of people arriving in the Canary Islands is reaching a level which requires rational planning of these flows and methods of dealing with them on a European scale.

In view of the dramatic situation, will the Commission propose specific budgetary measures to meet this challenge? Would it be possible to use the EDF, which is not actually a Community fund, or development aid, or even the stability instrument? If there has been a significant reduction in amounts of aid for Africa in the multiannual budget allocation under the financial perspective 2007-2013 by comparison with the previous financial perspective, what instruments might the Commission use to finance new appropriations?

(EN) The Commission is fully aware of the growing importance of illegal migration flows originating from African countries towards Europe. This phenomenon has been dramatically illustrated by recent events, with thousands of illegal migrants leaving the Mauritanian and Senegalese coasts towards the Canary Islands, many of them losing their lives during these attempts.

From the onset of the crisis, the Commission has recognised the need to react promptly to the situation and stressed that this is a clear case for European solidarity. The Commission has been in permanent contact with the Spanish authorities in charge of migration in order to coordinate their respective responses.

As an immediate reaction to the crisis, the Commissioner in charge of External Relations decided that an amount up to of €2 million from the Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM) should be used to reinforce the capability of Mauritania to deal with migratory flows and in particular to provide assistance to migrants in accordance to international standards. After a fact finding mission to Mauritania, a Financing Proposal was prepared and should be approved in June 2006.

As a further step, it was decided to convene meetings between the EU and Sub-Saharan countries of origin and/or transit for migration in the context of Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement. The first series of meetings led by the local Presidencies of the EU was held from 23 to 25 May 2006 when a delegation of the Commission visited Mauritania and Senegal. This dialogue will be extended to two other levels: pan-African (with the AU⁽¹⁾) and regional (with ECOWAS⁽²⁾). The regional dimension of the dialogue should be particularly useful when discussing migration routes globally.

The Commission will use the information collected and the conclusions of the dialogue held with the different countries, regional organisations and the AU in the context of the forthcoming programming exercise of the 10th European Development Fund (10th EDF). It is expected that the overall "migration and development" theme will become part of the programming dialogue both at (sub) regional level and with targeted countries. Specific projects may be funded under the Regional Indicative Programmes (RIP) and the National Indicative Programmes (NIP), provided they respond to needs identified during the process of dialogue and can produce clearly identifiable results.

Furthermore, a new regional instrument, the Intra-ACP⁽³⁾ Migration Capacity Building Facility, still funded under the 9th EDF, will be operational in 2007 for national actions with a (sub) regional dimension, implemented in cooperation with other ACP countries.

The thematic programme on asylum and migration in relations with third countries (so called 'AENEAS programme') is also currently available to fund actions in relation to migration flows from sub-Saharan Africa. The AENEAS programme covers the full range of activities to build capacity of third countries on migration and asylum issues. The programme certainly tries to find responses to the challenges posed by migration flows towards the EU, but it also addresses the issues of migration and development or protection of refugees in certain regions. One of the advantages of this thematic programme is to overcome the geographical limitations of the EDF or the MEDA⁽⁴⁾ programme. Concretely, the programme can facilitate cooperation along a migration route (e.g. Mali/ Senegal – Mauritania – Spain) which is particularly relevant for the current situation. The programme is implemented through annual Call for proposals. The Call for Proposals 2005 is being evaluated at the moment and the Call for Proposals 2006 will be launched during summer 2006.

With regard to the future⁽⁵⁾:

a) as said above, migration will be integrated into the regular country programming for all regions, including under the 10th EDF, as appropriate,

b) a new thematic programme on migration and asylum is currently being prepared to succeed to the 'AENEAS programme'.

The EU-African summit to be held in Rabat on 11 and 12 July 2006 is of particular importance given the numbers of immigrants flocking to various countries of southern Europe, including Spain.

The problems that cause hundreds of men, women and children to flee their countries of origin are well known: extreme poverty and despair. The new agents are also familiar: mafias.

This conference is a good opportunity to reflect jointly on the causes and effects, and for the EU to take practical measures to shoulder its responsibilities, whilst African governments would continue to shoulder theirs.

A coordinated European strategy on Africa is needed, and as far as possible the EU must promote coordination between the African countries present in Rabat, including on readmission agreements with countries of origin.

The dramatic situation affecting thousands of Africans requires a common European position on policy and development and a coordinated political and intelligence strategy.

Does the Commission agree with the philosophy and measures outlined above? Is it following the programme of the African Conference which is to be held in Libya in June and possible proposals stemming from that conference?

(EN) The Commission fully supports the Euro-African Regional Conference on Migration and Development that will take place in Rabat on 10-11 July 2006. The Commission welcomes this important initiative and looks forward to its outcomes, which it hopes will be concrete and operational, to provide the basis for effective cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination.

The Commission believes that this partnership will not be complete without full involvement of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union, and has at several occasions expressed the view that these two organisations should be invited to participate.

The Commission agrees that the conference will provide a useful opportunity to reflect jointly on the causes and consequences of migratory flows, including irregular flows, and at ways in which the challenges related to migration could be addressed jointly by countries of origin, transit and destination, in a spirit of partnership and complying with the European Consensus for Development. In this respect, the Commission hopes that the Conference will come up with recommendations that are sufficiently concrete on how to make such partnership a reality. These recommendations can then be used by the EC – but also by Member States and other participants – as a source of inspiration for devising concrete measures to help our partners improve their capacity to manage migration flows, to deal with the challenges of migration, be it to tackle human trafficking and smuggling networks or to maximise the benefits of legal, orderly migration flows for development, and – in general – to strengthen the positive synergies between migration and development, where they exist.

The Commission would also like to stress that, over the longer term, the recently adopted Africa Strategy, which includes an important section on migration, constitutes the basic framework to address the root causes of migration by contributing to Africa’s development.

The legal framework of our cooperation with ACP⁽¹⁾ countries is provided by the Cotonou Agreement, which talks – in its Art. 13 – also about cooperation in the area of migration. Article 13 contains, inter alia, a standard readmission clause.

The Commission is currently developing, as requested by the European Council in December 2005, a dialogue based on article 13 with a number of priority countries, notably in Western Africa. This dialogue will look, among other issues, at the effective implementation of the readmission obligation provided for in Art. 13. The Commission would like to note that Art. 13 also provides for the possibility of financial support from the EU to ACP countries to help them discharge their readmission obligations.

The Commission however believes that the dialogues under Art. 13 could usefully be supplemented by bilateral contacts between interested individual Member States and the countries in question. The Commission would also like to recall that Art. 13 also includes a general commitment to negotiate readmission agreements, if requested by one of the Parties. In this context ‘Parties’ also refers to individual Member States. Art. 13 therefore offers each EU Member State a basis on which to seek the negotiation of a bilateral readmission agreement with a given ACP country should this country wish to go beyond the provisions of the readmission clause.

How will the Commission ensure that the fight against HIV/AIDS is adequately resourced under the new 2007-2013 financial perspective, without a specific poverty-diseases budget line but with HIV/AIDS to be incorporated in a broad human and social development thematic programme with no guarantee on sufficient and sustainable funding? How will the European Commission assure sufficient attention for sustainable human and social development within the 10th EDF? More specifically, how much will the EU allocate to the fight against HIV/AIDS and its structural determinants (i.e. social exclusion, weak health systems, no access to primary education, and so on) within the 10th EDF, considering the EDF's poor track record on spending in the social sector at country level?

(EN) The contribution of the EC to the fight against Human immunodeficiency virus/Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) cannot and should not be measured only in financial terms. Through its policy and advocacy work, the Commission has strongly supported over the years the HIV/AIDS agenda at both the country and global level. In the past, the Commission has worked quite intensively with Council and Parliament to strengthen the European’s voice in the fight against HIV/AIDS globally as well as within the EU and in the neighbouring countries.

More specifically, the European Union has adopted in 2004 a comprehensive and strategic policy framework and in 2005 a programme for action to confront HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and reiterated the priority it attaches to confronting theses diseases, including their structural determinants the honourable Member refers to, in the European Consensus on Development, in the Africa strategy and the strategies for the Caribbean and the Pacific. The Commission’s Communication on combating HIV/AIDS within the EU and in the neighbouring countries adopted in 2005 sets the priority areas for actions for this geographical area until the end of 2009. The external actions proposed are fully in line and complementary to the overall policy framework for EC external action on HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

The funding 2007-2013 will come from two sources: 1) the EU budget in the form of country programming for several world regions and thematic programming and 2) the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) in case of the ACP⁽¹⁾ countries. Country programming is driven by country ownership and priorities and therefore it is not for the Commission to allocate funding on its own. The Commission through the above policies, global advocacy, policy dialogue and programming reviews, but also guidelines for Delegations, is doing all it can to help partner countries address the fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases, to improve their health systems and access to primary education. But ultimately, it is for the partner countries themselves to define the priorities of their development and poverty reduction strategies.

Furthermore, the EC contributions to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis (GFATM) and the future funding from the thematic programme, to be adopted as part of the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument (DCECI), will ensure a predictable funding from the Commission for the period 2007-2013. Between 2002 and 2005, the EC has provided financial support to the GFATM for a total of €432,5 million, which corresponds to an annual average of over €100 million. In 2006, the EC will contribute €90 million to the GFATM. The President of the Commission has recently announced his intention to make a pledge for the 2007 contribution to the GFATM and has confirmed that in 2007 the EC intends to keep at least the same level of funding of previous years. The contribution to be proposed would probably have to be divided on an annual basis between the 10th EDF Intra-ACP Funds and the DCECI as this is the only way to reach this level of funding provided all parties can agree. The past contributions were sourced in a similar way between the 9th EDF and the EU budget (under the budget line the honourable Member refers to).

The GFATM has proven over the years to be the biggest financing mechanism and public-private partnership to confront HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in more than 130 countries worldwide.

The thematic programme is intended to continue financing the same priorities as the current budget line based on Regulation 1568/2003 while also addressing other priorities in a holistic way such as those mentioned by the honourable Member: social exclusion, health systems, primary education and others.

But as the honourable Member knows, neither the legal base nor the precise budget allocations have been decided upon yet.

In the context of development cooperation, what view does the Commission take of undertakings by third countries to achieve sectoral reforms to promote equal opportunities in the field of education and training and what action will it take should these undertakings not be met?

(EN) Achieving gender equality and closing the gender gap in education is a priority in the EC development policy in education. The EC policy is anchored on the education Millennium Development Goals (MDG) – gender parity in school education by 2005 and universal primary education by 2015 - and the six Education for All Goals by 2015. The latter cover most levels of education, from early childhood care to secondary education as well as adult literacy and put special emphasis on gender equality.

It must be noted that the first MDG target of gender parity in school education by 2005 has been missed. More effort on the part of partner countries and donors alike is required to help girls access and remain in the school system.

The EC is increasingly working through sector approaches and general budget support to support partner governments in their effort to implement nationally owned plans. In this context, the EC addresses gender equality concerns in the education sector dialogue with the partner country. The sector dialogue, with government in the driving seat, involves civil society partners, e.g. women’s organisations, thus providing a broad-based platform for education dialogue.

Issues pertinent to the dialogue are identified and assessed in the drafting process the Country Strategy Papers and the annual reviews of EC cooperation. The analysis assesses the situation in education in the respective partner country in terms of trends, progress or delays towards the education MDGs and in terms of policies and commitments to reforms. Particular attention is given to assessing access to services by disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and by women and girls in particular.

Progress in education is monitored first of all in the context of MDG indicators, which include indicators on gender balance at different levels of education. These are reported on annually in the framework of the reviews stipulated in the Cotonou Agreement for the ACP⁽¹⁾ countries. Secondly, education outcome indicators are included in education sector budget support operations and in most general budget support operations. These have variable tranches, the release of which is triggered on the progress made towards targets set by the partner country. In case of deficient progress, the variable tranche amount is diminished.

In the context of the on-going political dialogue between the partner country and the Commission any non-respect of government commitments is reviewed and analysed and appropriate means identified to assist the government to achieve its targets.

The Commission has – correctly – attributed the deadlock in the Doha Round negotiations within the World Trade Organisation to a lack of flexibility on the part of non-EU industrialised States and the emerging economies. The Commission considers the conditional offer of October 2005, including the agricultural sector, to be credible and significant. Moreover, while leading third-country trading partners continue to be intransigent in their positions, the EU continues to come under pressure to make further unilateral concessions in the agricultural sector.

Are reports that a new offer in the agricultural sector is to be made in order to take the negotiations forward correct? Does the Commission intend to ask the Council for a new negotiating mandate? Does it intend to propose convening a summit meeting (at the level of Heads of State and Government) in order to salvage the Doha Round?

(EN) The Commissioner in charge of Trade has repeated at several occasions in recent weeks that there is a window of opportunity for unlocking the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). The condition is that World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members in a position to do so must make meaningful offers in all parts of the negotiation.

In particular, he has said that the United States (US) should offer a substantial and real reduction in trade distorting farm support. The US should also discipline the most distortive individual farm support programmes. At the same time, the advanced developing countries, such as Brazil, India, China or Chile, should offer cuts in their applied tariffs for industrial products.

The EU would have to make a contribution as well. The EU is prepared to enhance further its current agricultural offer within the limits of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reform if key partners put something worthwhile on the table along the lines that have just been described.

The Commission is working hard to convince its negotiating partners to create the right conditions for reaching a deal on key DDA modalities by summer 2006.

The Commission is aware of the idea, put forward by President Lula, of convening a Heads of State meeting on the DDA. It is an interesting idea which deserves serious consideration. However, at this stage, our focus should remain on the regular WTO proceedings. On April 2006, it was agreed by all Members to have intensive negotiations in Geneva, in view of agreement on modalities by Ministers by summer 2006.

Can the EU Commission make a comprehensive statement as to what initiatives it is pursuing to eliminate telephone roaming charges within the European Union?

(EN) The Commission’s second-phase public consultation on the concept for such a Regulation closed on 12 May, and follows a first call for comment on 20 February 2006.

The information received, together with information already available to the Commission are input to an impact assessment, which is currently ongoing. In this assessment various options for regulation, ranging from no regulation to targeted wholesale and retail price regulation are being considered. Dependent upon the outcome of this assessment, the Commission hopes to be in a position to adopt a proposal for a Regulation on prices for mobile roaming services and to forward the proposal to the Parliament and Council by summer 2006. The Regulation would have as its basis Article 95 of the Treaty.

Unesco fully supports the protection and development of games, dances and traditional sports in the setting of physical education and sport as a means to preserve cultural heritage in the world.

Will the European Commission consider drawing up a specific annual programme to promote regional and traditional sporting events in Europe?

(EN) Traditional games and sports are practised in many European regions and can be found in every EU Member State. These types of activities are therefore part of a diverse European cultural heritage. They should also feed into the Commission’s overall approach to sport, because of their social, cultural and educational character and values.

The Commission follows with interest the initiatives in the field of physical education and sport at United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) level, that aim at promoting, encouraging and developing traditional sports and games worldwide. The Commission takes note of the efforts by CIGEPS⁽¹⁾ and MINEPS⁽²⁾ IV stressing the importance for the international community to recognise traditional games and sports.

However, the Commission considers that drawing up a specific annual programme to promote regional and traditional sporting events in Europe is not a suitable option in a policy area, such as sport, where the EU currently has no direct competence.

The Commission intends to launch a White Paper on Sport in 2007 that will look inter alia into the societal dimension of sport. The promotion of traditional games and sports could be addressed in the White Paper as part of the reflections on the social, cultural and citizenship functions of sport.

This would then be another opportunity to follow-up on the Parliament’s Recommendation of 1994⁽³⁾ to promote regional and traditional sports in Europe.

Under Danish legislation, it is legal to purchase by mail order, for private use and with a prescription issued by a Danish doctor, prescription-only medicines from any pharmacy in the EU.

Under the Danish rules on medical benefits, however, patients may obtain government contributions towards medicines purchased at a Danish pharmacy only.

Is it the Commission’s view that such preferential treatment of Danish pharmacies is contrary to EU competition rules? Can it be regarded as illegal State aid to the privately-owned Danish pharmacies since such preferential treatment creates unequal terms of competition and boosts the competitiveness of Danish pharmacies?

(EN) The honourable Member refers to the Danish rules on medical benefits which provide that patients may obtain government contributions towards medicines purchased at a Danish pharmacy only.

Since the issue appears to concern a general legislative measure of the Danish Government, it does not seem to be relevant for the application of competition rules or State aid provisions.

Instead, the question relates to the application of the free movement of goods principle and the freedom to provide and receive services principle taking into account that each Member State is free to determine the details of its national social security system, such as who is to be insured under its legislation, which benefits are granted and under what conditions, and under what circumstances prescription costs should be reimbursed. In this respect, Community law does not detract from the powers of Member States to organise their social security systems and to adopt, in particular, provisions intended to govern the consumption of pharmaceutical preparations in order to promote the financial stability of their health-care insurance schemes.

However, national provisions concerning the national security system must not contravene EC law. While the Danish rules allegedly refuse the reimbursement of the costs of medicines purchased in another Member State, they encourage insured persons in Denmark to purchase those products in Denmark rather than in other Member States and are thus liable to curb the import of those products legally manufactured and marketed in those States. Such rules are normally categorised as a barrier to the free movement of goods contrary to Article 28 of the EC Treaty, unless justified on grounds of general public interest under Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

It is also notable that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, establishes common rules and principles, such as non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, which have to be observed when applying national social security rules. This ensures that the application of the different national legislations does not adversely affect persons exercising their right to free movement within the European Union.

What measures is the Commission considering to help those African countries which have to cope with the movement of migrants from neighbouring countries, heading for Europe, above all with regard to providing temporary settlements for immigrants who cannot be accepted in the European Union?

(EN) The Commission is concerned about the consistently high number of African people trying to reach EU territory through irregular channels, and the loss of life as a consequence of these attempts.

In response the Commission takes urgent action where required, e.g. in the case of Mauritania where assistance worth €2 million was made available.

In parallel, the Commission works towards an approach which extends to medium and longer term measures.

In the course of 2006, the Commission aims to convene a number of meetings with sub-Saharan African countries in the region with a view to discussing implementation of Art.13 of the Cotonou Agreement, as set out in the Global Approach to Migration: Priority actions focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean, adopted by the European Council Conclusions in December 2005.

The Commission is actively pursuing implementation of these priority actions in partnership with the third countries concerned.

In this respect, an EU-Africa Ministerial Conference will be held in Rabat in July 2006, bringing together countries of origin, transit and destination in the aim of promoting an effective management of migration on the basis of close regional cooperation.

At the same time, the Commission is reinforcing dialogue and cooperation on migration issues with the African Union and other regional organisations.

In connection with Europe Day (9 May), it has become apparent that many pupils and teachers know precious little about the European Union and its history, institutions and achievements. In many schools, knowledge of the EU is not a standard element in the curriculum. This applies in both old and new Member States. If the subject is not taught, pupils cannot be expected to become interested in it.

Is the Commission taking enough measures to encourage schools to devote more attention to the European Union in which we conduct our daily lives and both work and live? In connection with Europe Day, could greater attention also be devoted to the subject in education?

(EN) The honourable Member will be aware that responsibility for the organisation and content of the education and training systems rests with each Member State, as laid down in Article 149 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. However, the Commission shares the view that students and teachers should know more about the European Union. The latest joint report of the Council and the Commission on the progress of the Education and Training 2010 work programme⁽¹⁾ reveals that the knowledge that young people need as European citizens remains a major challenge.

There are a number of practical ways in which the Commission complements the work of Member States in this field.

The Commission’s proposal for a Recommendation of the Parliament and the Council on key competences for lifelong learning⁽²⁾ identifies and defines the competences that should be developed during initial education and training by all citizens living in a knowledge-society; the European dimension is a key element of the Social and Civic competence and of Cultural awareness.

Furthermore, Community education and training programmes such as Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci have for over a decade given schools the possibility to get involved in school partnerships and other projects which help foster knowledge of other European countries and of the European Union. Similarly, Spring Day for Europe (organised in cooperation with European Schoolnet⁽³⁾) promotes knowledge about the European Union and the workings of its Institutions, with the aim of establishing a dialogue about visions of Europe and its future between pupils, teachers and others in the EU.

Finally, the White Paper on a European Communication Policy⁽⁴⁾ proposes as a way to “empower the citizens” that the EU could help to ensure exchange of best practise and facilitate the development of common educational “tools” so that the European dimension is reflected more effectively. The creation of a European network of teachers is mentioned as an example with a view to exchanging ideas on innovative approaches to civic education and to learn new skills.

At the beginning 2005, there were 1 350 000 illegal foreigners in Spain. On 7 May 2005, Spain concluded a mass regularisation of immigrants, a process which has had extremely serious consequences for Europe. The process culminated with 577 049 illegal immigrants being regularised; a year later, according to figures supplied by NGOs, there are once again 1 350 000 illegal immigrants in Spain, i.e. the regularisation process has attracted a thresh 600 000 immigrants into the country as a result of the 'efecto llamada' ('pull factor'').

Is the Commission aware of the need to establish Community mechanisms for supervising and even controlling national regularisation of immigrants, because such processes affect all the Member Sates? Is the Commission aware that the 600 000 new illegal immigrants into Spain could disperse throughout the Union? Does the Commission intend to adopt specific measures to counteract the 'pull factor'?

(EN) As a general rule, the Commission does not comment on actions taken by the Member States within the sphere of their competencies. Regularising illegally staying immigrants is precisely one of these competencies since there is currently no Community legislation that regulates the way in which Member States should deal with the presence of high numbers of illegally staying third country nationals on their territories.

The Commission is aware that national measures taken by one Member State in the area of immigration, including large-scale regularisations, may have effects on other Member States. It is for this reason that, in February 2005, the Commission and the then Luxemburg Presidency proposed to the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers to establish a mutual information system on all national measures that may have an impact on the other Member States. This initiative led to the adoption, on 14 April 2005, of Council conclusions in which the Commission was invited to come forward with a legislative proposal to formalise such a system.

On 10 October 2005, the Commission presented the requested proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of a mutual information procedure on the measures of the Member States in the areas of asylum and immigration⁽¹⁾. The basic idea of this proposal is that the Member States should inform each other – and the Commission – as soon as possible on the measures which they intend to adopt or which they recently adopted and which may have a significant impact on the other Member States. The possibility to organise an exchange of views among experts from the Member States and the Commission on such national measures was also proposed.

On 1 June 2006, the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached political agreement on this proposal and its formal adoption should take place once the Parliament will have rendered its opinion. The text endorsed by the Council keeps all of the essential elements of the Commission's proposal. The Commission hopes that the Council Decision, once applicable, will lead to a better information and co-ordination between Member States in the area of migration and asylum.

Finally, the Commission wishes to inform the honourable Member that it is currently preparing a Communication on the future priorities in the area of illegal immigration. At the same time, it is putting into practice the conclusions of the European Council of December 2005, which decided to take a series of priority measures related to the migratory phenomena in Africa and the Mediterranean to reduce illegal migration flows and the loss of lives. These priority measures aim to ensure safe returns of illegal immigrants, strengthen durable solutions for refugees and build capacity to better manage migration, including through maximising the benefits to all partners of legal migration, while fully respecting human rights and the right to seek asylum.

When an ad hoc EP delegation visited Tripoli in December 2005 to investigate the question of immigration, one of the items up for discussion with the Libyan authorities was the Action Plan proposed by the Commission last year and to which Libya was expected to react.

Can the Commission inform the House whether there have been any developments to date? Have the Libyan authorities reacted and what was the outcome of this proposed Action Plan?

(EN) On 21 and 22 May 2006, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Justice, Freedom and Security travelled to Libya and met with Colonel Khaddafi and a number of Government officials.

On that occasion, Libya has indicated that, although it is strongly committed to developing its relations with the EU, it is not ready to join the Barcelona process. As the proposed Action Plan was to a large extent premised on Libya's membership of the Barcelona process, and on the financial assistance that would have been made available to Libya, as a result, it is clear that it will not be feasible in the absence of such membership.

Although, for the time being, there is no legal framework for cooperation with Libya, the Commission is currently looking into the issue of how to further develop operational cooperation with that country, especially with regard to the fight against irregular migration flows. In particular, the Commission is considering initiatives designed to foster exchanges of experience and capacity building that can be launched within the scope of the limited funds which have been made available for cooperation with Libya. It goes without saying that such initiatives, that should be the result of a dialogue with Libya, will need to be closely coordinated with the support that is being made available to that country by a number of Member States.

The Commission has in particular proposed to send an experts mission, also including representatives of FRONTEX⁽¹⁾ and interested Member States, to Libya's Southern border with a view to examining how Libya could be supported in its efforts to control that border and prevent loss of life in the desert. Libya has welcomed this proposal and a date for that mission is expected to be agreed soon.

The Commission will continue its effort to deepen the dialogue on migration and related issues with Libya and is confident that more ambitious and structured cooperation can be developed over the medium-term.

Given that, under the common agricultural policy, provisions for single farm payments for 2005 were available to national governments for payment to farmers by December 2005, and given that significant monies due to farmers from England will only have been claimed well after that date, it is fair to assume that such large unclaimed funds must have been accruing considerable interest within the EU budget in the meantime.

How much interest has been generated within the EU budget as a result of this delay in call-off by the UK Government, and will this extra interest earned increase the overall CAP budget, or if not what will happen to it?

(EN) The deadline for payment of the Single Payment Scheme for the calendar year 2005 is the 30 June 2006, as per the pertinent rules included in Council Regulation (EC) 1782/2003. Certain Member States encounter difficulties in the administrative implementation of the scheme, like the case of England in the United Kingdom (UK). Please note that as of the end of May 2006, the UK had paid for England £1.33 billion out of the maximum ceiling of £1.56 billion.

With regard to the honourable Member's question on the interest generated for the EU budget as a result of this delay, the Commission would like to point out that the "own resources" mobilised in order to cover payments made by the Member States do not generate any interest either for the global EU budget or for the Common Agricultural Policy budget in particular.

The development of transport infrastructure is a key challenge in the European Union. The European Union is responding by supporting the trans-European networks. Developing the Danube to make it a European waterway will play a crucial role in this context. In Germany, the last bottleneck for shipping on the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen is to be removed. What is the Commission's assessment of the impact on the flow of traffic, particularly to south-east Europe, if the Danube is developed along the lines of option C2,80? How significant is this measure from a pan-European point of view?

(EN) The stretch between Straubing and Vilshofen forms part of the inland waterway axis Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube, which is one of the 30 Priority axes defined in Annex III of the Decision of the Parliament and of the Council, on the revision of the TEN-T Guidelines⁽¹⁾.

According to this Decision, a project must be completed by 2013 in order to remove the serious navigability bottlenecks on this stretch. The Commission has followed the recent developments in the spatial planning procedure (Raumordnungsverfahren) with great interest. The Commission has been briefed shortly after the decision of the Government of Niederbayern, which suggest that the more appropriate solution is the variant C2,80. This variant, which ensures the necessary depth for navigability for almost 290 days per year, constitutes undoubtedly a great improvement compared with the existing situation.

Similar projects to improve navigability and remove bottlenecks are planned on other parts of the Danube in Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Ideally all projects should lead to a situation where the necessary depth of 2.5 m is ensured for the largest possible part of the year.

The Commission will examine in detail the project in Vilshofen-Straubing, including also all environmental aspects, once it receives an official request for funding from the German Government. According to its information, the Federal Government and the Government of Niederbayern are still examining the project in order to take a final decision concerning the variant to be implemented.

Given that the football World Cup is taking place this month in Germany, will the Commission outline steps it has taken in cooperation with the German authorities, and what other initiatives it has taken, in the effort to combat acts of hooliganism or even racism?

(EN) The Commission would like to underline the efforts and progress made in this field both by the Parliament (in particular the successful “Declaration on tackling racism in football”) and by the football family.

In the run-up to the Football World Cup in Germany it is extremely important that appropriate measures are taken with a view to combating acts of hooliganism and racism. All actors are called upon to contribute to this work in line with their particular roles and competencies.

Concerning racism, the Commission actively supports the promotion of anti-racism in various ways through different programmes and initiatives, often in cooperation with sport organisations. Particular attention is paid to prevention and the exchange of best practice.

In this context, initiatives have been taken to promote and strengthen the educational and social dimension of sport. Sport is a tool for fighting racism and discrimination and for improving integration.

Some of these initiatives have been directly taken with the German authorities by the European Union’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in order to urge FIFA⁽¹⁾ to host activities against racism during the World Cup in Germany. They were joined in this initiative by the United Nations and the Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) network.

FIFA has responded by designating 30 June 2006 and 1 July 2006 as Days against Racism. It will use the quarter-final matches on those days to highlight an anti-racism message which will involve the teams competing in the quarter-final matches. FIFA will also host a high-profile media event on 28 June 2006 to reinforce the message against racism.

In addition, the EUMC is planning to publish a paper identifying elements of good practice in combating racism and promoting racial equality at the club and national football association level. The information in the paper is aimed at providing a template for action and developing approaches. The publication of the paper is planned to coincide with FIFA’s Days against Racism.

On the legal side, it must be stressed that in 1996 the Council adopted a Joint Action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia.

Further to that, in November 2001, a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia was presented by the Commission. The purpose of this Framework Decision is twofold: first, to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties and second, to improve and encourage judicial cooperation.

The fight against racism and hooliganism has been the subject of several projects co-financed within the Community action programme for supporting Active European Citizenship and in the field of Youth. For example, some projects have allowed young supporters from various Member States to exchange experiences in Germany on grassroots activities to fight against racism and violence in football on the eve of the World Cup.

At the EU level, specific security-related measures are being implemented, such as improved cooperation between law enforcement agencies by sending liaison officers (EUROPOL, EUROJUST and INTERPOL), including deploying officers of the public safety organisations, and event-related sharing of information related to potential troublemakers in accordance with data-protection law. Concerning safety concerns related to hooliganism, the sharing of information and criminal intelligence is considered to be one of the key means of control and prevent possible problems.

The Commission actively supports the development of improved violence prevention and control initiatives for international sporting events, in particular for football events.

The Television Without Frontiers (TWF) adopted in 1989 (89/552/EEC)⁽¹⁾ and updated in 1997, lays down the conditions for broadcasting television programmes within the single European market. The Directive demands that Member States coordinate their national legislation with a view to guaranteeing - inter alia - that the Member State governments guarantee that the public in general will have freedom of access to broadcasts of major sporting events such as the Olympic Games or the World Cup.

The Spanish Government included the XVIII World Cup in Germany in its catalogue of sporting competitions or events of general interest for the 2005-2006 season.

However, in Spain the open broadcasting rights for the World Cup have been awarded to a newly set-up television channel called 'La Sexta', which, two weeks away from the beginning of the World Cup is guaranteeing broadcasting coverage for a maximum of only 80% of Spanish territory.

Does the Commission believe that the awarding to La Sexta of the broadcasting rights for an event stated to be of social interest, such as the World Cup in Germany, infringes the spirit and letter of TWF by failing to guarantee access for all viewers? Will it take action so that the general interests of Spanish viewers are fully guaranteed, as laid down in the Directive?

(EN) At the European level, the EU “Television without Frontiers” Directive provides for the possibility for the Member States to take measures to protect events regarded as being of major importance to society (including sport events), so that a significant part of the public is not deprived of the possibility of seeing such events on free television, even if exclusive rights have been bought by pay-television channels. However, according to this Directive, there is no obligation on the Member States to introduce a list of events of major importance and Spain has not notified such a list to the Commission.

Accordingly, there is no harmonised EU regulation obliging Member States to assure that their entire population has access by means of free-to-air-television to important sport events such as the FIFA⁽²⁾ World Cup.

Illegal immigration into Spain is being cut thanks to strengthening border controls, developing the Sistema Integral de Vigilancia Exterior (SIVE - Total External Vigilance System) - and stepping up collaboration with third countries like Morocco. In 2006, the Spanish Ministry of the Interior will complete the implementation of SIVE in Almeria and Lanzarote, launch it in Gran Canaria and Huelva, and extend it in Cadiz.

2005 saw the smallest number of immigrants arriving in pateras (small boats) since 1999: 11 797 immigrants landed illegally on the Spanish coast, 24.7% less than in 2004, when the figure was 15 675.

The mafia organisations involved are now securing alternative routes, such as via the Canaries. Even greater collaboration on the part of the European institutions is required in view of the heavy daily pressure on Spain.

Could the Commission provide information on the Action Plan of the Rabat EU-Africa Conference, which will for the first time bring together the migration route countries of destination, transit and origin?

(EN) The Commission supports the EU-Africa regional Conference on migration and development, to be held on 10 and 11 July 2006 in Rabat. This event will bring together representatives from countries of origin, transit and destination. It will be focused on the West and Central African migration routes leading to Europe. The main purpose of this Conference is to find joint, regional responses so as to better manage the phenomenon of migration and to further deepen cooperation with the countries concerned.

The Commission expects that the Action Plan to be adopted at the Conference will pave the way for the implementation of concrete and operational measures designed to address the range of migratory issues in the region, including channels for legal migration, fostering the links between migration and development, and combating illegal migration and the trafficking in human beings. At this stage, however, the Action Plan is still in the process of being devised and it is therefore premature to comment on its content in detail.

The Balearic Islands' Regional Government has recently submitted a scheme for setting up a Tourism Research Centre with a view to increasing investment in tourist sector RDI and thus improving the island's competitiveness.

A further objective of the scheme is to reduce the Balearic economic model's structural deficit in innovation.

Does the Commission know of similar initiatives to the setting up of the Tourism Research Centre?

Can the Commission state what European aid will be earmarked from 2007 for co-funding this project and other Balearic Island projects within the framework of RDI?

What measures, other than these subsidies, might the Commission consider with a view to helping the Balearic Islands in the fields of tourist sector RDI?

(EN) Within the framework of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Innovative Actions 2000-2006, on 27 December 2005 the Commission approved €2.34 million for a regional programme of innovative actions: "SAITUR" (Support System for Tourist Innovation) in the Baleares Islands. It is expected that, during 2006 and 2007, the European funding will attract further investment of Euro 2.34 million from the public sector and €0.3 million from the private sector creating total resources of €4.98 million.

The programme aims to create a Research and Development Centre, specialised in tourism and coordinating the island tourism cluster, to consolidate the synergies derived from the expansion of the tourist sector and to integrate the island innovation system that supports it. At the same time, it will take account of issues related to the sustainability of the Balearic’s ecosystem, the new demands of our globalised world and the information society.

In effect, until now, the tourist sector has mainly focussed on traditional issues like hotel management, staff qualifications and marketing. As a result, it has benefited relatively little from technological and innovative developments. The "SAITUR" programme wants to break with that situation and deploy the considerable potential for technological innovation in this sector. One of the starting points will be the cluster concept in tourism, meaning that tourist activities (especially the hotel trade) are perceived as the driving force of a group of other sectors, some of which (aeronautics, nautical supplies, audiovisual…) require a high degree of technology.

The "SAITUR" programme consists of four inter-related actions. The main one is called CIDTUR (Centro de Investigacion y desarrollo sobre el turismo) whose objective is the adaptation of a regional R+D Centre into a scientific-technical reference for innovative actions that can be incorporated into activities related with tourism.

To the Commission knowledge, a similar project/action has not benefited from the Innovative Actions Programme in other regions nor does the Commission know of comparable actions financed under the Structural Funds.

For the 2007-2013 structural fund programming period, the Commission is not in a position, at this stage, to indicate which programmes will be co-funded by the European regional development fund (FEDER) in the Balearic Islands.

Any proposed new "Operational Programme for the Balearic Islands" will have to be presented to the Commission by the Spanish authorities in accordance with the guidelines in the Spanish National Strategic Reference Framework. To date, neither that framework nor that operational programme have been communicated to the Commission.

The proposed operational programme will be subject to a joint analysis by the competent Spanish authorities and the Commission in order to establish the content and the financial envelopes for each priority axis. Specific projects co-funded on the ground within each priority axis must conform to the criteria set in those priority axes.

These innovative actions co-funded by the FEDER will not continue in their current form after 2006. Henceforth, projects of this kind will have to be funded by national authorities within the context of new structural fund operational programmes.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that human trafficking is reduced in Europe, and has there been any formal discussion of the issue? Furthermore, in light of the Malta Boat Tragedy in 1996, when 280 illegal immigrants died in European waters when attempting to change boats, what is the view of the Commission with regard to helping the families of illegal immigrants who have died en route, in order to be able to return their remains and perform the necessary religious rites?

(EN) The Commission is continuously engaged in order to reduce trafficking in human beings as defined in the Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings,⁽¹⁾ i.e. a serious crime against persons for the purposes of sexual or labour exploitation. Trafficking in human beings has to be distinguished from so-called migrant smuggling, i.e. the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence as defined in Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002.⁽²⁾

The Commission's activities against trafficking in human beings concern financial support for anti trafficking projects in EU Member States and third countries through programmes such as STOP⁽³⁾ and STOP II⁽⁴⁾, AGIS⁽⁵⁾, DAPHNE⁽⁶⁾ and DAPHNE II and legislative initiatives which formed the basis of important legislation at EU level, notably Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings, Council Framework Decision of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities.⁽⁷⁾ Currently, the implementation of this legislation is being evaluated; on 2 May 2006, the Commission issued an evaluation report⁽⁸⁾ about the implementation of the Council Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings.

On 18 October 2005, the Commission issued its Communication “Fighting trafficking in human beings – an integrated approach and proposals for an action plan”,⁽⁹⁾ the fourth communication after previous ones in 1996, 1998 and 2000,⁽¹⁰⁾ in order to promote and strengthen the EU policy against trafficking in human beings. A considerable number of suggestions were incorporated into the EU plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings, adopted by the EU Council on 1 December 2005;⁽¹¹⁾ on 27 April 2006, the EU Council also adopted conclusions concerning trafficking in human beings. The EU action plan against trafficking in human beings will guide the EU's policy in the near future. In view of its full implementation the Austrian Council Presidency and the Commission will organise an expert conference on 28 and 29 June 2006.

The crime of human trafficking often has a transnational dimension because numerous trafficked persons move or are brought across external borders. Migrant smuggling and human trafficking are also linked by the fact that they are frequently organised by internationally operating criminal networks and part of organised crime phenomena linked with the demand for cheap and illegal services. For this reason, the prevention of and the fight against human trafficking is an essential element of the EU’s efforts to improve the checks and surveillance at the external borders and to enhance the fight against illegal immigration. As far as the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence by such networks is concerned, Directive 2002/90/EC and the Framework Decision on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence of the same day⁽¹²⁾ already play an important role to prevent these criminal activities. The Commission is about to examine the implementation of these instruments. An evaluation report regarding the Framework Decision shall be issued very soon.

Concerning the second question raised by the honourable Member, the Commission would like to point out that these matters fall entirely within the remits of national competence.

The Warsaw-located European Member State External Frontiers Agency was set up to coordinate cooperation between Member States on managing the external frontiers and assist the Member States when circumstances required increased technical assistance.

Given that the Union's Hampton Court agreements stress that the implementation of integrated management of external frontiers is one of the bases of a safer Union, how does the Commission assess the work done by the Agency?

Given that the Canaries are, with Greece, Italy and Malta, the Union's main southern frontier, and that the islands are under heavy pressure from migrants, and given that this issue has already been discussed, when does the Commission think that a European Frontiers Agency External Frontiers Safety Frontiers and Control Coordination Delegation will become operative in the Canary Islands?

(EN) The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the European Union (FRONTEX) plays a key role in assessing, together with the Spanish authorities, how to improve the control and surveillance of the Atlantic maritime border between Spain and a number of West African countries, as well as coordinating joint operations and other kinds of assistance to be provided to Spain by Member States and the Community, on the basis of solidarity.

Decisions on the establishment of permanent so called "specialised branches" of the FRONTEX Agency fall under the exclusive competence of the Management Board of the Agency, cf. Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing FRONTEX.

However, the Agency may, for the purpose of coordinating specific operations, decide to set up some kind of temporary coordination units in affected Member States, e.g. in the Canary Islands in connection with up-coming operations.

The Commission is pleased that FRONTEX has already, in the period from 30 May 2006 to 2 June 2006, dispatched a team of experts to the Canary Islands in order to assess the situation on the ground.

On the basis of this assessment mission, appropriate decisions will be taken by the Agency, in particular on the setting up of such a temporary coordination unit as part of the joint operational activities to be undertaken in the region.

Was the Commission represented in any capacity at the recent meeting of the G-6 where a discussion was held on setting up 'police back-up teams... of experienced police officers from the various Member States' which would assist a Member State in which a serious terrorist attack had taken place?

(EN) In response to the question on whether the Commission was represented in any capacity at the recent meeting of the G-6, the honourable Member should be informed that, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Justice, Freedom and Security attended the lunch of the last G6 meeting.

In the Commission's view, what are sufficient grounds for suspending accession negotiations with Turkey?

(EN) The principles governing accession negotiations with Turkey are set out in the negotiating framework of 3 October 2005 which is based on the European Council conclusions of December 2004.

Paragraph 3 of the negotiating framework, provides that "in the case of a serious and persistent breach in Turkey of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law on which the Union is founded, the Commission will, on its own initiative or on the request of one third of the Member States, recommend the suspension of negotiations and propose the conditions for eventual resumption."

Following the repeated infringement of the Athens FIR regulations, the encroachments on Greek airspace by Turkish fighter aircraft and Turkey's refusal to recognise search and rescue procedures in the Aegean, culminating in the tragic collision between two aircraft and the death of a Greek airforce pilot, what action will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Athens FIR regulations, the integrity of Greek airspace, Greek being an EU Member State, and compliance with the rules governing search and rescue operations in the Aegean, in the context of current negotiations between Turkey and the EU regarding Turkish accession?

(EN) The rights and obligations of States as regards Flight Information Region (FIR) are established under the Chicago International Convention on Civil Aviation of 1944. The Commission considers that differences about the interpretation of this Convention between States should be addressed in the appropriate international framework.

The Commission however is aware of a process of exploratory talks between Greece and Turkey which has been underway since 2002 and which aims at addressing certain issues arising in bilateral relations.

In this context, the Commission recalls that according to paragraph 6 of the negotiating framework agreed in October 2005, progress in the accession negotiations is to be measured against a number of requirements, including "Turkey’s unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations and its undertaking to resolve any outstanding border disputes in conformity with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, including if necessary compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice".

Furthermore, under the revised Accession Partnership adopted by the Council in January 2006, Turkey should "address any sources of friction with neighbours and refrain from any action which could negatively affect the process of peaceful settlement of border disputes."

The Commission's publication entitled 'Travelling in Europe' (also to be found in electronic form on its website) contains unacceptable anti-communist propaganda highly reminiscent of the Cold War. Moreover, it gives a completely false picture of the history of Europe, ignoring or distorting significant historical events, as exemplified by the lack of reference to the October Revolution, World War II and Nazism or the reference to the French Revolution almost as a crime against royalty. The publication has already been withdrawn from schools on Rhodes.

Does the Commission intend to withdraw this publication, which is not based on historical fact, promotes divisive messages, particularly among the young, falsifies the history of Europe, defames the Enlightenment and Communism and is an affront to people, workers, political movements and parties?

(EN) The booklet “Let’s explore Europe” has been published by the Commission with a view to provide information about the European Union in a format that can be easily used by pupils in the age range of 9-12 years. Therefore, it contains very brief information in a simplified language on European geography, history and many other subjects.

Its main purpose is to help schools and educators, who remain, however, entirely responsible for the choice, the assessment and the use of their teaching material.

The booklet has been in general well received, and the Commission is not aware of severe criticism of the kind raised by the honourable Member. Nevertheless, the Commission will duly take into account reactions and feedback to assess the opportunity and the merit of further editions.

The prosecuting authorities recently published the findings of an investigation indicating that dozens of Pakistanis living in Greece have been abducted and interrogated by British intelligence services in collaboration with their Greek counterparts.

It was also revealed that, in the summer of 2005, more than 5000 investigations, 1221 arrests and numerous deportations of economic migrants were carried out in Greece on the orders of the UK Government and its intelligence services.

This barbaric violation of fundamental human rights has its basis in EU and Member States' antiterrorist legislation and the EU Convention on mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters.

What is the Commission's position on the use of such unacceptable provisions which violate the fundamental freedoms and the individual and democratic rights of citizens?

(FR) The Commission recalls that the fight against terrorism and cooperation between Member States in this domain has to be conducted fully in accordance with fundamental rights. In particular, abduction, secret detention or detention without oversight by the judicial authorities constitute violations of the right to freedom and security under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the Commission recalls that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment under Article 3 of the Convention and under Article 4 of the Charter, constitutes an absolute principle which cannot be subject to any derogation, including the context of the fight against terrorism.

The Commission notes that the complaints concerning the Pakistani foreign nationals in Athens are currently the subject of judicial procedure in Greece in order to establish the truth about what took place and the responsibility of the authorities. As it has had occasion to do several times in relation to the activities of the CIA⁽¹⁾ in Europe, the Commission recalls that faced with such serious complaints, Member States must carry out effective enquiries in order to get right to the bottom of what happened. The Commission is pleased that a judicial procedure is in progress in Greece and will watch its developments. The Commission recalls that it does not have any legal means to proceed itself with enquiries of this kind at

national level.

Furthermore, the Commission supports, within the limits of its competences, the investigations in progress in Parliament and in the Council of Europe. The Commission notes that the Secretary–General of the Council of Europe has asked a certain number of countries for additional information including Greece, and its final report is in the process of being drawn up. The Commission once again calls on Member States to cooperate fully with the Council of Europe and Parliament.

WTO agricultural negotiators are finally discussing issues of paramount importance to developing countries such as food security, livelihood security and rural development. Papers on a Special Safeguard Mechanism to protect developing country producers from sudden import surges and price falls have been presented by the G-33, the US and the chair of the WTO's Agricultural Committee. The Group of 33, the African Group, the ACP Group and the LDC Group have warned that the negotiations are being threatened by attempts by some members to restrict the use of instruments such as special safeguard mechanisms.

What is the EU's position on the key elements of the SSM design - namely product eligibility, triggers, remedy measures and other rules?

(EN) The Special safeguard mechanism (SSM) is a new tool available for developing countries, which was introduced in the 2004 Framework agreement, and is part of the broad special and differential treatment for developing countries. The Honk Kong declaration further specifies that the SSM may be activated on both price and volume triggers.

The EC has been and continues to be favourable to a solution which meets genuine needs of developing countries. The EU considers that both developed and developing countries should have the right to have recourse to safeguard mechanism, in order to react to exceptional market conditions in terms of both import price and volume. In the recent negotiations on SSM, the EU has pushed for a middle ground approach to bridge the gap between the positions of United States on one side and the G-33 on the other.

The EU believes that the SSM should be allowed for a limited number of tariff lines still to be negotiated. The level of triggers should be reasonable and should reflect exceptional market conditions. The mechanism should be transparent to avoid misuse and a proper notification should be guaranteed.

Finally, it is clear that SSM as other Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) on market access should be part of an acceptable market access package, taking account of the sensitivities all members have.

Having been driven to the wall financially by the surge in the price of oil, which accounts for 30-45% of their operations costs, the smaller fishing fleets are now facing the immediate prospect of being wiped out completely, something which would also have a heavy impact on consumers.

Will the Commission increase from € 3 000 to € 100 000 the sectoral aid which may be accorded by EU Member States to fishermen in response to major increases (exceeding 30%) in operating costs and subsidise the purchase of new and more economical engines? Will it also provide subsidies for the renovation of fishing gear and introduce new fishing methods involving lower fuel consumption?

(EN) The Commission is currently discussing a proposal to increase the de minimis aid threshold, currently set at €3.000 per company over a period of three years. At this stage of the procedure, however, it is not possible to state by how much this threshold will eventually be increased. After adoption of the proposal by the College, Member States still need to be consulted twice on the draft, via the Advisory Committee on State aid, as provided for by Council Regulation N° 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to certain categories of horizontal State aid⁽¹⁾, before the final adoption of the Regulation setting that new threshold.

Whatever will be the outcome of this current revision of the de minimis threshold, the Commission is of the opinion that the use of de minimis aid, although allowed, does not constitute the right reply to address the economic difficulties that the fishing sector is facing. As indicated in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on Improving the Economic Situation in the Fishing Industry⁽²⁾, the Commission thinks that both short- and long-term action must be taken to address them. Considering short-term action, the Commission has invited Member States to set up rescue and restructuring aid schemes in accordance with the provisions of the Community guidelines on State aid for firms in difficulty.

As specified in this Communication, the Commission is ready to examine such aid schemes when they provide for restructuring aid for eligible enterprises consisting in investment aiming at restoring their profitability by reducing operational costs. The types of eligible investment are the following for the small-scale fishing fleet:

- a first change of fishing gear resulting in a less fuel-intensive fishing method,

- purchase of equipment to improve fuel efficiency (such as econometers), or

- one replacement of the engine provided that, for vessels under 12 m Loa not using towed gear, the new engine has the same power as the old one or less and, for other vessels operating in small scale fisheries the new engine has at least 20 % less power than the old one.

Turkey is continuing to occupy territory in the Republic of Cyprus, to embargo its ships and aircraft and to encroach on Greek airspace, causing the death of a Greek pilot following an incident over the Aegean on 23 May.

What action has the European Union taken and what measures does it intend to initiate to ensure compliance by Turkey, an applicant for EU membership, with the undertakings it made to the EU to end its infringements of international and European law, respect the sovereign rights of Greece and Cyprus and to end its policy of intimidation? Do such measures include suspension of Turkish accession proceedings? What recommendations, if any, have been made or put into effect and what was Turkey's response? Does the Commission fully appreciate the danger of an escalating crisis?

(EN) EU-Turkey relations are based on the Association Agreement, including the Customs Union, the Accession Partnership and the framework for conducting accession negotiations agreed in October 2005. They contain provisions on Turkey's relations with the EU as a whole, and with neighbouring states.

According to paragraph 6 of the negotiating framework, progress in the accession negotiations is to be measured against a number of requirements, including "Turkey’s unequivocal commitment to good neighbourly relations and its undertaking to resolve any outstanding border disputes in conformity with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, including if necessary compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice".

Paragraph 5 of the negotiating framework provides that "in the case of a serious and persistent breach in Turkey of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law on which the Union is founded, the Commission will, on its own initiative or on the request of one third of the Member States, recommend the suspension of negotiations and propose the conditions for eventual resumption."

Furthermore, under the revised Accession Partnership adopted by the Council in January 2006, Turkey should "address any sources of friction with neighbours and refrain from any action which could negatively affect the process of peaceful settlement of border disputes."

In the recently adopted European Union Financial Framework for 2007-2013, the Trans-European Networks were allocated a ceiling of EUR 7 billion. That was significantly less than the Commission had originally estimated necessary for the 30 priority projects adopted.

In the light of the above, does the Commission consider that it will be necessary to set priorities among the 30 prioritised projects? Will some projects have to be postponed – and if so, which? Or will additional national funding have to be found?

Does the Commission propose to submit a revised implementation plan, and if so, when?

(FR) The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 established the financial framework for 2007-2013, in commitment appropriations, for each heading. The total funding allocated for Trans-European networks has been set at EUR 7 203 billion (2004 price). The Commission has specified this in its proposal of 24 May 2006. Although this sum is approximately double that fixed within the framework of the financial perspective for 2000-2006, it is considerably lower than the sum initially proposed by the Commission. At the same time the implementation costs for the 30 priority projects of the Trans-European transport network (TETN) have recently been revised upwards. Consequently the resources available are limited in relation to the extent of the need for investment.

That means that if the European Union wants to respect the implementation deadlines for the projects, Member States will have to make greater efforts in terms of investments. Furthermore, there should be more involvement of the private sector. The Commission will continue its efforts with the object of promoting public-private partnerships.

Since it will not be possible to cofinance the priority projects in their entirety, the Commission is considering concentrating the financial resources allocated for the priority projects on the projects which offer the highest European added value, in particular the cross-border sections and the bottlenecks.

The TETN guidelines, which were adopted by the Council and by Parliament in 2004, set out the deadlines for the implementation of the priority projects. Under the new multiannual programme for 2007-2013, Member States will have to give notice of their investment plan for the TETN priority projects and include a timescale for implementation. The Commission will secure compliance with the deadlines which Member States will have to undertake to meet.

As stipulated in Article 19(3) of Decision No 884/2004/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, the Commission will draw up a report on the progress of the work before 2010.

How many EU officials have been retired pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations of EU officials?

How much is the average allowance for EU officials retired pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations?

Where EU officials retire early, in how many cases has the Commission made use of the option, in whole or in part, under Annex VIII(9)(2) to the Staff Regulations, of not reducing the retirement pension?

(EN) From 1 January 2004 to 1 June 2006, 29 officials have been retired in the interest of the service pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations of EU officials (15 in 2004, 7 in 2005 and 7 in 2006 so far). Article 50 is an exceptional measure applicable only to officials in the highest grades. The conditions governing the payment of the allowance after termination of service are laid down in Annex IV of the Staff Regulations.

The allowance is paid for a maximum period which depends on the official's age and length of service. For example, an official whose service is terminated at age 48 after 10 years will receive the allowance for less than six years. Again, where an official is close to his pension age, the allowance will only be paid for the period until he reaches that age. The allowance is degressive: after six months, it is paid at a rate 70% for five years (or less, if the service is terminated after only a few years), at 60% thereafter (if indeed the period does exceeds five years, which may well not be the case). Since this is an allowance not a pension, the former official also has to declare any earnings from "new employment", which may result in the allowance being reduced. It is possible to calculate that the average basic allowance is 10.383,09 €, assuming a rate of 70% and no reductions. However, the true average for all cases is significantly lower, taking account of possible lower rates and reductions for other earnings.

The possibility of early retirement without reduction under Annex VIII(9)(2) to the Staff Regulations was introduced by the amendments to the Staff Regulations which came into force on 1 May 2004. It is applied on an annual interinstitutional basis, subject to very strict conditions. In the first round, only 26 possibilities were allocated to the Commission, compared to a total of more than 21.000 officials.

The number of countries representing the Baltic region increased markedly with the enlargement of the EU. The 'Baltic Europe' Intergroup set up within the European Parliament has devised a European strategy for the Baltic region that is being discussed not only at the EP but also at the Commission. This strategy addresses the four areas of environmental protection, the economy, education and culture and security.

What action plans or programmes is the Commission considering, for the near future or in the longer term, to enable the Baltic region to start functioning as an effectively operating region and to ensure the conditions are fulfilled for its closer integration?

(EN) The co-operation in the Baltic Sea region has functioned well for many years in a variety of ways – as a political forum for regional co-operation in different areas via the Council of the Baltic Sea States or the Northern Dimension, or via various Structural Funds and external cooperation programmes between Member States and Partner Countries.

The Member States of the Baltic Sea region have the opportunity to foster their regional development via the mainstream Objective 1 and 2 programmes and Cohesion Fund programmes. These programmes are prepared by the Member State concerned taking into account the needs of its regions. The Commission strongly encourages the possibilities to enhance and promote co-ordination and co-operation between the Baltic Sea Region Member States through these programmes. Indeed, it has taken the initiative to propose for the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) to meet at a round table discussion in July 2006 on how these Member States could co-operate and co-ordinate operations and activities in the next programme period. The sectors that have been mentioned as possible areas of interest mirror those referred to in the question of the honourable Member. They include: energy, transport, research and development/ICT, tourism, environment and health care. Another initiative is the ongoing feasibility study on "Rail Baltica", coordinated by the Commission.

The other key set of programmes that contribute to Baltic Sea co-operation are the INTERREG Community Initiative programmes that are being implemented for the period 2000-2006 with the aim of encouraging the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of the whole of the Community area. Those programmes can be cross border, transnational and interregional. For instance, in the Baltic Sea region there is a successful transnational programme being implemented with the participation of 11 countries (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Russia and Belarus) around the Baltic Sea. This Baltic Sea Region programme has funded more than 100 projects. Good results have been achieved in fields such as environment, maritime safety, spatial planning, tourism, transport etc.

Under the Neighbourhood Programmes operating since 2004, Tacis funding has made it possible to extend the existing INTERREG programmes in the Baltic Sea area to include cross-border co-operation also with external partner countries, under the umbrella of jointly addressing challenges in relation to the common neighbourhood.

In the next Structural Funds’ programming period 2007-2013 co-operation will be continued via the European Territorial Co-operation Objective. The themes proposed by the Commission to be implemented in the participating countries cover a wide range of topics including SME co-operation; joint use of infrastructure in sectors such as health, culture, tourism and education; innovation; environment and water management; and sustainable urban development.

New programmes for the period 2007-2013 are being prepared in the Member States concerned to be submitted to the Commission by the end of 2006, so that implementation may start in 2007.

In relation to co-operation between Member States and Partner Countries, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) will from 2007 provide a specific instrument for cross-border co-operation (CBC), allowing for fully integrated and joint programmes across the EU’s external borders. These programmes, developed, managed and implemented by the programme partners will be able to address issues to support socio economic development, solve common challenges, secure efficient borders and specifically support people-to-people co-operation. Programmes are now being developed along the external land borders, as well as in sea basins. In the Baltic Sea area seven programmes are under development, six land border programmes along the EU’s border with Russia and Belarus, and one sea basin programme covering all the 8 Member States, Norway and the two partner countries in the region.

The ENPI CBC programmes will be able to support initiatives under the Northern Dimension and also in relation to the regional co-operation structures with partner countries in the Baltic Sea area. Through a bottom-up development process these programmes will be able to address true local and regional priorities, a key in bringing regional development forward, creating sustainable success and continue building on the impressive co-operation in the region until today.