Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

L-Erbgħa, 6 ta' Lulju 2005 - Strasburgu

29. Ħin tal-mistoqsijiet (mistoqsijiet għall-Kunsill)

  Die Präsidentin Nach der Tagesordnung folgt nun die Fragestunde (B6-0247/2005).

Wir behandeln eine Reihe von Anfragen an den Rat.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 1 von Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0447/05)

Betrifft: Marmorfries des Parthenon

In der britischen Presse sind neue Daten zur unsachgemäßen Art und Weise veröffentlicht worden, mit der das Britische Museum den Schutz und die Erhaltung des Frieses handhabt, wodurch wieder einmal das Argument der britischen Seite widerlegt wird, der Fries könne besser im Britischen Museum geschützt werden. Welche Initiativen gedenkt der Rat zu ergreifen, um die Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments (3.11.1998) zur Förderung unseres gemeinsamen Kulturerbes umzusetzen?

Gedenkt der Rat seine guten Dienste anzubieten, um Druck auf Großbritannien dahingehend auszuüben, dass der Forderung nach Rückgabe des Frieses entsprochen wird? Ist er der Auffassung, dass eine Einigung über die Rückgabe des Frieses dazu beitragen würde, das Ansehen Großbritanniens im Hinblick auf die Ausrichtung der Olympischen Spiele 2012 zu verbessern?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I am grateful for those words of welcome. The question raised by the honourable Member concerning the Parthenon marbles does not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence. This is an issue for the United Kingdom and Greece, which should be addressed bilaterally by their respective authorities.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Προεδρεύοντα, αφού σας συγχαρώ για την ανάληψη της οργάνωσης των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων του 2012 και, θεωρώντας ότι η κυβέρνησή σας έχει συμφέρον να αναπτύξει την οικουμενικότητα ενόψει της οργάνωσης αυτών των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω την Προεδρία αν σκοπεύει να προσφέρει τις καλές της υπηρεσίες επικοινωνώντας με τη βρετανική κυβέρνηση, έτσι ώστε αυτό που αποφάσισε και ζητεί το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο από το 1998, την επιστροφή των μαρμάρων του Παρθενώνα, να γίνει πράξη μέσα στα επόμενα χρόνια.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. First, let me thank the honourable Member for his kind words of congratulation to the United Kingdom on securing the 2012 Olympic Games for London. I would have been delighted if any European city had secured those games, but I was particularly delighted that London has been successful today in Singapore. I hope that it will be a truly outstanding European event, and I am sure all Members of Parliament will be warmly invited, along with citizens from right across this continent.

On the specific supplementary question that the honourable Member raised, I can assure him that the British Government is fully aware of the views of the Greek Government and the views previously expressed by this Parliament on the issue of the Parthenon Marbles. The United Kingdom Government considers that this is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum, who are, in the case of the United Kingdom, independent of government.

I understand that the position is that the British Museum considers the British Museum to be the best place to house the Parthenon sculptures.

I reiterate that this is not an appropriate matter for the Presidency to deal with; it is better taken forward by bilateral discussions between the Greek and United Kingdom authorities.

  David Martin (PSE). – While you are absolutely right to say that the issue of the Parthenon Marbles is a bilateral issue between Greece and the United Kingdom, would you not agree that there is a need to further discuss our common European heritage and to find ways of sharing, to the best effect, Europe’s valuable historic resources?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The point made by the honourable Member is an important one in terms of work that can be done collaboratively. I can assure him that, if one looks, for example, at some of the treasures from the art world that have been brought to the United Kingdom and taken to other European countries in recent years, it reflects that fact that there is much sharing of cultural heritage across European boundaries.

That does not, however, diminish the points that I made. In this case, the matter is more appropriately dealt with bilaterally between the respective national authorities. I would also reiterate the point that the British Museum trustees are the appropriate body with whom these discussions should be taken forward, rather than it being a matter for national governments in the first instance.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 2 von Sajjad Karim (H-0449/05)

Betrifft: Folter “in Vertretung”

Im Lichte des absoluten Verbots von Folter und andere Formen der Misshandlung haben Staaten ihr Vorgehen verteidigt, angebliche Terrorismusverdächtige in andere Länder zu überstellen, wobei sie nachdrücklich darauf hinwiesen, dass sie sich um diplomatische Zusicherungen bemühten, dass die Häftlinge nicht gefoltert würden. Es gibt aber immer mehr Hinweise darauf, dass bestimmte Staaten – sowohl innerhalb der EU als auch Drittländer – Terrorismusverdächtige aufgegriffen und von einem Staat in einen anderen Staat überstellt haben, von dem allgemein bekannt ist, dass er Folter als eine Verhörtechnik einsetzt. Opfer behaupten, dass sie gefoltert wurden und die Staaten, die die Überstellung veranlasst haben, den aufnehmenden Behörden sogar Listen mit Fragen übermittelten, die im Zuge des Verhörs beantwortet werden sollten. In Anbetracht dieser Praktiken steht außer Zweifel, dass – wenn man sich auf diplomatische Zusicherungen "verlässt" – dies einen Versu! ch darstellt, das Recht zu beugen. Dieses Vorgehen muss aufgedeckt und eingestellt werden.

Was wird der Rat angesichts der Tatsache, dass das Verbot von Folter und andere Formen der Misshandlung eine allgemein verbindliche Verpflichtung darstellt, unternehmen, um diese Verstöße zu verhindern und Abhilfe zu schaffen, wenn es zu diesen Verstößen gekommen ist?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council shares the view of the honourable Member that efforts must be pursued in order to make more effective the fight against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world.

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, to which all EU Member States are a party, provides that no state shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Regarding the assertion of the honourable Member that, both within and outside the European Union, certain states have seized and rendered terror suspects from one state to another that is widely recognised as employing torture as an interrogation technique, the Council is not aware of the ‘mounting evidence’ claimed by the honourable Member. It is for the Committee Against Torture set up by the Convention Against Torture to monitor the implementation of the Convention.

The Council is, and will remain, actively committed to the prevention and eradication of torture and other cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment, in line with the EU guidelines on this subject.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – I have heard the answer and am quite happy to forward evidence in my possession, through my office, to the relevant committee and, indeed, to the Presidency. It surprises me somewhat that they do not have that information. I can tell the House in very clear terms that there are disturbing allegations that EU Member States themselves have allowed their territory to be used as landing points for planes used in extraordinary renditions. Member States that allow their territory to be used in this way and allow flights to leave in such circumstances are colluding in serious and persistent breaches. What action does the Council plan to take to investigate these allegations and, if Member States are found to be responsible for such breaches, is the Council prepared to take action under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union and suspend certain membership rights of those states?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, in light of your direction, I shall keep this answer brief. I note the offer made by the honourable Member to pass on the evidence apparently in his possession to the Committee against Torture, which has been set up by CAT to monitor the implementation of the Convention. I would simply reiterate that the Council is and will remain actively committed to the prevention and eradication of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, in line also with the EU guidelines on this subject.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 3 von Sarah Ludford (H-0452/05)

Betrifft: Umsetzung der dritten Säule zur Terrorismusbekämpfung

Die Erklärung des Europäischen Rates zum Kampf gegen den Terrorismus vom 25. März 2004 legt den Mitgliedstaaten die Pflicht auf, bis Juni 2004 vier Rahmenbeschlüsse und zwei Beschlüsse, die für den Kampf gegen den Terrorismus von entscheidender Bedeutung sind, umzusetzen. Außerdem ruft der Rat in dieser Erklärung dazu auf, einen weiteren Rahmenbeschluss umzusetzen und das Übereinkommen über die Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, das zugehörige Protokoll sowie die drei Protokolle zum Europol-Übereinkommen bis Dezember 2004 zu ratifizieren.

Kann der Rat nach Ablauf eines Jahres bestätigen, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten ihren Verpflichtungen nachgekommen sind? Falls nicht, welche Schritte plant der Rat, um die vollständige Umsetzung dieser Maßnahmen durchzusetzen? Welche Schlüsse zieht der Rat aus der Tatsache, dass in den Bereichen Sicherheit und Bedrohungen aus kriminellen Handlungen zwischen Theorie und Praxis eine Lücke klafft?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The state of play of the implementation of the legislative instruments relevant in the fight against terrorism is set out in Document 8211/05 Add. 2 Rev. 1, which will be distributed to the European Parliament.

The tables indicate that, although not all instruments have been fully implemented, considerable progress has been made since last year. The Council plans to update the tables contained in the aforementioned document regularly and, on that basis, to discuss with all Member States the state of play with regard to implementation.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – In January the Commission reported that only three Member States had fully implemented the Framework Decision of June 2002 on joint investigation teams by the deadline, not including the UK.

The Commission said it encountered many difficulties in gathering the relevant information. Is it not time to stop the tradition whereby the Council does not name and shame those countries not implementing the Framework Decision? Is it not also necessary that the Council take advantage of the provisions in the current Treaty to convert the hopelessly ineffective as well as undemocratic intergovernmental provisions in the law enforcement area to Community competence so that suitable enforcements of the law are agreed by the Member States? Otherwise, how are we ever going to combat crime and terrorism?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I note the tenor of the question. The specific matter raised is an issue that I will certainly look into in the course of the Presidency. I would say, however, on the general question of why the European Union has not made further progress on counter-terrorism legislation, that substantial preparatory work on counter-terrorism legislation has been carried out under previous presidencies. We anticipate that we will be able to agree a framework decision on exchange of information and the European Evidence Warrant under our Presidency.

The framework decision on data retention has been held up by concerns about its legal base and by the lack of a common understanding between Member States.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 4 von Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0454/05)

Betrifft: Urteil gegen Eğitim Sen in der Türkei

Das Oberste Gericht der Türkei hat am 25. Mai 2005 die Auflösung der Lehrerorganisation Eğitim Sen verfügt. Sie verliert damit das Recht, ihre etwa 200 000 Mitglieder gegenüber den Behörden und Arbeitgebern zu vertreten.

Hintergrund dieses Urteils ist, dass Eğitim Sen in ihrer Satzung und im Aktionsplan das Recht auf Unterricht in der eigenen Muttersprache für alle Kinder verteidigt und das Recht aller, sich entsprechend ihrem kulturellen Hintergrund zu entwickeln. Das Oberste Gericht ist der Auffassung, dass dies eine Verletzung der Verfassung der Türkei sei, wonach jeglicher Unterricht in türkischer Sprache abzuhalten sei.

Die Kommission hat bereits früher bekräftigt, dass in der Türkei weiterhin beachtliche Einschränkungen des Vereinigungsrechts, des Rechts auf Aushandlung von Kollektivarbeitsverträgen und des Streikrechts bestehen, und dass die Türkei nicht die Normen der IAO erfüllt.

Welche Konsequenzen wird nach Auffassung des Rates der Beschluss des Obersten Gerichts der Türkei für die Bemühungen des Landes um eine Mitgliedschaft in der EU haben?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member is undoubtedly aware that in deciding that Turkey fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria sufficiently to open accession negotiations, the European Council on 16 and 17 December 2004 clearly stated that the Union would continue to monitor closely the progress of the reform processes within Turkey. In that context, the specific case mentioned by the honourable Member is known and has been followed closely.

Without going into the details of the ruling given recently by the Turkish Supreme Court, the Presidency can state that it has prompted some concern on the part of the Union with regard to respect for both freedom of expression and association, and for the cultural rights of minorities. The proceedings are still under way and the trade union organisation in question has also stated that it might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Presidency can, nonetheless, assure the honourable Member here and now that, if need be, and while respecting the principle of the independence of the judiciary, the Union will not fail to raise this issue with the Turkish authorities, as it does regularly in the various fora for political dialogue as well as within the bodies of the Association Agreement regarding any problems that arise in implementing the reform process.

  Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – Jag skulle vilja tacka ordförandeskapet för svaret och framför allt för löftet att ta upp denna konkreta fråga om denna turkiska lärarorganisation i direkta bilaterala kontakter med Turkiet.

Detta mycket anmärkningsvärda beslut innebär en kränkning av grundläggande fackliga rättigheter och rätten att organisera sig. Det innebär dessutom en kränkning av yttrandefriheten i Turkiet samt minoriteters rättigheter i ett och samma beslut. Jag tycker därför att detta är ett oerhört centralt fall för Turkiets demokratiska trovärdighet.

Jag vill också ställa följande fråga till ordförandeskapet: Kan förhandlingar om EU-medlemskap inledas med Turkiet så länge denna typ av beslut tas i landet?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Although I am respectful of the point made by the honourable Member, it is important to recognise that the Turkish Government has made enormous progress over the last couple of years through the adoption of a series of constitutional and legislative reforms. Major reforms include the abolition of the death penalty, new protections against torture, greater freedoms of expression, association and religion, ratification of international agreements on human rights, greater cultural rights for Kurds and others, and reduction of the military’s role in the government.

The December European Council to which I referred endorsed the 6 October Commission recommendation that – and once again I quote – ‘Turkey has met the Copenhagen political criteria that accession negotiations be opened’. The Council’s conclusions welcomed the decisive progress made by Turkey in its far-reaching reform process and express confidence that Turkey would sustain that process of reform.

Turkey’s human rights record will be the subject of intense scrutiny during the accession negotiations. We remain confident that all remaining concerns will be addressed during that accession process.

  David Martin (PSE). – Supreme Courts are by definition laws unto themselves and I think you are absolutely right to emphasise that this one unfortunate and unsupportable decision should not in any way impinge on the progress of Turkey towards membership of the European Union. They have, as you have outlined, made significant efforts to meet European norms and we should not blow this one incident out of all proportion. Does the Council agree?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am happy to concur with the opinions of my fellow countrymen. I would certainly say on a serious basis that real and significant progress has been made. There is clearly further work to be undertaken, but it would be unfortunate if those who have wider objections to this issue did not recognise that this is a single decision within a process that is heading in the right direction, although there is a significant amount of progress still to be made.

  Åsa Westlund (PSE). – Jag välkomnar också rådets svar på frågan, men jag skulle vilja ha ett klargörande.

Anser rådet att Turkiets konstitution som den nu har tolkats av Högsta domstolen är förenlig med Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna? Jag tänker då särskilt på artikel II-72 om mötes- och föreningsfrihet, där friheten att engagera sig fackligt särskilt betonas, och artiklarna II-81 och II-82 i samma stadga om icke-diskriminering och om att språklig mångfald måste respekteras.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. We are clearly concerned that on 25 May the Supreme Court ruled that the Egitim Sen should be closed down on the grounds that its by-laws contradicted the constitution by advocating mother-tongue education. The decision is especially disappointing after the case had twice been dismissed by the Turkish Labour Court, which had noted that mother-tongue education is permitted under European law. Again I would reiterate the general point in relation to freedom of expression that free speech is beginning to take hold and beginning to flourish in Turkey. Recent reforms include allowing broadcasting and teaching in Kurdish and constitutional amendments strengthening the freedom of the press and recognising the supremacy of Turkey’s international human rights obligations.

There is mounting evidence that the judiciary is now increasingly relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings as a basis for its judgments. That is surely to be welcomed by all Members of this Parliament.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 5 von Chris Davies (H-0458/05)

Betrifft: Zypern

Wann wird der Rat die Vereinbarung für die Aufnahme direkten Handelsverkehrs mit Nordzypern umsetzen?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council has expressed its view on this matter on a number of occasions. In any event, it may be recalled that the Council has been steadfast in its support for the pursuit of efforts to achieve the reunification of Cyprus and in its desire to see all Cypriots living together as citizens of a reunited island within the European Union in the near future. It is against this background, and with this in mind, that the European Union has been examining measures capable of putting an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and facilitating the reunification of Cyprus.

More specifically, as regards the Commission’s proposals relating to part of the instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and the exchanges with zones where the Republic of Cyprus exercises no effective control, Council bodies have already carried out important work. The fact that certain difficulties – particularly as regards direct exchanges – remain to be overcome, means that these two proposals still cannot be adopted. However, the Council can use the Presidency’s good offices to assure the honourable Member that it will continue working to encourage the island’s economic integration and to improve contacts between the two Cypriot communities and within the European Union.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – I welcome the Minister to the House. I hope he is enjoying the experience.

I wonder if he could tell me whether or not he agrees with the comments made by President Papadopoulos who said recently that proposals to open direct trade with Northern Cyprus would have no real or substantive economic effect but would amount to a political demand aimed at politically upgrading the north?

Would he agree with me that the treatment of Turkish Cypriots – who are after all EU citizens – by their neighbours on that island, which amounts to nothing less than economic apartheid, is unacceptable and must be stopped, and will he give some indication of the practical steps his Presidency will take over the next six months to bring this about?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for his question. In relation to whether I am enjoying the experience, I think it is still too early to say.

On the substantive point of the need for direct trade with Northern Cyprus and the query that was directed to me in relation to the views expressed by others, the Council’s position remains that which has been previously stated. We continue to believe that direct trade will help to narrow the gap in economic development between the north and the south of the island, promoting economic cooperation and business ventures between the two communities. Assisting the economic integration of the island would also boost significantly the prospects for reunification, since it would make a settlement easier and, frankly, less costly to accommodate.

In relation to the specific actions that will be taken under the United Kingdom’s Presidency, the Government wishes to see these regulations agreed as soon as possible, in order to fulfil the Council mandate to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. So, in consultation with the Commission and other Member States, we will carry forward work on the dossiers left by the Luxembourg Presidency.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 6 von Simon Coveney (H-0460/05)

Betrifft: Burma - Menschenrechte und Shan Zivilisten

Welche konkreten Schritte gedenkt der Rat angesichts der beträchtlichen Zunahme von Angriffen der burmesischen Armee auf Shan Zivilisten und der gravierenden Menschenrechtsverstöße im Shan Staat (Burma) zu unternehmen, um Druck auf die burmesischen Regierungsstellen auszuüben, damit sie ihr brutales Vorgehen in der Provinz Shan beenden? Was wird unternommen, um die thailändischen Regierungsstellen dazu anzuhalten, ihrer Verantwortung gerecht zu werden und den Flüchtlingen, die täglich über die Grenze nach Thailand flüchten, den lebensnotwendigen Schutz und humanitären Beistand zu leisten?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council has expressed its concerns regarding human rights in Burma at several meetings with Burmese leaders, most recently on 6 May, at a ministerial meeting with Burma held in the margins of the Asean Ministerial Conference in Kyoto.

At the EU-Asean ministerial meeting held in Jakarta in March, the Presidency met with a senior Burmese official to inform him of the European Union’s concerns and to encourage his authorities to attempt to initiate a dialogue with all the country’s political and ethnic groups in order to facilitate reconciliation and democracy in Burma.

On 17 June 2005, on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the Presidency made a declaration on behalf of the European Union in which it reiterated its concern at the current situation in Burma and the renewed tensions involving the nationalities, especially the Shan state and the Karen. In that declaration it was pointed out that the European Union is committed to supporting national reconciliation and respect for human rights and democracy in Burma and a request was made to the state Peace and Development Council to enter into a genuine dialogue with the NLD and with ethnic representatives to find peaceful political solutions that take into account their legitimate concerns.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), Deputising for the author. – On behalf of Simon Coveney who raised this issue, the question to the Council has to be: given what you have just outlined, how effective has all of this been and what other steps might be taken? I do not think anyone is satisfied that the actions so far have yielded any results.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am speaking to Parliament today as a representative of the Presidency, but I can assure you, not least from my previous work as a Foreign Office Minister in the United Kingdom Government, that I am fully aware of the efforts that have been made by the British Government, and by Europe more generally, to try and bring about the resolution that all of us would seek in the face of the present human rights abuses in Burma.

Our commitment in Burma is to promote human rights, democratisation and sustainable development as far as we can, using all the tools available to us. The European Union remains, I am delighted to say, at the forefront of international efforts to press for improvements in human rights in Burma. Opposition groups, including the National League for Democracy, acknowledge and welcome the continued political and practical support of the European Union.

Human rights violations have been highlighted in successive highly critical resolutions on Burma in the United Nations General Assembly and in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Burmese authorities can be in no doubt about our views. The EU troika expressed our deep concern over the situation in Burma directly to the Burmese Foreign Minister in Kyoto on 6 May.

We continue to believe that it is essential for the regime to enter into a genuine and inclusive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, and with ethnic representatives. Only such a dialogue can promote a peaceful democratic future for all Burma’s people.

I would, however, add this additional remark. While I am proud of the work that the European Union and European Member States have taken forward on this issue, I think it should be recognised that it is also important for other Asian neighbours of Burma to continue to take action and step up their efforts on the human rights abuses. The failure in previous resolutions before the United Nations to secure the active support of other Asian partners to the kind of initiatives necessary to bring this degree of pressure to bear on the Burmese regime was a matter of disappointment to us. So I can assure you that from the Presidency’s point of view we will maintain the pressure at European level, but we are cognisant of the responsibility of others outwith Europe as well to continue to make the case for change to the Burmese authorities.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 7 von Claude Moraes (H-0465/05)

Betrifft: Minderheitenschutz in der EU

Beabsichtigt der Rat, Erklärungen zum Schutz der Minderheiten in der EU und zur Zukunft der Agentur der EU für Grundrechte abzugeben oder diese Fragen in sein Arbeitsprogramm aufzunehmen?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council supports the establishment of an EU human rights agency, which will play a major role in enhancing the coherence and consistency of the European Union’s human rights policy. Following the adoption by the European Commission of the proposal to establish the fundamental rights agency, the Council will place the proposal before a working party for examination.

As for the protection of minorities, the honourable Member is kindly reminded that legislation has already been adopted in an effort to tackle discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. The European Commission is due to report in 2006 on the state of transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. Furthermore, the Council takes note of the communication of the European Commission of 1 June 2005 on non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all, a framework strategy, in which the Commission proposes to establish a high-level advisory group on social and labour market integration of disadvantaged ethnic minorities.

Under the United Kingdom Presidency, the Council, as well as the European Parliament, will deal with the European Commission’s proposal for a decision on the European Year of Equal Opportunities For All – i.e. 2007 – built upon four key themes: rights – raising awareness of the right of equality and non-discrimination; representation – stimulating a debate on ways to increase the participation of under-represented groups in society; recognition – celebrating and accommodating diversity; and respect and tolerance, promoting a more cohesive society. The total proposed budget is EUR 13.6 million, which would cover preparatory actions in 2006, as well as the activities due to take place during the European Year itself in 2007.

  Claude Moraes (PSE). – I hope it was not the Scottish accents coming across. The President-in-Office is extremely clear. I should like to welcome him to his office with no irony at all – as we have heard from one or two other Members – and thank him for that very positive answer.

I would like to remind the President-in-Office that the United Kingdom has implemented all the directives that he mentions. We have taken a lead on this. Many Member States have yet to implement anti-discrimination legislation.

Could I ask whether you agree with me that the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, which has broad support in this House, is something that could be strongly developed under your watch and that we should ask the Member States who have yet to implement anti-discrimination legislation to do so as quickly as possible?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for his question. I am respectful of the expressed desire that I speak slightly more slowly. I hope it was a reflection on my speed and not my accent. I can assure you that if I appeared speedy in my initial answers, it was only through my desire to reach as many questions as we can in the course of the limited Question Time available to us today.

I am also grateful to the honourable Member for acknowledging the work of the United Kingdom Government on this particular issue. I personally judged that it would be deemed rather unpresidential for me to boast in that regard, but I note the comments he has made. I am grateful for his warm welcome to my speaking role today.

The United Kingdom welcomes the Commission’s proposals, and the Presidency also does so, on the establishment of a fundamental rights agency. We are in favour of an effective, independent FRA, with well-defined work objectives that do not duplicate the work of existing bodies. That was the subject of a discussion that I held with colleagues in the Council of Europe this morning, just across the river.

We believe that the agency should give priority to areas such as racism and xenophobia, building on work already done by the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia. We will work with other Member States to develop the details during the course of our Presidency.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Without wishing to undermine the very serious question put by my good friend and colleague Claude Moraes, I notice that you welcome this particular agency. I wondered if you could share with us your thoughts on how many agencies you believe the EU should have and whether you would agree with me that the EU generally needs fewer agencies and more action?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I do not wish to break the consensus that appears to have broken out in the Chamber when answering the honourable Member’s question, but I have never seen a contradiction between the establishment of a necessary agency undertaking important work and action being taken by the European Union. Perhaps that is simply something on which we disagree.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Minister, welcome to your debut in the European Parliament. On the issue of the Fundamental Rights Agency, I have deep concerns about the risk of duplication with the existing excellent work within our own Parliament in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the work of the Council of Europe and the UN’s Human Rights Commission.

How can you ensure that there will be no be duplication and therefore no waste of EU taxpayers’ money?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am certainly alive to the concerns that the honourable Member has raised. Indeed, it was the subject of lengthy discussions this morning with the Council of Europe, which has expressed similar concerns in terms of how we avoid duplication. Sometimes, the language that is used in terms of synergies and complementarity should not mask the important question that he has asked in terms of the importance of being rigorous as regards the role of the FRA.

I believe t is necessary for the Presidency to be clear that steps will be taken to ensure that the FRA avoids duplication, as his question suggested. The Presidency has worked closely with the Council of Europe, which supports the establishment of the FRA. We believe that the FRA management board could include a representative of the Council of Europe and an observer from the proposed European gender institute in order exactly to avoid the kind of duplication raised by the question. This is a matter on which we will need to have continuing watchful eyes. In that sense, I am grateful to him for raising this question. It is not a matter that will be finally be resolved today, but it merits continued and detailed reflection in the weeks and months ahead.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 8 von Robert Evans (H-0467/05)

Betrifft: Bankgebühren

Ist dem Rat bekannt, dass einige Banken in der EU für Geldüberweisungen exorbitante Gebühren verlangen? Einem Bürger aus meinem Wahlkreis wurden z.B. kürzlich etwa 1.000 Euro für eine Überweisung von einer Bank in Spanien auf ein Konto im Vereinigten Königreich berechnet. Ist der Rat bereit, eine Regulierung der Gebühren in Erwägung zu ziehen, die europäischen Bankkunden bei Überweisungen im Binnenmarkt in Rechnung gestellt werden können?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council refers to its reply to Written Question E-0229/02. Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro has applied since 1 July 2002 so far as electronic payment transactions, cash withdrawals, and card payments are concerned, and since 1 July 2003 to cross-border credit transfers. It provides for charges levied by financial institutions for cross-border transactions between Member States and the euro area to be aligned with the charges levied for similar transactions within the Member State in question. Other Member States may apply the regulation to cross-border payments and credit transactions in their own currencies.

It is recalled that the Commission has exclusive right of initiative in the field of Community regulation referred to by the honourable Member. However, should the Commission decide to send a proposal to that effect, the Council of course would consider it.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Thank you very much for that answer. Like you, I am very familiar with the ruling of the 2001 Council, to which you referred at great length.

However, putting that to one side. Would you consider personally that it is a matter of concern that international banks are making huge amounts of profit at what is now the touch of a computer button for people transferring money within the internal market?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. It is fair to say that, due to the nature of the international capital markets, this is not the only instance in which, by the touch of a button on a computer keyboard, vast amounts of money can be made. Indeed, we have some experience of that in the United Kingdom, though – I am glad to say – that was before the term of office of this government.

However, the honourable Member raises an important point and, should he wish to correspond further with me, I would certainly make sure that those representations are passed on to the relevant people.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – I would like to bring to your attention a constituent who has just emailed me about outrageous FIFA charges for World Cup tickets for 2006. It may interest you with regard to the London Olympics. Apart from the price of the tickets, he was charged EUR 24 for the use of his MasterCard. The tickets only cost EUR 149. Is it not time to look, as my colleague said, at the fact that so much money can be made by those who do so little?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member raises a very important matter on behalf of one of her constituents. As a Scotsman, I have to say that I fear the question of World Cup tickets may prove only to be of academic interest to me, but I am sure for many other Members represented in this Chamber it will hold greater significance than for those of us in Scotland.

As I have already made clear, though, in relation to the original question that was asked, it should be recalled that the Commission has exclusive right of initiative in this field of Community regulation and therefore I think if there are particular concerns in relation to the credit card transaction in question it would be appropriate that these matters also be raised with the Commission.

  Die Präsidentin. Da sie dasselbe Thema betreffen, behandeln wir nun die Anfragen Nr. 9, 10 und 11 gemeinsam.

Anfrage Nr. 9 von Paulo Casaca (H-0470/05)

Betrifft: Verbreitung von Gewaltaufrufen im Libanon über öffentliche europäische Telekommunikationseinrichtungen

Nach den begründeten Hoffnungen auf eine demokratische Zukunft für den Libanon stimmen die jüngsten Meldungen recht pessimistisch, insbesondere die Ermordung von Journalisten und die geringe Wahlbeteiligung – vor allem vonseiten religiöser Minderheiten – in Gebieten, die von der pro-iranischen Hisbollah-Miliz kontrolliert werden.

Einer der von dieser terroristischen Organisation am stärksten genutzten Wege für die Verbreitung ihrer Hass- und Gewaltbotschaft ist die Ausstrahlung ihrer Programme über das Telekommunikationsunternehmen HISPASAT, zu dessen Mitbesitzern mindestens ein Mitgliedstaat zählt.

Ist der Rat nicht der Auffassung, dass dieses Vorgehen im Widerspruch zur Richtlinie „Fernsehen ohne Grenzen“ steht, namentlich zu deren Artikel 22, und den Schlussfolgerungen des Rates „Bildung, Jugend und Kultur“ vom 23. und 24. Mai 2005 zuwiderläuft?

Wann kann der Rat gewährleisten, dass über öffentliche europäische Medien keine terroristischen Aufrufe mehr an die Libanesen gerichtet werden?

Anfrage Nr. 10 von Charles Tannock (H-0554/05)

Betrifft: Programm des Fernsehsenders Al-Manar und fortgesetzte Verstöße gegen EU-Richtlinien

Obwohl von allen Regulierungsbehörden für den audiovisuellen Bereich bestätigt wird, dass der Inhalt der von Al-Manar gesendeten Programme gegen die europäische Richtlinie „Fernsehen ohne Grenzen“ verstößt, wird Al-Manar weiterhin in Europa und von Europa in andere Regionen der Welt ausgestrahlt: Der spanische (zum Teil verstaatlichte) Satellitenbetreiber Hispasat und der französische Satellitenbetreiber Eutelsat stellen Al-Manar weiterhin Sendekapazität zur Verfügung.

Es ist erstaunlich, dass Hispasat sich zwar der Hassparolen von Al-Manar bewusst ist, jedoch noch keine konkreten Maßnahmen getroffen hat, um die Ausstrahlung derartiger hasserfüllter Sendungen zu unterbinden, während in Frankreich Eutelsat von der Regierung angewiesen wurde, Al-Manar nicht mehr auszustrahlen, und diesen Anweisungen auch nachgekommen ist.

In den meisten europäischen Ländern kann Al-Manar außerdem direkt über den von Saudi-Arabien betriebenen Arabsat und den von Ägypten betriebenen Nilesat empfangen werden; diese Satellitenbetreiber fordern junge Menschen dazu auf, Selbstmordbombenanschläge zu begehen.

Wird der Rat diese Frage gegenüber den Regierungen Spaniens, Frankreichs, Saudi-Arabiens und Ägyptens zur Diskussion stellen, um dafür zu sorgen, dass dieser Situation mit der gebotenen Dringlichkeit ein Ende gesetzt wird?

Wie kann die EU behaupten, ihre Verantwortung im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus in allen Bereichen ernst zu nehmen, wenn es einem Sender wie Al-Manar möglich ist, weiterhin ungestört durch die Medien Terrorismus zu fördern, obwohl dies seit langem bekannt ist?

Anfrage Nr. 11 von Frédérique Ries (H-0561/05)

Betrifft: Fernsehsender Al Manar

Im März 2005 veranstaltete die Kommission ein Treffen des Zusammenschlusses der europäischen Medienaufsichtsbehörden (EPRA), auf dem bekräftigt wurde, dass Artikel 22 Buchstabe a der Richtlinie "Fernsehen ohne Grenzen" ausdrücklich jede Ausstrahlung untersagt, die zum Hass auf Grund von Rasse, Geschlecht, Religion oder Nationalität aufreizt. Auf diesem Treffen war man sich auch einig, dass derartige Bestimmung auch für Sendeanstalten aus Drittländern gelten, die eine Frequenz, eine Satellitenübertragungsmöglichkeit oder eine Verbindung über einen Satelliten nutzen, der einem Mitgliedstaat gehört.

Al Manar ruft zu Hass, Gewalt und Selbstmordanschlägen auf, verteilt antisemitisches Material und achtet keine Grundrechte. Al Manar wird ausgestrahlt unter Nutzung von Satellitendiensten und -kapazitäten der Satelliten Hispasat (zum Teil im Besitz der spanischen Regierung) und Globecast, ein Tochterunternehmen der France Telecom. Aus seinem Büro in Beirut sendet Al Manar seine Signale auch an Arabsat (www.arabsat.com) und an Nilesat (www.nilesat.com.eg), deren Sendungen in den meisten Teilen Europas empfangen werden können.

Was unternimmt der Rat, um diese Form der terroristischen Propaganda, die Europa und andere Regionen der Welt erreicht, zu stoppen? Sind die Behörden Saudi-Arabiens und Ägyptens alarmiert und gebeten worden, Maßnahmen zu ergreifen und eine verantwortungsbewusste Rolle im gemeinsamen Kampf gegen Terrorismus zu spielen?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Madam President, I am happy to take questions 9, 10 and 11 together.

As the honourable Members are aware, the Council is committed to the fight against incitement to hatred in broadcasts. Article 22(a) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive provides that Member States should ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality. However, the directive does not apply to broadcasts intended exclusively for reception in third countries, nor to broadcasters not under the jurisdiction of a Member State.

Following the measures taken successfully by the French, Dutch and Spanish authorities on the basis of the directive, Al Manar is no longer broadcast by any EU-based satellite company and the Television Without Frontiers Directive no longer applies to it.

The Council discussed the issue of incitement to hatred in broadcasting from countries outside the European Union at its meeting on 23 May 2005 and took stock of work initiated to respond the problems posed by satellite broadcasting of non-EU channels in the European Union. This followed a meeting of the presidents of national broadcasting regulatory authorities on 17 March 2005, which agreed to reinforce cooperation between the regulatory authorities and identified concrete measures to strengthen this cooperation, notably information exchange regarding channels authorised in Member States, establishing a contact point within each national authority. In the Council, delegations took note of the measures and proposals outlined to combat incitement to hatred in broadcasts. They recognise that consideration should be given to the means of combating more effectively the broadcasting of such material in the context of the revision of the Television Without Frontiers Directive, n! otably the adaptation of this instrument to the most recent technological developments.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – Permita-me que agradeça, Sra. Presidente, esta resposta cuidadosa e rigorosa que foi agora mesmo dada pela Presidência britânica e permita-me também, Sr. Ministro, que lhe enderece, a si e a toda a Presidência, os meus mais sinceros votos de grande sucesso perante os desafios europeus que estão à sua frente. Mas a questão que aqui foi levantada tem, no fundo, um problema na sua base que é o da relação das instituições europeias com quem, em países terceiros, está a fomentar activamente o terrorismo.

Ainda hoje, na imprensa, pude constatar que, no Irão, há uma campanha activa para levar pessoas a cometer atentados suicidas em Israel e no Iraque.

Gostava de saber que comentários tem a Presidência sobre isto.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful for the honourable Member’s generous words and good wishes at the outset of our Presidency. As I sought to reflect in my initial answer, we wholly condemn actions which are taken towards inciting the kind of terrorism and acts of violence which he describes and I hope my earlier remarks reflect the seriousness with which we regard this problem.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – I would like to thank you for your considered reply and also for the fact that the British Government has belatedly given consideration to banning Hizbollah’s so-called civilian wing, whereas in fact there is no difference between the civilian and the military wing.

Today was a great day for the city that I represent, London, in our winning the Olympic bid for 2012. One of the messages from the Prime Minister in Singapore was that the Olympics will be used as a vehicle for peace and friendship amongst nations, as a way of combating this kind of hatred between peoples.

What more can be done to stop EU Member State registered companies giving advertising revenue to television companies like al-Manar? In addition, what pressure can you bring to bear through the Council on the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to stop them broadcasting to the Arabic-speaking communities resident in EU Member States listening to this hate-filled type of broadcasting?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. First, let me say that I would disagree with his characterisation of the British Government’s position in relation to Hizbollah, but this is not the forum or the occasion to explore these issues, which are more directly of relevance to the national authorities of the United Kingdom than to our role as the Presidency.

I am, however, grateful to the honourable Member for his warm welcome to his home city’s success in securing the Olympic Games and let me assure him that there are plenty of opportunities in bilateral forums and indeed in contact between the European Union and other nations outwith the European Union to raise exactly the kind of concerns of which he spoke this afternoon.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais remercier et féliciter les autorités espagnoles, qui viennent à leur tour d'interdire la diffusion de la chaîne Al Manar, dont nous parlons ici, via leur satellite Hispasat. Cela dit, je voudrais poser deux questions précises à M. Alexander, car nous ne semblons pas avoir les mêmes dernières informations, ni la même interprétation, de certains articles de la directive Télévision sans frontière. La France a donc sommé Eutelsat de cesser la transmission du signal. Fort bien. Quid de Globesat, qui est une filiale de France Télécom et qui n'a pas, selon mes informations, arrêté de fournir le signal à d'autres satellites lesquels, effectivement, fournissent ce signal à leur tour en dehors des frontières de l'Union européenne? Alors, dans votre réponse, vous êtes peu précis, me semble-t-il sur les intentions de Nilesat et d'Arabsat, les satellites Egyptien et Saoudien, qui selon ma lecture de l'article 2, paragraphe!  4, tombent bien sous les provisions de la directive Télévision sans frontières. Nous avons, vous le savez, un accord d'association avec l'Egypte, alors la question va-t-elle être abordée? L'a-t-elle déjà été? Nous avons un Conseil le 13 décembre, avez-vous l'intention d'en parler? Questions précises.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I would simply make a couple of points.

First, I am unaware of the disparity of which the honourable Member speaks, but if there are issues of factual disagreement between us then I would be happy to receive representations in that regard.

The other point I would make is the basic one that Community law does not apply to broadcasts intended exclusively for reception in third countries and that is also a factor in our discussions.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Ministrze! Hiszpania ten problem rzeczywiście rozwiązała dopiero w zeszłym tygodniu, Francja niestety jeszcze nie. Pani deputowana Ries ma absolutnie rację w tym względzie, w związku z tym jest kwestia pewnej presji na władze Francji, ale przede wszystkim presji na władze Arabii Saudyjskiej i Egiptu, o czym słusznie tutaj mówił pan Charles Tannock przed chwilą. To jest również zadanie, jak sądzę, pewnej kwestii dyplomatycznej dla Rady.

Panie Ministrze, życzę Panu wielu sukcesów na tym stanowisku, a nawiązując do faktu, że Szkocja nie pojedzie na Mistrzostwa Świata - chyba trzeba zwolnić trenera Bertie Vogtsa.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member attaches great importance to diplomatic discussion of these issues. This is clearly an issue not solely of broadcasting, but also of getting to the root of those organisations or individuals who seek to perpetuate hatred and misunderstanding, when we stand for greater understanding and reconciliation of great faiths and of great peoples. So I take on board the importance of diplomatic representations being made.

In relation to his second point, I think this is factually accurate in the sense that Bertie Vogts has already left the coaching role for the Scottish football team, but then I thought it might be not very communautaire of me to point that out, given that we have reappointed a Scotsman to that role, apparently to no great effect so far!

  Die Präsidentin. Da der Fragesteller nicht im Saal anwesend ist, ist die Anfrage Nr. 12 hinfällig.

Anfrage Nr. 13 von James Hugh Allister (H-0473/05)

Betrifft: Dienststelle für externe Maßnahmen

Inwiefern werden die Vorschläge für eine Dienststelle für externe Maßnahmen durch das Scheitern des Ratifizierungsprozesses der vorgeschlagenen EU-Verfassung beeinträchtigt? Welche Schritte schlägt der Rat angesichts des Scheiterns der Verfassung und somit der vorgesehenen Basis für Maßnahmen vor, um die vorbereitenden Schritte zu revidieren, die zur Einführung der Dienststelle für externe Maßnahmen vermutlich bereits unternommen wurden?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Following the declaration by the Heads of State and Government on 17 June on the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, the Council has not taken a decision on what further steps, if any, might be taken on the preparations for the introduction of the European External Action Service.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Since the External Action Service would exist to assist the Union Foreign Minister, since the Union Foreign Minster can only exist pursuant to the Constitution, and since the right to act on behalf of the EU only arises on foot of the EU itself having a single legal personality, does it not follow that its legal authority arises from the Constitution? Since there is a pause for reflection with regard to the Constitution, should the same not apply to the External Action Service if that pause is genuine, rather than cosmetic? For if implementation action continues, is the Council not then flying in the face of the public rejection of the Constitution and all its manifestations?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Clearly the future of preparatory work on the European External Action Service is tied up with the future of the Constitutional Treaty. The honourable Member is right to acknowledge that there is now a pause for reflection following the decisions reached at the Brussels European Council just a couple of weeks ago. That time – now for reflection, as identified by the European Council – will continue for a number of months.

Let us be clear, first of all, that the preparatory work to date has consisted of discussions between the Member States, the Council Secretariat and the Commission, as tasked by the Heads of State and Government in October 2004. It is the case that the Luxembourg Presidency took forward preparatory work as tasked by that intergovernmental conference and, indeed, by the December European Council. This work, however, has not pre-empted the ratification process: it has consisted of discussion and exchange of ideas in Brussels. As I said in my initial answer, no formal decisions have been taken.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Does the Presidency accept that the Constitution in some places makes mandatory things that are already perfectly possible and legal under the current Treaties? For instance, the Council could decide, by changing its rules of procedure, to meet in public when dealing with legislation. National parliaments could be better involved with early information, and some aspects of the External Action Service may, for instance, be explored in due course.

I note that Mr Allister prefers not to go down that route. Presumably, he, as a good federalist, wants the external representations of the Union to remain under the Commission and not under Mr Solana.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I will not intrude in the private discussion between the honourable Members as to who is a federalist and who is not.

Let me simply say that I am on record in the United Kingdom as saying that one of the obvious areas where there is scope for progress in relation to greater transparency within the European Union is the European Council in its ability to meet, when in legislative mode, in public. That seems to me to be common sense.

However, we also need to reflect the fact that the decision reached at the Brussels European Council two weeks ago was for a period of reflection. It is necessary, therefore, to reflect that in the priorities that we will be developing in the course of the coming year. There will be plenty of opportunities, both for Members of this Parliament and, indeed, for European leaders, the European peoples and the public within Europe, to take part in those discussions during the period of reflection. Therefore, the first priority must be to hold discussions relating to the period of reflection rather than to move immediately towards changes – whether great or small – in relation to the actions of the European Council or, indeed, some of the issues anticipated in the Constitutional Treaty.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 14 von Willy Meyer Pleite (H-0478/05)

Betrifft: Erfüllung internationaler Verpflichtungen im Zusammenhang mit terroristischen Anschlägen

Gegen Luis Posada Carriles, venezolanischer Staatsbürger kubanischer Abstammung, liegt ein Auslieferungsersuchen der Regierung seines Landes wegen seiner Beteiligung an einem terroristischen Anschlag vor, der am 6. Oktober 1976 im Luftraum von Barbados gegen ein Flugzeug der kubanischen Fluggesellschaft „Cubana de Aviación“ verübt wurde, das von Caracas aus mit dem Ziel Havanna gestartet war, und bei dem 73 Menschen ums Leben kamen. Derzeit befindet er sich in den USA in Haft, und Venezuela – der Staat, in dem der Anschlag stattfand – hat bei den USA wegen seiner mutmaßlichen Täterschaft seine Auslieferung beantragt.

Der Europäische Rat hat auf seiner außerordentlichen Tagung vom 21. September 2001 erklärt, dass der Terrorismus eine echte Herausforderung für die Welt und für Europa darstelle, und dass die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus zu den vorrangigen Zielen der Union bei der Beachtung des Völkerrechts und internationaler Abkommen zählen werde.

Eines dieser Abkommen ist das am 23. September 1971 in Montreal unterzeichnete Übereinkommen zur Bekämpfung widerrechtlicher Handlungen gegen die Sicherheit der Zivilluftfahrt, auf dessen Grundlage, neben dem bilateralen Auslieferungsabkommen mit den USA, der venezolanische Staat von der amerikanischen Justiz die Auslieferung ihres Staatsbürgers verlangt.

Wie beurteilt der Rat die Tatsache, dass die USA bis zum heutigen Tage den mutmaßlichen Terroristen Luis Posada Carriles noch nicht ausgeliefert haben?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council regards the case of Luis Posada Carriles as a bilateral matter between Venezuela and the United States. The Council would like to remind the honourable Member, moreover, that the case of Posada’s deportation is still sub judice and that the United States authorities have not officially rejected a formal Venezuelan request for extradition.

Without prejudice to the outcome of the Posada case, it should be noted, however, that the European Union condemns all acts of terrorism regardless of their target or motivation. In the European Council declaration on combating terrorism of 25 March 2004, the Union and its Member States pledged to do everything within their power to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Union, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the obligations set out under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.

In this context, the Council recalls that all EU Member States are party to the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civilian Aviation, which makes it an offence to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight and requires states that have custody of offenders either to extradite the offender or submit the case for prosecution.

  Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL). – Señor Ministro, este caso produce una gran alarma social porque, al margen de que, efectivamente, es un problema bilateral entre Venezuela y los Estados Unidos de América, éstos no deben dar la impresión de amparar y proteger a personas encausadas por delitos de terrorismo, incluso cuando se trate de personas vinculadas a sus servicios de inteligencia, como es el caso del señor Posadas, que efectivamente estuvo en la nómina de la CIA.

En cierto modo celebro su contestación, porque plantea la necesidad de que no quede ningún delito de terrorismo execrable, como éste, sin una sentencia justa.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. With the greatest of respect to the questioner, it would be injudicious to be drawn into general discussions of this case given its status as sub judice at present. I have noted what the questioner said, but in light of the fact that the matter remains sub judice, what I have said fully states the Council’s position.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 15 von Bill Newton Dunn (H-0482/05)

Betrifft: Gemeinsame Ermittlungsteams

Im Rahmen der Beantwortung meiner Anfrage (H-0377/05)⁽¹⁾ in der letzten Fragestunde war der Rat nicht in der Lage, meine zusätzliche Frage zu beantworten, versprach jedoch öffentlich, mir eine schriftliche Antwort zukommen zu lassen. Wie lange muss ich noch warten, bis diese Antwort eintreffen wird?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Following the reply given by the Council representative to Question H-0377/05 during Council Question Time at the last European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg on 8 June 2005, the honourable Member asked a supplementary question concerning the state of play as regards the transposition of Council Framework Decision No 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams.

In reply to Question H-0377/05, the Council representative stated that 21 Member States had notified the General Secretariat of the Council that they had transposed the framework decision, but in two Member States the draft legislation transposing this decision had been, or would soon be, put before Parliament and that one Member State had announced that it had transposed the decision in part.

The supplementary question put by the honourable Member was aimed at finding out what the situation was in the 25th Member State. On the basis of the information obtained, the Council can inform you that the 25th Member State – namely Italy – has informed the General Secretariat of the Council that the provisions implementing the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 29 May 2000, are contained in draft law C2372, tabled by the government on 20 February 2002 and currently undergoing scrutiny in joint committees 2 – justice – and 3 – foreign affairs – of Italy’s Chamber of Deputies. No estimate can be given for the moment of how long the Italian Parliament will take to approve this bill.

  Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE). –Thank you very much, President-in-Office. I do not think I have ever had such a full reply to a question. I am very grateful for that. I must also say that I have never seen the Council benches so full. I think this is the first time that the people on the Council benches outnumber the rest of Parliament put together. What an impressive start you are making.

My supplementary question is this: there is nothing wrong with the President-in-Office saying he does not know the answer to the question, as he did in his previous guise a month ago, and promising to write to us. However, is he now saying that a promise to write to us after Question Time will not produce a reply and that we must put down a supplementary in order to get the answer? Or, if he does not know the answer, will he in future do what he said in his previous life and write to us as he promised?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful for your words of congratulation to the Presidency for the fullness of our benches, but I fear I have already learned at my initial appearance at this Parliament that what you lack in quantity you more than make up for in quality in relation to the questions that you asked.

In relation to the specific point that was made by the honourable Member in relation to correspondence from the presidency, it is a matter that I will look into, but I will look into it in light of the fact that we have endeavoured in the course of the reply I have given to offer as comprehensive an answer as possible to the question posed by the honourable Member.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 16 von David Martin (H-0484/05)

Betrifft: Ergebnisse des G8-Gipfels für die Institutionen der EU

In welcher Form gedenkt der Rat die Ergebnisse des G8-Gipfels, der in dieser Woche in Schottland stattgefunden hat, sowie etwaige künftige Aktionen zu erörtern, die seitens der EU-Institutionen erforderlich sind?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Gleneagles G8 summit, taking place in Scotland this week, will focus on two key issues: Africa and climate change.

Africa, because the continent contains 18 of the world’s poorest countries. It is currently not on target to meet any of the UN Millennium Development Goals first set out at the Millennium Summit in 2000. The continent needs a step change in development, financing, health, education, governance and the capacity to trade in global markets and programmes for dealing with killer diseases and building African peacekeeping capacity.

Climate change is our additional priority, because it is clear that our world is warming up. Major irreversible change in our climate is a real threat and the most important issue we face in the long term. Tackling the problem needs a global approach. The summit is an opportunity to move forward the debate at the highest political level and to help forge a common vision.

The European Union plays a leading role in both issues and has already agreed policies on them. The G8 agreement does not bind the European Union, but may serve as a catalyst for future discussions within European Union structures.

The G8 Summit outcome may give rise to discussion in the relevant Council formations. For example, the 12 July Ecofin meeting will discuss development financing. All political and legislative initiatives at European Union level will, of course, follow the normal EU procedures for discussion, agreement and adoption as appropriate.

  David Martin (PSE). – Before getting to the substance, I too should like to congratulate the President-in-Office, not just for the quality of his responses but for their speed. He might be interested to note that I was speaking to a group of Scottish visitors just before coming back here for Question Time. They asked me about the G8 and I told them that I had a question – No 16 – but there was no chance of reaching it, so I am very pleased that we have indeed reached it.

He is absolutely right to say that the G8 does not instruct the European institutions, but it would be foolish of the EU institutions not to respond to the outcome of the G8 discussions. He has already given a partial answer to this question, but will he go further and consider asking both the Commission and the Council Secretariat systematically to go through the G8 conclusions to see where follow-up action is required by the EU institutions?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. It is a benign coincidence that the United Kingdom holds both the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year and the chairmanship of the G8. I believe it allows an opportunity for effective synergies to develop between the work of the European Union and indeed of the G8.

The evidence I would cite in support of that contention is already clear. If one considers the truly historic decision taken by European Union Development Ministers within the last month to effectively double the level of aid provided by European Union Member States by 2010, from approximately USD 40 billion to USD 80 billion, it is clear that it has already established a very important benchmark for the G8, as it gathers in Scotland this week.

The European Union deserves fulsome tribute and credit for its long-standing interest in issues of development related to Africa. If I might be so bold, with the permission of Parliament, I think the United Kingdom also deserves credit in this instance for having decided to put the issue of Africa at the top of the international agenda of this week’s G8 meeting.

I would say, however, that the conclusion of this discussion will not be at the conclusion of the G8 Summit this week. In the course of our European Union Presidency over the next six months, there will, of course, be this week’s G8 Summit in Gleneagles. There will then be the Millennium Review Summit in New York in September, followed by the next critical Ministerial Meeting of the Doha development round in Hong Kong in December.

Each of those represents a vital staging post on the onward march of progress towards helping many of the world’s poorest countries and the peoples of Africa. If you need any further illustration of the critical contribution that European Union institutions can make to that progress, one need look no further than the decisions that will be reached in Hong Kong in December, where I personally hope the European Union’s Trade Commissioner will be able to advance an agenda that is pro-growth in Europe and pro-poor in the world.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Can I say first say to the Minister that I have been very impressed with the British Government in its general handling of this issue, and I congratulate you. I do not want to take from that by saying that Mr Blair really is not making sense when he says he is listening to the people on the subject of the Constitutional Treaty. The people are not talking about the Constitutional Treaty. We are talking about the Constitutional Treaty. They are talking about the developing world. Please continue to drive that agenda. You have given great leadership on this issue. Please do not drop the ball. After the G8, after your Presidency here, we need that leadership very badly.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for his warm words of support for the leadership that Britain has offered both in the G8 and in the European Councils on this important matter.

We are definitely in agreement that the peoples of Europe care passionately about the issue of development. I attended the rally that took place in Edinburgh, in my country of Scotland, at the weekend. If, like me, you had been able to see in excess of 200 000 people gathered in that city, you would have been in no doubt whatsoever about the extent to which both the European Union and the Government of the United Kingdom are acting with the full support of people from right across Europe in pursuit of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

However, it must be recognised, notwithstanding the level of public support for the action we have taken and, I hope, the further steps that we can take this week at Gleneagles, that the scale of the challenge we face is profound. If you take, for example, the Millennium Development Goals, and in particular their aspirations for sub-Saharan Africa, the timescale set out by world leaders back in 2000 was 15 years for the achievement of those Millennium Development Goals. At the present rate of progress in sub-Saharan Africa, some of these Millennium Development Goals will be met not in 15 years but in 150 years. We are categorically of the view that this is too long to wait. That is why we are so proud of the work that European Union institutions and European ministers of development – and, indeed, as reiterated in a decision by Ecofin when it met last month – have carried out in relation to advancing the cause of development in recent months and weeks and why we are det! ermined to use the opportunities, not just of our Presidency of the European Union, but also the opportunities presented by the G8 this week, the Millennium Review Summit in September and the Doha talks in December, to try to continue to advance this vital and important agenda.

  Die Präsidentin. Da der Fragesteller nicht im Saal anwesend ist, ist die Anfrage Nr. 17 hinfällig.

Anfrage Nr. 18 von Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0492/05)

Betrifft: Arbeitszeitrichtlinie

Kann der Rat bitte mitteilen, wie er sich die nächsten Schritte im Zusammenhang mit der Überarbeitung der Arbeitszeitrichtlinie vorstellt?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. As the honourable Member is certainly aware, the Commission submitted an amended proposal regarding the revision of the organisation of the Working Time Directive on 31 May 2005 following adoption of Parliament’s opinion at first reading. This proposal was discussed by the Council on 2 June. However, owing to the short period of time left for examination, the Council was not in a position to assess all its implications. The Council therefore instructed the Committee of Permanent Representatives to examine the amendment proposal with a view to the Council reaching an agreement as soon as possible.

  Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Ministre, je voudrais savoir quelle est la position britannique au sujet du opt-out. Est-ce que vous maintiendrez votre position en faveur du opt-out ou est-ce que vous avez des solutions de rechange?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am not convinced that this is either the forum or the occasion on which to advance the United Kingdom’s position on this, given my responsibility to answer on behalf of the Presidency. As with every incoming Presidency, our responsibility is to seek to lead and also to find consensus, but that consensus will inevitably and appropriately involve the United Kingdom, as well as the other Member States of the European Union.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 19 von Gay Mitchell (H-0495/05)

Betrifft: Sterbehilfe

Der Ständige Ausschuss der Krankenschwestern und Krankenpfleger der EU (PCN) hat die EU-Mitgliedstaaten aufgefordert, Rechtsvorschriften zur Sterbehilfe sowie zur Rolle und zu den Verantwortlichkeiten aller im Gesundheitswesen Beschäftigten, insbesondere des Pflegepersonals, zu erlassen, sofern derartige Rechtsvorschriften noch nicht bestehen. Der Ausschuss vertrat die Ansicht, dass von medizinischer Tätigkeit gesprochen werden kann, wenn Leben beendet wird. In einem Bericht der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats zur Frage der Begleitung von Patienten am Lebensende wurden „Verfahren und Bestimmungen gefordert, mit denen die Verantwortlichkeiten der Ärzte und des Pflegepersonals eindeutig festgelegt werden und die Rückverfolgbarkeit aller Entscheidungen und Maßnahmen gewährleistet wird, so dass eine wirksame Kontrolle möglich ist“. Pflichtet der Rat dem Anliegen des PCN bei, und wird der Rat in dieser Angelegenheit eine Erklärung abgeben?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Community’s responsibilities in the field of public health are set out in Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In particular, Article 152(5) states that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The Council, therefore, has no competence as regards euthanasia.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Minister, for that reply. In April this year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe rejected by a large majority a draft measure to legalise euthanasia in Europe. At the same time, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalised, it is reported that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are now responsible for one in 40 deaths.

Given the rise in euthanasia tourism, does the Council agree that the coordination between Member States at EU level on this issue would now be prudent, taking into account the principle set out in the Treaty that the death penalty is not one which should be available in Member States?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. With the greatest of respect to the questioner, I would reiterate the point I made in my initial answer, that the European Community does not have competence for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The present Treaty is quite clear on this point in relation to Article 152(5). As such, the Council has no competence as regards euthanasia and so it cannot create legislation on this issue. It cannot specify the roles and responsibilities of healthcare workers regarding euthanasia because Member States have the sole competence in this area. It is therefore for Member States to ensure that they have procedures and provisions in place to define the roles and responsibilities of medical and nursing staff. Member States are also responsible for monitoring these procedures.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 20 von Bernd Posselt (H-0496/05)

Betrifft: Lage in Togo

Wie beurteilt die Ratspräsidentschaft die aktuelle Lage in Togo, und welche Schritte plant sie, um zur Stabilisierung Westafrikas beizutragen?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The European Union has closely followed the evolution of the situation in Togo. In a statement issued in the aftermath of the elections, the Presidency expressed its grave concern regarding the situation in Togo following the elections on 24 April and paid tribute to the people of Togo who took part in the ballot despite difficult conditions. The Presidency also condemned the wave of violence and launched an urgent appeal to all the parties to restore calm.

In a declaration issued on 3 June, the European Union expressed its support for the initiatives taken by the African Union through its Peace and Security Council, in particular the appointment of a special envoy to facilitate dialogue between the Togolese parties and the decision to send an observer mission to monitor the political, security, social and humanitarian situation, as well as the human rights situation in the country. The European Union also urged the Togolese authorities to carry out an impartial, exhaustive and credible investigation into the acts of violence against the civilian population.

The European Union raised the issue of Togo at the latest ministerial meetings with the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States, held on 11 April and 18 May respectively. During those meetings it had the chance to discuss the complexities with regard to African mediation efforts and election monitoring.

The European Union declares that it is ready to support the national reconciliation process and it will continue to monitor the political situation in Togo closely, particularly in relation to the 22 engagements undertaken by the Togolese Government during the consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement and reproduced in the Council Decision of 15 November 2004.

The next legislative elections in Togo figure among the election monitoring priorities established by the Commission for 2005. The Commission will send an exploratory mission, which should report on the advisability of sending an election monitoring mission if a number of conditions are met: first, if a government is in place; second, if a consensus exists among the main political parties to respect the results of the elections: and, third, there is real progress on the 22 commitments.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Herr Ratspräsident! Ich danke Ihnen sehr für Ihre ausführliche Antwort und möchte nur noch Folgendes fragen: Halten Sie es für denkbar, dass die Europäische Union in der nächsten Zeit unmittelbar und aktiv in den Friedensprozess eingreift und versucht, eventuell einen neuen Wahlgang herbeizuführen, ganz konkret innerhalb der nächsten Zeit?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I reiterate the point I made in my earlier statement that the Commission will send an explanatory mission, which should report on the advisability of sending an election monitoring mission if a number of conditions are met, and I set out those conditions.

In the first instance, we would want to be clear as to the findings of such an exploratory mission in relation to further work that could potentially be done in that area.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 21 von Panagiotis Beglitis (H-0498/05)

Betrifft: Beteiligung Zyperns und Maltas an den Verhandlungen der europäischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik

Bekanntlich hat Zypern als Mitgliedstaat der EU das Recht zur vollen Teilnahme an allen Maßnahmen im Rahmen der GASP, nimmt jedoch an den Initiativen der GESVP, die die strategische Zusammenarbeit der EU mit der NATO betreffen, nicht teil. Dies geht auf einschlägige Abkommen zwischen den beiden Organisationen zurück.

Indessen verhindert die Türkei – direkt oder indirekt – sowohl bei allen Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und der NATO als auch im Rahmen der institutionellen Verhandlungen der EU die Teilnahme Zyperns und Maltas sogar bei Themen, die nicht direkt die strategische Zusammenarbeit zwischen den beiden Organisationen betreffen, indem sie den Beschluss des Nordatlantischen Rates vom 13.12.2002 sehr weit auslegt. Das Gleiche geschieht auch bei Treffen der EU, mit dem Argument, dass dort als vertraulich eingestufte Informationen der NATO erörtert würden.

Hat der Rat die Absicht, auf diese anhaltende Situation zu reagieren, die zu schwerwiegenden institutionellen und politischen Problemen führt und im Wesentlichen einem Drittland und Kandidatenland die Möglichkeit bietet, in das Funktionieren und die Verfahren der EU einzugreifen?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. As rightly pointed out by the honourable Member, as things stand at present and under the agreed framework for EU-Nato relations, Cyprus and Malta do not take part in EU military operations conducted using NATO assets, the so called ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements. Likewise, they do not receive NATO classified information or EU classified information containing or referring to NATO classified information.

This state of affairs necessarily has implications for Cyprus and Malta’s participation in EU-NATO meetings, as well as in some internal EU meetings. It will not, however, affect the rights and obligations of EU states in their capacity as EU members, in particular the entitlement of Cyprus and Malta under the EU Treaty to participate fully and without discrimination in defining and implementing the CFSP, including defence aspects. The Council is fully aware of the problem and, in the absence of complete resolution of the issue, has been raising it constantly over the past year with the parties involved. Turkey has been asked to help resolve the problem, but for the time being the complexity and the wider implications of the issue have made it difficult to achieve much real progress.

Questions on how the North Atlantic Council interprets and applies its own decisions, including that of December 2002, should properly be addressed to NATO. I note, however, that requests to extend the scope of EU-NATO dialogue beyond military cooperation in crisis management have come mainly from NATO. The Council is happy to consider such an extended dialogue, provided that all 25 Member States are present at the table. I should also like to note that, at the most recent meeting between the European Union Political and Security Committee and the North Atlantic Council on 27 June 2005 in Brussels, it proved possible to hold a formal exchange of views on Darfur with all 25 EU Member States participating. I would like to consider this a first, even though small, step forward to more significant progress on this difficult issue.

  Παναγιώτης Μπεγλίτης (PSE). – Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω ιδιαίτερα τον Προεδρεύοντα του Συμβουλίου, Υπουργό κ. Alexander, και να του ευχηθώ κατ' αρχάς καλή δύναμη και καλή επιτυχία στο έργο του και στο έργο της Βρετανικής Προεδρίας.

Αντιλαμβάνομαι από την απάντησή σας, κ. Alexander, ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και η Βρετανική Προεδρία δεν συμφωνούν με την προσέγγιση και με την ερμηνεία που δίνει η Τουρκία στις σχέσεις Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης - ΝΑΤΟ. Θα συμφωνείτε ασφαλώς ότι ούτε η Κύπρος ούτε η Μάλτα είναι κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με μειωμένη θεσμική ισοτιμία στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Έχει η Βρετανική Προεδρία υπόψη της να αναλάβει κάποιες συγκεκριμένες πρωτοβουλίες, για να βρεθεί λύση σε αυτό το πολύ σοβαρό πρόβλημα που δημιουργεί η Τουρκία;

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Obviously the basis of the question reflects the fact that two organisations, in particular the European Union and NATO, must both agree on the agenda of any meeting in advance. As I made clear in my original reply, it is not for me to comment today on how NATO interprets and applies its own decisions in this respect. I would merely reiterate what I said in my initial answer.

  Die Präsidentin.

Anfrage Nr. 22 von Jacek Protasiewicz (H-0499/05)

Betrifft: Menschenrechte in Kuba

Das Regime Fidel Castros hält nach wie vor 61 politische Gefangene in Haft, die wegen ihres Einsatzes für die bürgerlichen Freiheiten und die Menschenrechte zu langjährigen Freiheitsstrafen verurteilt wurden.

Gleichzeitig hindert die kubanische Regierung auf eine Art und Weise, die in völligem Widerspruch zu den Grundsätzen des Völkerrechts steht, europäische Parlamentarier daran, Kontakt zu Menschenrechtsaktivisten in Kuba aufzunehmen.

Aus welchen Gründen hat der Rat in dieser Lage Vorschläge zur Verschärfung der politischen Sanktionen der EU abgelehnt?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. In its conclusions on Cuba, which were adopted on 13 June 2005, the Council drew on the 1996 Common Position, the relevance and validity of which it reaffirms. Consequently, the European Union aims to encourage a process of transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and sustainable recovery and improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. This approach has never been called into question by any of the Member States.

The Council has taken a firm position, especially in relation to the human rights situation which, according to these conclusions, should be raised at every high-level visit. This Council has also expressed regret at the lack of any further advance since the release of several political prisoners imprisoned in March 2003. It has, in particular, condemned the action taken by the Cuban authorities to curb freedom of expression, assembly, and freedom of the press.

Furthermore, the Council has categorically condemned Cuba’s unacceptable attitude to foreign parliamentarians and journalists who attended the Assembly to Promote Civil Society, on 20 May 2005, and were either expelled or denied entry into Cuba.

Moreover, closer relations with the peaceful political opposition and with broader sectors of Cuban civil society through intense and regular dialogue decided at the end of January have produced satisfying results. The Council decided to maintain this dialogue and indeed intensify it according to the agreed guidelines. These meetings of representatives of the European Union and of the Member States with the peaceful opposition will continue to take place. The Council has decided to reconsider its position in the context of evaluation of the common position in June 2006.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE), Zastępca autora. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałbym zapytać przedstawiciela Rady, jakie konkretne działania ma Rada zamiar podjąć. Fakty są takie, że w więzieniach kubańskich dalej tkwią opozycjoniści skazani na wieloletnie więzienia. Rada Europejska podtrzymuje zniesienie sankcji wobec reżimu Castro, tymczasem Unia Europejska powinna właśnie na prawa człowieka stawiać w prowadzeniu polityki międzynarodowej.

Czy nie czas, aby zmienić taktykę wobec reżimu Fidela Castro i nie ulegać tylko i wyłącznie polityce Zapatero i Madrytu w tej sprawie?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I shall begin with a couple of points of history and then speak of the future.

On 31 January the European Union agreed to intensify its dialogue with the peaceful opposition in Cuba and then on 13 June, conclusions also noted that the expulsion of EU deputies and journalists, which prevented them from attending a meeting of civil society on 20th May in Havana, was unacceptable.

The European Union’s cohesive approach to human rights in Cuba was recently shown at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April when Member States jointly co-sponsored the resolution, drawing attention to Cuba’s human rights record.

I can assure the honourable Member that the European Union will continue to use every opportunity to call for the release of all political prisoners and will urge the Cuban Government to apply greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, political reform and further economic liberalisation in Cuba.

  Die Präsidentin. Da die für die Fragestunde vorgesehene Redezeit erschöpft ist, werden die Anfragen Nr. 23 bis 42 schriftlich beantwortet⁽²⁾.

Damit ist die Fragestunde beendet.

(Die Sitzung wird um 19.35 Uhr unterbrochen und um 21.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. COCILOVO
Vicepresidente

(1) Mündliche Antwort vom 8.6.2005

(2) Für nicht behandelte Anfragen siehe Anlage “Fragestunde”.