Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 10.00 a.m.)

2. Waiver of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

3. Documents received: see Minutes

4. The Northern Dimension

  President. The next item is the debate on the Commission Statement – the Northern Dimension.

Commissioner Michel has the floor on behalf of the Commission.

  Louis Michel, Commissioner. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted about the opportunity offered to us in this Chamber to debate the policy relating to the Northern Dimension and to do so in advance of the meeting of ministers on 21 November, which will be devoted to this issue.

The Northern Dimension is an integrated policy of the European Union. Its purpose is to encourage dialogue and practical cooperation in the northern parts of Europe comprising the Baltic region and the Arctic and sub-Arctic areas of our continent. It is designed to ensure the general well-being of this vast region endowed with many natural resources and to do so by means of effective and long-lasting regional cooperation. It also makes it possible to overcome the divisions experienced within a region whose constituent parts have very many shared characteristics and which has to face common challenges on both sides of the borders of the states concerned.

Northern Dimension policy has moved on considerably since its launch in 1999, when it was officially inaugurated by the Helsinki European Council. The Feira European Council of June 2000 then incorporated the initial action plan for the Northern Dimension, extending over the period 2000-2003, into the European Union’s external and cross-border policies. The Brussels European Council of October 2003 supported the second action plan in favour of the Northern Dimension, which entered into force on 1 January 2004 and covers the period 2004-2006. This second plan took account of the European Union’s enlargement, set for 1 May 2004. Since that date, eight of the nine Baltic Sea states have been members of the European Union. The ninth is the Russian Federation. Even before that, Northern Dimension policy had placed ever greater emphasis upon relations and cooperation with North-West Russia, an aspect that will certainly be reinforced in the years after 2006.

The second action plan relates to five areas deemed essential to the northern countries: the economic side of trade and infrastructure, the development of human resources – education, culture, research and health – the environment and nuclear safety, cross-border cooperation and, finally, justice and home affairs. Moreover, Kaliningrad and the Arctic are considered as cross-disciplinary themes to be integrated into the five priorities.

The action plan emphasises the notions of subsidiarity and of dynamic interplay between the various actors in the Northern Dimension. These two ideas guarantee full participation by all the parties in implementing the action plan, the parties concerned being, in particular, the partner states, the regional organisations, the regional and local authorities, the educational establishments and research institutes and, finally, civil society, not forgetting the EU itself. In particular, I should like to stress the importance of the role played by the CBSS (Council of Baltic Sea States) and the BEAC (Barents Euro-Arctic Council), as well as the councils’ activities and projects. The Commission is a member of these two organisations and remains fully involved with them.

Since the beginning, the initiatives adopted within the framework of the Northern Dimension have been implemented thanks to the existing Community programmes or to the respective budgets of the parties concerned with this dimension, whether they be states or regional organisations. At present, the European Union’s financial instruments devoted to Northern Dimension policy are the TACIS programmes, the national and regional programmes, including what are known as the neighbourhood programmes, Interreg and, to a lesser degree, the other Community policies affecting the Northern Dimension indirectly.

The Northern Dimension also benefits from the greater scope for loans granted to Russia by the European Investment Bank. The Commission has proposed that, as from 2007, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, that is to say one of the four new instruments for funding external actions, constitute the main source of Community funding for Russia and, hence, for Northern Dimension policy.

The institutional framework put in place by the second action plan has operated as anticipated, with ministerial meetings organised every two years and, in between, meetings of senior officials. The first meeting of senior officials took place in Brussels on 21 October 2004 and brought the following together: all the states involved with the Northern Dimension, together with all the other Member States of the European Union; the four Northern region organisations, that is to say the Council of Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Arctic Council; the international financial institutions operating in Northern Europe; and representatives of the European Union institutions. Canada and the United States have also taken part as observers.

The 2005 ministerial meeting, which will be held on 21 November in Brussels on the initiative of the British Presidency, will be important as its purpose will be to approve the guidelines for preparing a political statement and a framework document for implementing the policy to be considered in the years following 2006, that is to say upon expiry of the second action plan.

According to the Commission, the main objective must be to make Northern Dimension policy a policy common to all the parties concerned, notably the Russian Federation. If this new Northern Dimension policy is to be a success, all the parties, and Russia in particular, need to feel fully involved. That also presupposes an unqualified commitment to the objectives and structures concerned with this dimension.

Once all the parties have demonstrated this commitment, we could envisage new partnerships in the Northern region, inspired by the successful model provided by the environmental partnership in the Northern Dimension, for which the European Union is the main provider of funds and which illustrates the very fruitful cooperation established between the four international financial institutions concerned, Russia and the Commission.

From the Commission’s point of view, the new Northern Dimension must be considered as the form of regional expression to the north of the Common Spaces agreed at the summit on 10 May between the European Union and the Russian Federation – regional expression that would be enhanced by full participation on the part of Norway and Iceland. It should also continue to include a number of additional objectives related to the specific characteristics of the North, in particular its fragile environment and the issue of native populations, as well as issues of health and social well-being.

The Commission is at present preparing the basic documents concerning the new Northern Dimension. These should consist of a common political statement and a strategic framework setting out the objectives and listing the measures required for achieving them. These documents should be approved during the second half of 2006 following a very extensive process of consultation involving everyone concerned with this dimension, in particular the four northern region organisations, the international financial institutions operating in this same region, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The documents should enter into force in 2007 upon expiry of the second action plan. The political statement and strategic framework related to the new dimension should be permanent in character, replacing the current model of three-year action plans while necessarily remaining subject to regular review. By way of facilitating these periodic reviews, the idea is also that, in future, everyone involved in the Northern Dimension should present assessments at the Northern Dimension ministerial meetings.

The consultations on the new strategy have begun, and I am delighted at the opportunity they offer me to exchange views with Parliament. The Commission will gladly listen to any new idea or suggestion from Parliament about the development of this strategy and will also keep Parliament fully informed of this development. As for the Commission, it will continue to prepare annual reports. The information system concerning the Northern Dimension is also available on the Relex DG web site.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to conclude by expressing the hope that the discussions we are currently conducting with Russia will lead to Russia committing itself unreservedly to the new phase on which the Northern Dimension strategy will embark in 2007. I also wish to emphasise that the Commission is fully determined to go on working to make this strategy succeed, both by implementing the second action plan and by developing the strategy.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FI) Mr President, it is excellent that the Northern Dimension is once again entering the debate, and I am very encouraged by Commissioner Michel’s eagerness to commit to its development. When you look at the list of speakers, however, you notice one substantial problem associated with this concept: up till now the Northern Dimension has been the concern of far too few people. Too few in Parliament and the EU Member States feel it has to do with them. The programme has not yet produced the results that were hoped for, and many people still know very little about it. This major initiative of the Finnish Presidency in 1999 is far too worthwhile a project to be lost simply because of a lack of political clout. The Northern Dimension must be made more viable, and I am grateful that a Member of the Commission should have the same objective.

Apart from attracting very little attention, the Northern Dimension has been given very little money. Not having its own budget line, it has remained theoretical. If sums are compared with the financing which the EU has provided for the Mediterranean, they obviously amount to just a fraction of that, but I am delighted to hear about new financial instruments. The Northern Dimension has suffered from a certain lack of identity, and so far has been unable to create a clear profile for itself that distinguishes it from other programmes. We should be realistic: only a strategy with a clear financial framework and a budget line will succeed in establishing its status. This is one reason why some of us representatives of the Nordic countries have recently been looking in the direction of the Baltic Sea and the countries on its coastline. The Baltic Sea is unquestionably part of the Northern Dimension. With the eastward enlargement of the EU, the Baltic became almost completely an internal sea of the European Union, and it should be accorded the importance it deserves. It is our sea: mare nostrum. Surrounding it are new Member States of the EU which are highly motivated to strengthen cooperation in the Baltic region so that all the important elements of the Northern Dimension are reinforced and new political muscle is used for regional cooperation.

The Northern Dimension has been a tool of external relations, but the separate elements of its sphere of operation have not benefited sufficiently from factors that would unite it. It now needs a new approach that would unify the region. This is where Baltic Sea conservation and development of the Baltic Sea economic region are important. When we first joined the EU it might have been enough if we were able to have an impact on verbal reality and at least some people repeated the words and ideas we expressed. That is no longer enough; as the Union expands and as, at the same time, the need is great, I want the Northern Dimension and the Baltic Sea strategy to become a research project that will benefit the people who live in the region and one of environmental conservation.

(Applause)

  Riitta Myller, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for this communication. The enlarged European Union needs visibility in its various geographical regions. It is widely recognised in the European Union that there has to be visible action in the Mediterranean region to maintain people’s security and welfare and our continent’s steady and sustainable development. The Northern Dimension is a later arrival in the sphere of EU activity. It has been a part of Union policy, as decided by the Council, since the German Presidency in 1999. As has been said here, however, commitment to this policy on the part of the Commission and the Member States has been very unsatisfactory, and it was very interesting and satisfying to hear the Commissioner’s assurance that there is to be a change with regard to this issue.

The EU’s most recent round of enlargement also raises the matter of the need for a new Eastern Dimension. The Northern Dimension is an umbrella arrangement designed to try to give attention not only to the Union’s northern regions but also to its northern neighbouring regions, in the form, for example, of practical cooperation with the northwestern part of Russia and the Arctic regions. The practical work of the Northern Dimension is based on partnerships in which the European Union and Russia, Norway and Iceland are participants. Canada, too, is involved in many projects. The practical work of the Northern dimension is based on partnerships, and the best example of this is the realisation of environmental partnerships and the way these have come about could serve as an example to all the other EU regional projects. In short, the contribution of EUR 75 million by the partnership countries and the EU has meant we have been able to start or we have planned environmental projects worth EUR 2 billion. This autumn a sewage works southwest of St Petersburg will be completed. It will have considerable importance for reducing the waste load in the Baltic Sea. In the future we will have to develop a Northern Dimension policy, get new bodies and agencies involved in it, and provide support for the work of earlier partners. As the Commissioner said, the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and the Barents Euro-Arctic Regional Council are all important players in the Northern Dimension. Most important of all, however, is the Commission’s own commitment and that of the Member States. The Northern Dimension must be made a reality so that it can genuinely become a part of our common policy.

  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner for his very full, descriptive statement on the Northern Dimension and also for sharing with us some of the thoughts about the future. It is about the future – what comes after 2006 – that there is much concern.

Over the last six years, I have had the privilege to represent this Parliament on a number of parliamentary bodies in the Arctic, Barents and Baltic region. It is quite clear that our parliamentary colleagues on those bodies look to this Parliament and the European Union to provide a robust and functioning Northern Dimension policy. It is somewhat ironic that this is a policy that is normally played out at a regional level and it is therefore absolutely essential that it involves elected Members and all other stakeholders, as the Commissioner has said.

However, it is a policy that tends to be set at the biannual ministerial meetings. Therefore this Parliament has sometimes suggested that some form of Northern Dimension forum, bringing in all the stakeholders and elected representatives, would be a good idea for the future. We must give this policy bottom-up motion so that it is really working and dynamic and represents the wishes of the area it is there to serve. Also, the original Northern Dimension had a wide vision of a policy from the Urals to Greenland, encompassing the Arctic and the subarctic region.

It is right that we concentrate much effort on our relationship with Russia, and there is much that can be done there. If we have a dynamic St Petersburg, then the Baltic itself will be dynamic and that even reflects on trade in the area I know best – the north-east coast of the United Kingdom. So it can benefit all of us and we must take an interest. However, it must be a shared policy in partnership with Russia, not a covert way of directing some EU policy towards Russia.

As has already been mentioned, we must also bring in our other partners, Norway and Iceland. The Norwegian Government has recently produced a very full policy document for discussion on the High North. It wants European Union involvement. We should respond to that. This fragile area of our world gives us the opportunity to cooperate with many partners and even to have dialogue with the US on climate change. We should seize that opportunity within a wider Northern Dimension policy.

  Satu Hassi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Northern Dimension is both an issue of external relations and an internal matter. The Baltic Sea is a part of the Northern Dimension which is connected with both. As has already been said, since enlargement it has become almost entirely an internal sea of the EU.

The Baltic is one of the most vulnerable areas of sea in the world, and at present it is in very poor shape. None of this is visible from the surface, however. The often repeated depressing fact is that the largest stretch of wasteland in Europe lies at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. It is actually a vast zone devoid of oxygen, where the basic living organisms have died. The Baltic is fairly large in area but it is shallow. The average depth is only 58 metres, while that of the Mediterranean, for example, is several kilometres. The pollution load reaching the Baltic, however, is high. Approximately 0.5% of the world’s people live in its catchment area, although around 10% of the world’s sea traffic passes through it. The number of oil consignments from ports in Russia in particular is increasing very rapidly. We know that a major oil tanker accident is a catastrophe wherever it may occur. In the Baltic Sea, however, the consequences would be vastly more disastrous and longer-term than in the Atlantic. Eutrophication in the Baltic is visible in the summer, for example, in the form of blue-green algae. The greatest cause of this is agriculture. Environmental toxicity levels are high: for example, levels of contamination in seals and white-tailed eagles are approximately five times greater than in the Atlantic. Some of these problems can only be solved in collaboration with Russia, but some, such as agricultural emissions, are matters the resolution of which is in the hands of the European Union and its Member States.

  Esko Seppänen, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union is like a boat, whose keel is in the Mediterranean Sea and whose mast is in the Baltic. Winds blow into its sails from every direction, not least from where our partners are in the Northern Dimension: Russia, Norway and Iceland. This is sometimes forgotten by our southern friends in the Mediterranean region. Russia is a rich country, where there are a lot of poor people. The country has drifted into a state of chaos, in a way which we humanists cannot behold with indifference: there are street children and prostitutes, criminals and terrorists, and there are huge environmental problems. Russia’s state of health is reflected in the fact that the country’s population is falling by a million a year. It would be good if the Commissioner put on headphones, as I do not suppose he understands Finnish.

It is possible to help this neighbour state of the EU solve its problems with funding, for example, under TACIS and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership programmes, under the umbrella of the Northern Dimension. We need a new and better Northern Dimension action programme, which must be drafted together with Russia. Now that the good Commissioner is listening, I will continue.

The Northern Dimension must not, however, be merely a matter of helping Russia: it needs to be a means of cooperation. There needs to be a belief in good intentions on either side. The Northern Dimension must also cover cooperation with oil-rich Norway and energy-rich Iceland. Its action plan should extend into the northern region to include Greenland and Alaska, to say nothing of the Barents Sea.

In the same way, there should be closer cooperation with the regional councils. The fact that the EU does not always take part in the meetings of the Arctic Council, the Barents Council or the Barents Euro-Arctic Council says something about its indifferent approach to external relations in the development of the Northern Dimension. The Commission should take seriously the desire of the EU’s northern Member States to develop Europe’s northern regions alongside the Mediterranean region, and the Commissioner should listen to the debate through his headphones if he does not understand the language.

  Nils Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, there is unfortunately a constant attempt to get involved in just about every area. We are to vote on many such objectionable proposals later today. When it comes to the Northern Dimension, it is therefore, in my view, very important for us to concentrate on results-oriented activity and not on everything under heaven and earth that is north of the fiftieth degree of latitude.

What, then, is important in the Northern Dimension over the next ten or fifteen years? Generally speaking, I agree entirely with all the previous speakers that the answer is the Baltic Sea. What is more, I would add that the nuclear plants outside Saint Petersburg give rise to one of those topical issues that are genuinely of extreme importance. It should be noted that, in both cases, Russia has a crucial role to play. It is a matter, therefore, of cultivating the contact we have with Russia and developing it in both these areas.

The Baltic is an absolutely unique inland sea. There is no comparison with the Mediterranean or, indeed, any other sea in the world. The Baltic consists of brackish water, meaning that flora and fauna that are actually suited to salty sea water or fresh water are in constant danger. The salt content goes up or down depending on how the water flows through the Sound. That makes the Baltic incredibly sensitive because, as quite a few speakers have pointed out, it is a shallow sea. The Baltic cannot cope with pollution, yet around the Baltic there is now intensive economic activity and intensive agriculture with a host of discharges. This means that our efforts should be directed at, for example, rescuing flora and fauna, cleaning up after discharges, monitoring marine transport and closing down the Saint Petersburg nuclear plants.

  Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it seems that now, when the European Union has taken on a leading role in the realisation of the Northern Dimension, it is showing signs of being more like a business plan than a policy. Why? In spite of the fact that it is welcome that the Northern Dimension is applied to the Baltic Sea region with the aim of developing cooperation both within the region and also in the border region from the Baltic Sea towards the east, and that efforts are being made to involve Russia, which is nurturing its understanding of western values, it is time to take a good look at how seriously Russia has taken the Northern Dimension itself and factors connected with it into account so far. It is quite obvious that in the wider context of the region Russia thinks predominantly of its own interests. This is proven by its inability to free itself of imperial thinking, based on Tsar Peter I’s approach to Europe, in the 17th century, of forcing a breach, continuing right up to its inability to accept the independence regained by the Baltic states and their equal membership of the Baltic Sea region within the context of development and security. As a result, the facilities developed in the Baltic Sea are completely inadequate in terms of meeting the Northern Dimension’s goals: for example, the transport and energy systems and the new ports at St Petersburg, which not only complicate the environmental situation, but make it more expensive for European Union consumers to obtain natural resources in the northern region. As a result, ships and tankers’ routes are lengthening, traffic in the Baltic Sea is continuing to increase and in the near future will double or treble, the cost of raw materials is increasing and there are growing risks of shipping collisions in the Baltic Sea. All this should be taken into account.

I would also like to place particular emphasis on the fact that Russia has a special need to foster democracy, since, unfortunately, it is absolutely clear that the current Russian regime is ignoring this extremely important objective. Only once Russia has managed to solve these problems will we be able to hope that the Northern Dimension will achieve its technical and economic objectives in relation to Russia.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to start by making a point to the people who prepare the European Parliament agendas and also to the English interpretation booth. Today we are talking about the Northern Dimension, not the Nordic Dimension. There is a rather substantial difference. There are four Nordic countries; the Northern Dimension encompasses the whole north of Europe. It is important to remember that when drawing up the agenda next time.

I think that the Northern Dimension stands at a crossroads. It has two options. One is that it withers away under the Russian road map and becomes just a part of it. The second is that we start refocusing it, for instance towards the Baltic Sea. I happen to have a preference for the second option.

I am very happy that the Commission is dealing with the matter today and that we are able to discuss it. I am also very happy to see that there are other non-Finns in the Chamber besides Mrs Wallis, who was the only non-Finn to speak about the subject in November 2003. So the concept is moving forward and that is a good thing.

I would like to make three observations. Firstly, I think that the Northern Dimension should have its own budget line. I firmly believe that it needs it. If it is put under the neighbourhood policy I think it will only get crumbs from the general budget. So give it its own budget line.

Secondly, I think we need to rejuvenate the Northern Dimension, give it more content than before. The ideas that Commissioner Michel put forward are a step in the right direction. However, I fully agree with, for example, Mrs Korhola and Mrs Hassi, who said that we should refocus it on the Baltic Sea, because that probably is the sickest sea we have in Europe today. To all the people sitting in the Parliament for the first time today, just remember that the Baltic Sea has an average depth of 59 metres compared to the two to three kilometres of the Mediterranean. If there were to be an oil accident, that would be the end of the Baltic Sea, and I am sure no one would like to see that happen. So let us get more focus.

Thirdly, we need to start coordinating the institutions that are dealing with the Northern Dimension and the Baltic Sea region. We need more coordination between the Nordic Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and the Baltic Sea Council. They need to work together.

I want to ask the Commissioner one final question. Do you not think it would be a good idea to have a Northern Dimension as the overarching concept, but a Baltic Sea strategy as an underlying theme working within the Northern Dimension?

  Lasse Lehtinen (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, the Northern Dimension has served as a useful framework for cooperation across national borders and, in particular, across the EU’s external border with Russia. It has a considerable importance for this sort of cooperation between people and various organisations, and it has importance specifically for regional security, welfare and stability. The Northern Dimension should be included in all the EU’s policies and not remain a separate heading. It was good to hear that the Commissioner agrees. Whether it is a matter of the environment, health or culture, everything also has its northern dimension in the same way the EU’s policy on the Mediterranean does.

The EU’s northeastern border is at least as crucially important as its border in the southern Mediterranean. The standard-of-living gap in the north is the widest in Europe. On the Russian side, the economic and health statistics are on a par with Africa. HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, drugs and alcoholism have lowered life expectancy in males to levels in the developing countries.

Of the hundreds of projects, those which stand out most clearly are the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership and the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being. The aim of the latest programme is the control of these infectious diseases and the prevention of various dangers to society in our neighbouring areas: which will be no minor feat in the future either. Mr President, the EU’s best investments in the environment and in health are still being made behind Finland’s eastern border, and it is on that border that the interests of the whole of the EU are being watched over above all by the Finns.

  Paavo Väyrynen (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the Commission’s report shows that the importance of the Northern Dimension in the Union’s external relations is growing in strength. Especially gratifying is the fact that Russia’s attitude towards it is becoming more positive than what it was before. In order to develop the Northern Dimension’s importance in the Union’s external relations the Commission should be given two tasks. Firstly, not only Russia but also our northern European Economic Area partners, Iceland and Norway, should be strongly encouraged to be involved in cooperation in the northern regions and, for example, the new EU Neighbourhood Policy. Secondly, the Commission should participate more dynamically in the work of the councils that operate in the northernmost region of the earth: the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and the Arctic Council.

My main message, however, is connected with what is missing from the Commission’s report entirely: cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Until spring of last year, the Baltic countries and Poland were our neighbours and partners in external relations. Now they have joined the Union the development of the Baltic Sea region is essentially based on mutual cooperation between the Member States and the Union’s internal policy. The Commission needs to take this into account when shaping the guidelines for the Northern Dimension. Now that our Northern Dimension partners have gone from just being neighbours to being members, a comprehensive strategy for developing the Baltic Sea region should be drawn up, within the framework of which the Member States and the Commission can collaborate on projects such as improving environmental conservation and the energy economy in the region as well as its internal communications. Baltic Sea cooperation will establish the Northern Dimension in the Union’s internal policies, but cooperation with Russia will obviously still be conducted as part of the Northern Dimension of external relations.

Baltic Sea cooperation will finally contribute some real substance to those views of the Council which have emphasised the importance of the Northern Dimension generally and also in the internal development of the Union. There should be some reorganisation in the Commission so that it is not only the External Relations Directorate-General that deals with questions relating to the Northern Dimension but other Directorate-Generals as well.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, it is indeed timely that we should be discussing the Northern dimension in this House. I also join with others in saluting the initiative taken by the Finnish Government. It is also good to remark, as colleagues have said, that this debate is attended by French, German, Austrian, Belgian, British and other colleagues.

It is timely, as has been said, that we extend the work of the Northern Dimension to encompass a Baltic Sea strategy, which is a true reflection of today's reality, the Baltic bordered by eight EU Member States and the Russian Federation. In this Parliament there is a Baltic Europe intergroup, which meets every month in Strasbourg and which I have the honour to chair. It encompasses members not only from each political group but also representing the great majority of Member States. We have been working to produce a Baltic Sea strategy. Yesterday we had the honour to meet with President-in-Office and Minister for Europe Mr Alexander. We are extremely grateful for his enthusiasm and interest in the project leading up to the ministerial meeting on 21 November on the Northern dimension.

Commissioner Michel, I would urge you – perhaps in your reply – just to confirm that the Commission, you and your colleagues will be working extremely closely with the British Presidency to ensure the successful initiation and implementation of the Baltic Sea strategy, which will be seen as a natural extension – a complement – to the work of the Northern Dimension.

I wholly agree with others, that we shall have a discreet budget line for the Baltic Sea strategy to match and balance the very successful work that we do through the Euromed policy, which – obviously – historically predates the work in the Baltic.

The scope of this work cannot be underestimated: its importance ranks in the very highest policy that the EU should now be developing. What we are talking about is nothing less than offsetting and overcoming half a century of Soviet occupation, oppression, misrule and marginalisation. We are pledged to restore the economic harmony, security, prosperity and cultural vibrancy of the Baltic region. To ensure the success of this work, it is absolutely vital that the British, German, Polish, French and Italian Governments and the whole of the EU administration lend their support to this great work. We want to see a truly successful enlarged European Union. That will not happen unless we have a successful Baltic Sea strategy.

  Henrik Lax (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I shall begin by thanking the Commissioner for his encouraging presentation, and I shall continue in Swedish.

(SV) Last year’s enlargement of the EU has a very great effect upon the Northern Dimension. The Baltic Sea region, which comprises all of eight Member States, now forms the very heart of the Northern Dimension. It is a region with great potential for economic development and urgent challenges in, for example, the area of environmental policy, which must become part of the agenda for the whole of the EU. The people there expect a policy that makes it possible to make full use of the region’s potential, a factor that must also be taken into account in the EU’s policy on Russia.

When the European Parliament set up what are known as its intergroups, the group that was to deal with the Baltic region as a whole was one of the most popular, which is a sign of just how much demand there is for such cooperation. That being said, there is a lack of shared awareness and, consequently, of solidarity and a common sense of identity in the region. We must now take steps to heal this wound following the division of Europe.

The Baltic must become a matter for the whole of the EU. A flourishing EU needs a flourishing Baltic region, and the region needs the EU in order to be able to solve a range of problems, environmental as well as social and economic.

It is also important for Russia to get involved in the cooperation taking place under the banner of the Northern Dimension. It would be of symbolic importance to support Saint Petersburg so that, in future, all the waste water from the city might be cleaned up, so benefiting everyone living in the Baltic region. The population of that region expects such obvious problems to be solved.

It is unfortunate that the Northern Dimension has often been seen as an issue internal to Finland. It is also regrettable that Baltic cooperation, which is important, has in a way fallen outside the Northern Dimension, in spite of the fact that Baltic cooperation is an essential part of that dimension.

It is important for the Commission to succeed now in properly strengthening the Baltic side of the Northern Dimension. It must be possible to do a better job of coordinating research in the region and directing it at issues of common concern. Important infrastructure projects can bind the region together. We also need an extensive exchange of students and labour. Energy supplies must become more diverse. My message to the Commissioner is this: incorporate the Baltic as an important part of the Northern Dimension. Draw up a bold strategy for the region, and be more daring.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am encouraged by the Commissioner's fresh approach to this topic. For me, the Northern dimension was an ambitious initiative when it was proposed by the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr Lipponen, eight years ago. Under the first Finnish Presidency it succeeded in turning the EU's attention towards north-eastern Europe.

Today, the Baltic Sea has become an internal sea of the EU, uniting an extremely promising region of 85 million inhabitants with immense economic potential. I should like to make three observations.

My first concern is related to the highly alarming ecological situation of the Baltic Sea, where environmental and toxic hazards are often up to five times higher than in the North Sea area. These growing risks and challenges need to be addressed by more cohesive and long-term policies, using the resources of the EU as a whole. It is high time, therefore, to widen the concept of the Northern dimension beyond cooperation projects with Russia's north-west regions, to cover the whole area of the Baltic Sea including the Kaliningrad area.

Secondly, within the Northern dimension, we should have a special Baltic Sea strategy, just as there is an EU strategy for the Mediterranean. The time has come to draw practical conclusions from the enlargement of the EU to the east and north-east. Clearly, we need a much more creative and balanced approach to these areas, including the creation of concrete financial instruments.

Thirdly, one of the core elements of the Northern dimension is cooperation with Russia. The efficiency and reliability of the EU common foreign policy are being particularly tested in this region. Despite the European Parliament's May resolution on Russia, which called on Member States to resist Russia's attempts to differentiate between old and new Members, unfortunately the date of 8 September stands as a symbol of the separate relations between Russia and some larger Member States. The so-called Schröder-Putin agreement will officially start the building of a new under-sea gas pipeline between Germany and Russia, solidifying the special relationship between those two countries. The side effect of that project would be to expose Poland, the Baltic States and Ukraine to the Russian practice of using economic pressure to advance its foreign policy aims.

If its long-term cooperation with Russia is to be successful, the EU needs to start sending a clear and coherent signal to Moscow. Our first priority must be to convince Russian policy-makers that we take our own common foreign policy seriously.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that Europe is home to almost 500 million people has made it the part of the world with the greatest purchasing power, and that makes the sort of strategy that we are discussing today especially important. Purchasing power has not only advantages but also disadvantages, and so we have to consider in what areas we want to include this new dimension.

I would like to draw particular attention to energy policy. I regard the Baltic region in particular as a region with a future, and as one that is of the utmost importance to us. Countries such as Norway, with its reserves of crude oil and natural gas, and Iceland, with its renewable geothermal energy, are examples for us to follow in this respect and present us with an immense opportunity to develop common strategies for energy policy in this area; I believe that the current state of energy prices – for both oil and gas – means that this will be one of the most important issues in the future. Not only in that respect, but also as regards the security of our energy supply, this area will, in future, have a special part to play.

When I say that the infrastructure, too, presents us with a vitally important challenge, I am referring not only to the energy infrastructure, but also to such things as telecommunications. Tasks such as developing broadband technology and ensuring access to information on the Internet by a wider cross-section of society will in future have an important part to play in the future, particularly in remote regions.

A primary concern in cross-border cooperation is economic in nature – to bring together small and medium-sized businesses. The need to create jobs and to attempt to raise the standard of living in these regions make it particularly important that our promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, and of cooperation above all, should take no account of borders.

That brings me on to a really fundamental issue, that of the WTO and Russia. I believe it to be crucial to the Hong Kong talks in particular that we should join together with Russia in considering a common strategy as regards global lawmaking. I regard this dimension as being of particular importance to us in terms of our trade relations, and the importance to Europe of the further development of the WTO structures will be consistent with this. A very interesting debate is currently going on in this region about how we can join together in adapting to the new situations in the global context, and that I see as being the real challenge for Europe.

  Louis Michel, Commissioner. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to thank Parliament for the great interest it has expressed in this Chamber for a subject that is clearly important. I should also like to thank the speakers who, overall, reacted very positively to the statement I made on behalf of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. I should like to point out that it is she who deserves the credit because I was speaking on her behalf, and I shall be sure to convey this general feeling of support to her. I shall also pass on all the suggestions and reflections expressed that do not necessarily relate to the statement, in particular those concerning the place and role of Russia and cooperation with that country.

The Russian economy shows encouraging growth, so it is likely that European Union budgets will not increase in this area. However, the Commission does not dismiss the possibility of new partnerships if Russia commits itself formally to the Northern Dimension. I would just add that, in my view, the comparison with the Mediterranean is not entirely appropriate, given the different characteristics of the two regions, particularly with regard to economic indicators, the populations concerned and the number of countries involved etc.

To return to Russia, the Commission is receptive to that country’s proposals and contributions. Russia needs to be present at the ministerial meeting about the Northern Dimension, to be held on 21 November 2005, and then to participate fully in the entire range of the Northern Dimension’s activities. Russia is a strategic partner of the European Union, as witnessed to by the positive conclusions of the summit of 10 May and by the adoption of the road maps for the four Common Spaces. Our objective consists of devising a joint European Union-Russia policy on the Northern Dimension, also involving Norway and Iceland. This policy should be in keeping with the Common Spaces, with which it should be aligned in terms of the Northern region, and it should have a number of specific characteristics.

I shall now say something about specific funding. I think that the European Community should continue to support the Northern Dimension within the framework of the programmes at present being implemented, that is to say TACIS and the European Neighbourhood Policy, and of those to be implemented in the future within the framework of the draft European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. It should also be noted that what will also be useful in terms of infrastructure is the fact that the opportunities for loans by the European Investment Bank to Russia and the western NIS (newly independent states) have recently been increased. Thanks to the practical support from a wide range of donors, the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership is showing how useful it is for meeting very specific and urgent needs. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that these results could be reproduced in other areas, but that would require a similar level of commitment from all those providing funds.

Because it is important, I need to reply to a question I was asked several times, namely that concerning a Baltic strategy within the Northern Dimension. That option obviously has its merits. However, I think that we should, for all that, point out that the Commission is active around the Baltic Sea through the EU’s internal policies. The fact is that, as I mentioned earlier, eight of the nine countries bordering the Baltic are Member States, benefiting from the EU’s internal policies and programmes. There can be no forgetting the far North with its specific characteristics: relatively unpopulated, but with a very large native culture and environmental problems peculiar to itself. I am thinking, for example, of the former Russian nuclear bases on the Kola Peninsula.

Those, then, are the replies we intended giving today. Obviously, though, I shall be very particular in conveying the feelings, reflections and very strong commitment of the MEPs who spoke in this debate.

  President. The debate is closed.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – I have listened to this debate with interest, yet not taken part, much like the country I represent, Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has complete competence in areas like Fisheries, the Environment and several other areas relevant to the Northern Dimension. Sadly, we have had little input to the development of this policy, though I do hope that that will change. We have much to contribute from our own experience, and much to learn as a West-Nordic nation. I today make a plea to the European Commission to remember us in their planning, and to the Scottish government to play a more active part alongside our neighbours Iceland, Norway and others.

5. Tourism and development

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0173/2005) by Mr Thierry Cornillet, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on tourism and development [2004/2212(INI)].

  Thierry Cornillet (ALDE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, tourism is the largest global economic activity, both in terms of turnover and number of jobs. It is one of the most dynamic sectors in the world, true though it is that it is extremely volatile and very sensitive, particularly in the wake of attacks. Think of those of 11 September, which brought tourist development to a sudden halt. Developing countries were the first to suffer from this reversal.

The tourist economy characteristically cuts across an extremely wide range of areas. It naturally leads to the development of hotels, together with other forms of accommodation, such as self-catering cottages and family-run guest houses, that are outside the hotel system proper. It gives rise to restaurants, which may or may not be attached to hotels. It enables staff to be trained not only in the professions associated with the hotel and catering industry but also in languages. It makes for extremely wide-ranging economic activity, with all types of salespeople eager to respond to the demands of, for example, people who have forgotten their toothpaste or medicines or who want croissants to eat every morning in their hotel. Tourist development has bearing upon all areas of the food industry, not to mention, of course, all the souvenir shops there are.

What is more, tourism in itself generates a very heavy demand for substantial forms of infrastructure, most prominent among which are not only airports but also sea ports and main roads, as well as smaller roads serving tourist destinations and other places to visit. Moreover, tourism encourages specific demand affecting areas over which the state traditionally has jurisdiction, be it in matters of security or public health. I shall return to this point.

By the way in which it cuts across such a variety of areas, tourism therefore guarantees genuine economic development, but it does not stop there. Tourism also makes for land conservation and better protection of the environment, the fact of the matter being that, with the creation of world heritage sites, we now give serious thought to areas that are to be protected, without however being set piously apart, so enabling them to be exploited ‘intelligently’ for tourist purposes.

Tourism is also a factor in democracy and political stability because tourists with no intention of being bound by any all-inclusive package see a country open up before them; because tourism is enriching and is educational in a way that, as everyone knows, undermines dictatorship; because tourism can establish ethical rules, particularly regarding child labour; and because the idea of fair tourism, which in fact constitutes a form of dissuasion, is beginning to make itself felt in our part of the world.

Finally, tourism is an essential factor in public health and education. Health risks constitute absolutely the wrong type of advertising. Remember the problem of Ebola virus in Congo and elsewhere. The same applies, however, to malaria and makes states much more sensitive to the need to eradicate these diseases. Tourism is extremely demanding in terms of decent hospital infrastructure which, of course, will also serve the local population. Finally, tourism is an educational factor because it makes people learn languages and in that way opens people’s minds.

Let us not deceive ourselves. Tourism can also be a factor causing disturbance and leading to abuse. I shall give just two examples. The first is sex tourism, which is clearly a means of development for certain countries that do not provide themselves with the resources for preventing it. The second is property speculation, in particular that whereby leading families buy up properties or that whereby, if one is not careful, sites are destroyed.

The fact that tourism is the world’s largest form of economic activity and that it can be an economic lever for developing countries cannot be a matter of indifference to the European Union. Tourism must therefore be better integrated into all forms of the aid we offer. That naturally applies to all our programmes, be they the EDF, MEDA, ASEAN or other programmes. The percentage of these funds directly appropriated to tourist development projects must be increased. We ourselves must strengthen our own structures. I am glad that Mr Michel is in the Chamber, because what I have just said applies not only to the Enterprise DG but also to the Development DG, both of which should have tourism departments with a bit more clout. We need help in strengthening the public-private partnership. Let us not delude ourselves. The public sector will not take care of tourist development in its entirety. Through the aid it supplies through ourselves and through the impetus it provides, in particular for the creation of major infrastructure, the public sector can, however, help tourism develop further.

Finally, tourism must give rise to ethical reflection within the European Union and, more generally, at global level. To prevent corruption and merciless speculation in all its forms, help should not be given to just anyone, anywhere. Thought needs to be given to ways of putting a stop to sex tourism and, in particular, to the forms of legal action available to us in our own countries. Particularly when it comes to child labour, we need to be sure about the situation regarding working conditions and public freedoms within developing countries.

Tourism, which encourages knowledge of other people and the exchange of experiences, offers a promising route for developing countries to go down. Finally, visitors to other countries are perhaps more aware than others of the urgent need there is to increase and channel international aid. The presence of that aid becomes apparent. Having seen evidence of it, people take an interest; and, having taken an interest, they give in a much more visible way.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONYSZKIEWICZ
Vice-President

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome the in-depth work that has been done on the drawing up of this report and the resolution on tourism and development that is packed with interesting ideas.

As the rapporteur, Mr Cornillet, has noted, the Development Directorate-General, which is under my authority, has no specialised service for tourism issues. That obviously does not mean, though, that there are no projects in this sector. Furthermore, in his explanatory statement, the rapporteur points to the significant funding from the European Development Fund in the sector. The Commission deals with the issue of tourism in the developing countries from the point of view of aid for the private sector and the sustainable management of natural resources. Tourist promoters in the developing countries therefore have all the instruments for aid to the private sector available to them. The investment facility managed by the European Investment Bank has thereby funded several hotel projects in the ACP countries, while the PROINVEST programme provides the sector with non-financial support, such as the strengthening of capacities and the promotion of investments.

Furthermore, the European Development fund has funded hotel training schools in numerous countries to accompany the rapid development of the tourism sector. Furthermore, road, port and airport investments funded by the European Development Fund play a crucial role in the development of tourism, as well as water supply, electrification, sanitation, waste treatment and environmental conservation programmes.

Furthermore, the ecolabel system, promoted by the Commission, enables tourism entrepreneurs to obtain a label certifying that their tourism company respects environmental standards, which is important for the ecotourism market.

It is therefore very difficult to isolate purely tourist projects. The report acknowledges the transversal nature of the sector. I entirely agree with this idea. The European Union’s strategy consists of supporting the partners in their development efforts by helping them to enhance all the resources available to them, including tourism. In the case of the small island countries of the Caribbean and the Pacific, tourism is one of the only resources available. Furthermore, proper environmental management of ecosystems such as forests, coral reefs or rivers would allow these resources to be conserved and generate long-term revenue for the local population.

I agree with the points of view expressed in points 1 and 2 relating to durable or sustainable tourism. The European Union’s cooperation with its partners is aimed at promoting sustainable development based on local resources and which is respectful of the environment.

With regard to the increase in tourism projects advocated, I must point out that we must prevent the scattering of funding and, in order to achieve the maximum impact, the Commission, in agreement with the partner States, focuses its aid on a relatively limited number of sectors. These sectors are determined in joint agreement with the countries in question. Since tourism is essentially a private sector activity, the multiplication of tourist projects falls within the domain of promoters. For promoters in ACP countries, the Commission has established the Investment Facility, with a capital of EUR 2.2 billion, in order to respond to an increase in requests for funding. The Commission treats the participatory approach and the quest for adherence of the beneficiaries as one of the cardinal principles of its development policy. The private sector is consulted as recommended in point 15. As for the support for countries falling victim to natural disasters, this is already a constant of Community aid, as is the obligation to respect and protect the environment and local cultures.

We share the concerns expressed in point 30 about the training of specialised personnel on the ground in the countries in question, and we would point out that this is precisely what the Commission has always favoured. In Madagascar, for example, the Commission has established a training project that is directed at both promoters and their employees. The Commission naturally agrees on the need vigorously to combat sex tourism, especially where the victims are children, in particular by providing the judicial systems of partner countries with all the assistance they need to eradicate this scourge.

I would like to thank the European Parliament for the attention it has given the Commission’s services and you may rest assured that I will take all the necessary steps to ensure a more effective monitoring of all activities relating to tourism. Nevertheless, the Commission does not believe that a Directorate-General should be created solely responsible for tourism.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, no one doubts the importance of tourism as a central component in European development policy. Tourism, as the rapporteur rightly states in his report, is not only a factor of economic growth; it also makes a substantial contribution to democracy and political equilibrium in developing countries.

Nonetheless, an effective EU policy of tourism to other countries depends on an integrated policy for sustainable European tourism within the European Union. I should like to link our debate today with the debate held on the guidelines for sustainable European tourism, because I believe that only if the European Union creates conditions of harmonious correlation between internal and external competence on tourism issues will it have an effective tourism policy for developing countries. In other words, 'in foro interno, in foro externo'.

Since the Treaty of Maastricht, tourism policy has been a central objective of the action of the European Union. With the European Constitution, tourism is reintegrated into the sectors of supporting, coordinating or complementary action by the Union. The legal basis therefore exists, as does the challenge to create a coordinated European policy of action in the tourism sector.

The challenge of moving from the level of pronouncements to a cohesive and effective structural policy cofinanced by the Union, a policy of sustainable tourism, a source of economic development of both traditional and rural destinations, a source of knowledge of history and cultural heritage, a policy with specific strategic guidelines, clear objectives and linked objectives and means.

A politically mature and institutionally perfect European policy for sustainable European tourism will also facilitate the smooth interconnection of European tourism policy with European development policy.

  Linda McAvan, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Cornillet for his report, which highlights the importance of tourism and its potential in the developing world.

When looking at the developing world, we have to remember that tourism plays more of a role in some regions and countries than in others; the figures in the report show that. In the Caribbean, tourism is a key driver of the economy, but that is not the case across sub-Saharan Africa where, with a few exceptions, tourism is not such a big factor.

For that reason, the Socialist Group cannot support the report in its entirety. For example, we cannot support paragraph 8, which asks all developing countries to draft tourism development plans, to produce annual reports on figures and contributions, because that is not appropriate in all cases and in many countries it would be a pretty low priority. Nor can we agree with paragraph 10. At a time when the EU is demanding more and more visa controls from third country nationals, it seems a bit ironic that we then ask other countries to drop their visa requirements. Visas are often a major source of income for developing countries, so that is not something that we can support.

There are also a couple of areas where the report could be more nuanced. For example, recitals Q and T. Experience shows that, unfortunately, it is quite possible for tourism to flourish alongside undemocratic regimes. Some of those regimes have proved good at protecting tourism and tourists with very strong-arm police tactics. However, they have at the same time been oppressing their own people, which is why I have reservations about paragraphs 24 and 25.

We in the Socialist Group strongly support moves to develop tourism, particularly eco-tourism, sustainable tourism, and we welcome what the Commissioner said. We want the private sector to invest in tourism, but to do so responsibly, to develop tourism projects that contribute to the local economy and help micro-businesses to grow, so that local people benefit and local produce is consumed.

In too many areas including, for example, all-inclusive packages and cruise tours, tourism takes out of local economies, but often does not put much back in. In some cases – and here I disagree with Mr Cornillet – it can damage the environment, using scarce resources too much. We need to look more carefully at the kind of tourism projects we want to invest in. Could the EU and the Commission do more? I am sure they could, and we have heard some examples of what might be proposed. Do we need a new DG to do that? I am not so sure. I am not sure that if we had a DG Tourism it would in any case do much for the developing world.

I very much welcome the section on sex tourism. It is extremely important that we do a lot more to tackle this criminal activity, so thanks again to Mr Cornillet for his report.

  Sepp Kusstatscher, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, this report by Mr Cornillet contains a plethora of valuable suggestions and justified demands. Most of the recitals are illuminating and critically enumerate a large number of problems, including child labour, the sexual exploitation of children and speculation in property. The Verts/ALE Group is glad to see this subject being discussed in this House at all and consideration being given to such aspects as the investment of profits from tourism in the developing country in question, the avoidance of mass tourism, the promotion of human rights and the maintenance of bio-diversity. We find it regrettable – and it is on this point that I largely agree with Mrs McAvan – that this document shows Europeans largely adopting an arrogant attitude towards third countries and regarding themselves as the measure of all things.

We believe that the report attaches far too little weight, in this area, to the protection of the environment and to the need for a truly sustainable economy. Discussion of the ecological and social consequences of mass tourism, such as water pollution, the alienation of the local population, or exploitation on the part of multinational hotel chains is absent or too diffuse.

As a first attempt, this report is important, but there are many things that it considers only half-heartedly or too vaguely. We hope that the Commission will go into the matters it has highlighted in greater depth, and that greater emphasis will be placed on international solidarity as a means of promoting peace.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report we have to debate and vote on today is one that takes a wide-ranging approach to issues associated with the development of tourism, especially in developing countries. For that the rapporteur, Mr Cornillet, deserves our thanks.

For many of the poorest countries in the world, tourism does of course represent an important potential source of income, and that is why it is to the credit of both the rapporteur and the Committee on Development that, in considering the use of tourism in association with projects to combat poverty, they do not lose sight of the millennium development goals. That is something I regard as very important.

What prompts my fundamental criticism, though, is the way in which the report gives the impression that the EU is, as an outsider, announcing to the developing countries what they may and may not do. That I regard as improper. I do not think it right that the EU should interfere in the way the developing countries manage their visa policies. I do not think it legitimate that developing countries should be called on to submit reports to whomsoever, irrespective of what is then done with those reports. Nor, in my view, is a report of this kind the right place for the EU to demand the creation of special police units.

There is no mistaking the EU’s assumption, expressed yet again in this report, that tourism will help to resolve all the world’s remaining problems. It is because that is something I regard as highly dubious that I welcome the tabling of the amendment calling for the deletion of recital Q, according to which tourism is the enemy of totalitarianism, dictators and over-centralised power. That is wishful thinking that bears no relation to reality.

Like Mr Kusstatscher, though, I do find it regrettable that this report scarcely mentions the real ecological problems associated with mass tourism, at any rate not to such an extent as would make it possible to resolve them. The amendments adopted in the Development Committee mean that the report does now contain wordings advocating that, but they go against the fundamental tendency of the report as a whole. My Group will not therefore be able to endorse this report.

  Hélène Goudin, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, the emphatic ‘no’ delivered by the French and the Dutch to the EU Constitution demonstrated that broad swathes of the people we represent want to see less extensive, rather than broader, EU cooperation. The report proposes, among other things, that an independent Directorate General for Tourism should be set up within the Commission. That means more power for the EU, something to which the June List is opposed.

It is true that a well-organised tourist sector has a lot of potential for helping improve the situation of people in many developing countries. The EU should not, however, conduct a common policy on tourism, as proposed in the report. We believe that the EU should only work on genuinely cross-border issues where it can add something of unique value not offered by already existing international organisations. This means that the EU should not devote itself to development policy and policy on tourism.

Paragraph 10 calls on developing countries to introduce non-restrictive visa policies. That is a completely absurd proposal. Developing countries must of course decide for themselves what visa policies they wish to operate. Otherwise, developing countries should demand that the EU too introduce a non-restrictive visa policy.

Paragraph 24 advocates that criminal activity in developing countries be combated in such a way as not to damage those countries’ image as tourist destinations. Should the EU dictate to other countries how criminal activity should be combated?

Paragraph 25 calls for tourism to be promoted, protected and secured through initiatives to tackle crime directed against tourism, with such initiatives to include the setting up of specially trained police units. Again, this is not a task for the EU.

We are critical of the fact that paragraph 30 refers to the EU Constitution, which has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch. We advocate an EU with limited influence and shall accordingly vote against this report.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cornillet report undoubtedly contains many valid points, when it, for example, explores the seamy side of certain forms of tourism, such as the sexual exploitation of children in certain tourist destinations or property exploitation that affects the indigenous – and often less well-off – population. There is, however, one important point missing from this report in my view, namely a clear position on tourism to countries where human rights are grossly violated and where it would be useful if the European Union were to consider introducing an embargo in order to exert more pressure on the countries concerned.

An example of this was given a few months ago by Mr Deva, who remarked that, in the Seychelles, the paradise islands, tourists pay 300 dollars a night and more for a hotel room, while the local people have to slave for the local potentate and his court of cronies for a few dollars a day.

The Communist dictatorship of Cuba also springs to mind; this report makes cautious reference to it, but it is a place where opponents disappear behind bars for months and years without any form of trial, while the regime of an old and senile man guilty of crimes against humanity feeds on the currency of debauched western Europeans. These too are sad side effects of tourism that deserve our attention.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, tourism is a major source of income for many developing countries and it has a significant impact on the transformation of their economies. Clearly, aid in this area should be one of the priorities of the support provided by the European Union. At the same time, however, we need to be aware of certain threats to which tourists are exposed and of threats related to the flow of tourists affecting the 25 Member States of the Union. Issues concerning the way in which the tourist sector might support totalitarian regimes must feature prominently in any debate on tourism and development.

I note with concern that there is no reference to the drugs trade in the text. Nonetheless, it is the case that pleasure-seeking travellers to developing countries frequently resort to drugs. This leads to a boom in trade in all types of drugs on the territory of the country concerned.

It is important not to overlook the threats posed to tourists by terrorists, whose activities are often directed against the former. Events in Egypt, where Islamic terrorists tend to target tourists, are a case in point.

Potential epidemics represent another negative influence on the development of tourism, because travellers are deterred from visiting the country in question. We should therefore assure financial support to children’s immunisation programmes providing antigens to diphtheria, tetanus and other infectious diseases. A new disease representing a direct threat to European countries has recently emerged. I refer to avian influenza, which is also acting as a strong deterrent against travel to areas affected by this disease. Failure to react to this threat will be to nobody’s advantage.

Sex tourism must not be overlooked either. It claims numerous child victims, and a determined and unequivocal attack on this practice and all the types of criminality associated with it is needed. I therefore propose providing logistical support to countries facing problems of this kind. Victims of sex tourism need to be rehabilitated, but it is important not to deal only with the consequences, but also to ensure tourists are fully aware of the treatment that will be meted out to them if they commit offences of this kind. Offenders must be dealt with with the utmost severity.

Tourism serves as a source of income to totalitarian regimes. This is an important issue, but it is rarely mentioned. For the governments of several Member States of the European Union, the issue of maintaining diplomatic relations with the Cuban regime is a sensitive one, because it is so often linked to the tourist sector. On the one hand we realise how much such a poor country can be helped by supporting the tourist sector, but on the other we are aware that all the proceeds end up in the hands of a small exclusive group closely linked to Fidel Castro’s regime. I regret the lack of a clear and convincing approach to such situations in the document under discussion.

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Mr President, my thanks and congratulations go to the rapporteur. It is very important that we acknowledge that tourism is a major industry in many developing countries. Many developing countries such as poorer countries, and LDCs such as Mozambique and others, see it as a sector which needs to be developed further. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask the Commission to look at ways that we can do that, certainly with ACP countries, under the provisions already existing in the Cotonu agreement.

For some developing countries, tourism accounts for something like 50% of GDP, so we should be aware of that. We can be positive; it leads to the development of infrastructure, it can help to reduce the isolation of rural communities and it offers new opportunities for vegetable growers and others in developing countries. However, there are downsides, which all of us here would acknowledge. We need to have a proper regulatory framework that ensures that there are no corrupt practices and that there is no property speculation or environmental damage, and it should not be beyond the wit of us as donors to ensure that host countries do not suffer in any way from the development of tourism.

What I see and hear from the Commission is that there does not seem to be very much understanding of how we can actually integrate tourism into the broader development strategies we have; that ought to be positive and something that can be thought about. There need to be well publicised penalties, as my colleague has said, for people who are involved in sex tourism because so many people, especially children, are drawn into prostitution and drugs.

The European Union has a role to play here, and we have a role in pressing the industry – nobody here has spoken about the responsibility of the tourist industries in our own countries to ensure that their practices do not damage the countries where they are. We need to be sure that we are pressing the need for workers' rights – on low wages, on long hours and on the lack of secure contracts. This is the kind of thing that could be monitored through our ACP relationship with 78 countries.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I echo the comments of my group colleague, Mr Kusstatscher, concerning the many positive aspects of this report, which does a decent job of highlighting the paradox that exists in the developing world when it comes to tourism.

In developing this issue, however, the Commission should bear in mind the principles of yesterday's sustainable tourism debate. The sustainable tourism report was excellent. I would hope that the Commission would view that debate and this one as two sides of the same coin, when looking to come up with a strategy in this area.

I quite agree with the rapporteur that tourism can be a powerful force for good in countries in the developing world. However, I remember well, when I was working in India for six months, how very often the impact of tourism on local communities was negative. I suggest that one of the most useful things that we and the Commission can do to take this forward is to focus on sustainability and perhaps even the production of a code of best practice that companies can aspire to. We can be positive in this field. I look forward to seeing how the Commission will take it forward.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak on behalf of the new Italian Socialist Party. As the Cornillet report has rightly shown, tourism has provided developing countries with an important opportunity for sustainable growth. They must, however, make use of this resource with respect for the local peoples’ cultures, individualities, socioeconomic situations and traditions.

I want to mention two serious kinds of illegal activities that unfortunately often go hand in hand with tourism in those areas. First of all there is sex tourism, considered the third largest form of illegal trade in the world, which often involves minors and is a shameful but expanding business. Another kind of illegal activity is property speculation, which has involved – and generally spoilt – areas of environmental value and cultural heritage, with the tacit agreement and often even the approval of run-down local authorities.

A strong, vigorous initiative is needed from the Community institutions as soon as possible, focusing particularly on funding and legislation to combat these two illicit practices, which are carried on above all by Europeans.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, I will keep my speech to two minutes. Tourism today is an undisputed promoter of development, and it is also a key part of our development policy. It boosts employment, standards of living, health, and the infrastructure of many developing countries. I wish to raise three points.

The first is that we need cross-border cooperation between the EU and the developing countries, between the countries of Africa and the developing countries, and cooperation too within the countries themselves. This requires cooperation between the public and the private sector.

The second point is that, in my opinion, we need rules based on sustainable development. We have to pay attention, as many have already done in their speeches earlier on, to the matter of combating and weeding out child sex tourism. I think we would do well to earmark financial assistance for this. It is very much a matter of enlightening people’s attitudes both in the West and elsewhere.

My third and last point is that we should invest in loans of cerebral capital, by which I mean people are sent from Europe to the developing countries to help promote economic growth, although in such a way that always takes account of the country’s own standpoint, the country’s special features, and the country’s culture. I spoke for two minutes.

  Libor Rouček (PSE).  – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, previous speakers have already pointed out that tourism is both the world’s foremost economic activity and a sector that is developing very dynamically, both in developed and naturally also in developing countries.

In economic terms, tourism is of crucial importance for a variety of industries. It lends impetus to the construction of infrastructure such as hotels, restaurants, airports and roads, as well as acting as a driving force behind improvements to educational systems, the growth of the construction and banking sectors and the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. There can therefore be no question that the economic significance of tourism should be viewed in a positive light.

Moving on to the political significance of tourism, a number of Members have already drawn attention to the fact that tourism can in many instances promote respect for human rights, civil liberties and democracy, as well as increasing political stability. I would furthermore point out that, at best, tourism can also encourage the mutual recognition of cultures, which is of enormous importance in this era of globalisation and diverse global risks.

At the same time, however, it is quite clear that tourism also poses certain risks. As far as the economy is concerned, these risks relate to over-dependence on tourism, which is a problem that previous speakers have already mentioned. Reference has also been made to environmental risks, for example the threat posed to sources of drinking and industrial water, which in many countries have been exhausted. A further unresolved problem relates to the treatment of waste, by which I mean both solid and liquid waste. It goes without saying that tourism also poses risks to society, for example the eradication of local cultures, prostitution and child prostitution, as mentioned by previous speakers, and, in a number of countries, the rise of various forms of intolerance, such as religious intolerance, various forms of xenophobia, racism and frequently also extremism.

I for my part am delighted that this report has been tabled, since it emphasises the opportunities offered by tourism, at the same time as highlighting the many risks it poses. Despite my reservations, I will vote in favour of it, although I too do not believe that a directorate-general should be set up for tourism.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President, tourism in any region should be a positive contributor to economic growth and stability. Obviously, tourism and terrorism do not mix and as an area meant to be emerging for good from the dark shadow of terrorism, we in Northern Ireland are beginning, I am glad to say, to see a steady gain from increased tourism.

I greatly welcome that, but one has to recognise that, without real governmental commitment, the full potential can never be achieved. Tourism must plan well. It must build on opportunities. The Olympic Games coming to London in 2012 is such an opportunity for my region. I call not just for the Games but for the tourism spin-off to be managed and organised in such a way that every region of the UK will benefit.

2012 also presents particular opportunities for Belfast as it is the centenary of the Titanic – I might add that we had a ‘titanic’ victory last night on the football field over England! A world-class Titanic exhibition centre is planned for the very site where that famous ship was built. I trust neither national government nor Commission will be found wanting in financially contributing to the great success that venture can be.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, that tourism can have many side-effects is not a matter of dispute. Being from the Tyrol myself, I know what I am talking about, for the Tyrol is now one of the world regions most visited by tourists. Tourism is the fastest-growing area of the economy and is already providing millions of people with jobs. Although it has the potential to stabilise incomes and economic conditions in developing countries, it is important that we create the legal framework that is needed if they are to be rid of the perils and risks that follow in tourism’s wake.

What is most important is that we should put the development of tourism in each tourist destination on foundations that will be secure in the long term. As is stated in paragraph 35 of the motion for a resolution, which makes reference to the WTO’s code of ethics, we have to protect our hosts, and that means that tourists must treat their hosts as such, with respect, rather than behaving in such a way as to wreck structures that have evolved over time. Such aberrations as sex tourism deserve the most forthright condemnation, and, above all else, punishment at the hands of the law. We should maintain the European programmes that support financially the fight against these pernicious activities.

Secondly, we have to protect nature in the places abroad that tourists visit, and not just by preventing the speculation in property to which paragraph 40 of the report refers. It is by our own habits of life that we destroy the natural resources of these countries. Let us bear in mind that we use far more water and energy than they do, and our lifestyles are of course exported by the way we act when we are there. There is also a dramatic increase in the amount of waste, which can result in the destruction of natural areas and to over-exploitation. This is where we have to start from the very outset with concepts of what sustainable tourism is and build on them.

It is only if these conditions are in place that the beneficial effects of foreign travel can be felt to the full, by creating jobs and bringing prosperity, fostering economic development and, above all, stimulating population growth and the life of society. It can promote understanding between peoples, something that we need in a world that is, alas, becoming less and less secure. In any case, the report gets a warm welcome from me.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have to agree on the importance of tourism as an economic factor and a factor for sustainable development.

I have some doubts, however, about the Cornillet report, in which a number of redundant and naïve statements stand out. In recital S, for instance, the emphasis given by ‘and its defenders’ seems, quite frankly, worth changing; and in recital AG there are some rather meaningless points: it proposes that sex tourism should be combated by the authorities, in coordination with NGOs, and also the proposal of promoting tourism initiatives controlled by the Union seems impracticable.

Lastly, for the sake of propriety, in paragraph 30 one cannot ‘welcome’ the new legal basis concerning tourism established in the European Constitution, since the Constitution is now worthless, dead and buried by the outcome of the referenda and also, for example, by the Blair Government’s fear of holding any more polls in the near future.

Finally, development and tourism do not require increased spending. I am against strengthening the existing services or creating new ones in the directorates-general of the European Commission, as proposed by the rapporteur.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have been very interested to hear the opinions and comments expressed in relation to this report. I will say first of all that, in general terms, I agree with the fundamental elements of the report, except perhaps for certain points raised during the debates, which I can agree with.

Tourism may be a significant driving force for the development of a poor country. Having said that, however, we must also consider the social effects, the environmental effects and, I would even say, the effects on cultural heritage. In fact, even here in Europe, large numbers of visitors to certain places lead to wear and tear and measures have to be taken to deal with it. I therefore believe that we must always bear in mind the need to protect countries’ cultural heritage. To the effects that I have already mentioned, I would also add the speculative effects and the economic effects.

Having said that, I believe that we must respect a fundamental principle, and that is that it falls first and foremost to the partner States to decide whether to treat tourism as a priority economic sector. It is not our job to decide for them. On this basis, what seems to me to be important at Commission level – and I shall offer a very firm commitment in this regard, Mrs Kinnock – is that, as well as contributing to the creation of tourist infrastructures by means of development projects, it could provide governments with useful know-how in terms of assessing the positive and negative effects of investments in the tourism sector and the use of the various instruments available in order to prevent the least desirable consequences. I believe that there is a lot of study to be done in this regard but I agree with you, Mrs Kinnock, that, for our part, we have not given this issue sufficient consideration. I therefore promise that we will work on this issue because I believe that we can provide the countries in question with the necessary know-how to ensure that investments in tourism conform to a whole series of criteria relating to best practices.

In this connection, I would like to digress slightly. I am currently working on an idea which would be a kind of ethical label intended for private companies that receive and manage the funds that the Commission grants them within the framework of cooperation. I shall soon have the opportunity to hold an exchange of views and to consult Parliament on this issue. We will be able to create a link between that label and the reflection that I was talking about.

Finally, I shall say a word about sex tourism. It is proposed to restore the budget line dedicated to the fight against sex tourism in order to guarantee the effective allocation of resources for that action. The reform of budget lines proposed by the Commission within the framework of the financial perspectives 2007-2013 is aimed at establishing a more efficient and rational framework for the creation and management of these lines, to put an end to the pointless fragmentation and to improve the establishment of priorities within the lines. The European Parliament and civil society will be fully consulted with regard to the implementation of this reform. That is a promise. Such an important issue as combating sex tourism will certainly find its rightful place within the context of 'Human and social development', together with other issues such as the fight against AIDS, gender equality, training problems or social cohesion.

Be that as it may, you may rest assured that we shall apply every possible attention and determination to trying to put in place an arsenal of support instruments aimed at developing countries that want to invest in tourism.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

6. Major and neglected diseases in developing countries

  President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A6-0215/2005) by Mr Bowis, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on major and neglected diseases in developing countries [2005/2047(INI)].

  John Bowis (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, my reports always start with a quotation. On this occasion it is: Principiis obstata; sero medicina paratur cum mala per longas convaluere moras. If that is difficult for the interpreters, that is the oldest language – or one of them – of Europe. It is Ovid, and it translates as 'Stop it at the start; it is late for medicine to be prepared when disease has grown strong through long delays'. That is my theme.

In 2005, we have seen many health threats, and a new health threat on our agenda as Marburg has emerged in Angola with a mortality rate of over 90%. Europe responded swiftly, supporting Médecins Sans Frontières, providing not just the powerful antibiotics and the intravenous fluids, but water purification systems and disposable, protective gear.

That is just one example of the need for vigilance, prevention and rapid response, just one reason why we must never 'cherry-pick' in our battle against disease. We must continue to tackle the big three of AIDS, TB and malaria, but just as many – or even more – people die, become chronically ill or live with disabilities caused by diseases that the world neglects. It is time to end that poverty of fatalism; it is time to bring neglected diseases in from the cold and to bring real hope to those who live with and, too often, die from these diseases.

Ten per cent of the world's biomedical research funds are dedicated to addressing the problems that are responsible for 90% of the world's burden of disease; that is the imbalance. At the end of 2004, for all neglected diseases, we had just 18 R&D projects in clinical development and a further 42 on the way. While, for other diseases, we had 2 100 projects in clinical development.

Less than 1% of the 1 393 new drugs placed on the market between 1975 and 1999 were for infectious tropical diseases. Every year, 1.5 million children under five die from vaccine-preventable diseases. Patients suffering from sleeping sickness, leish-maniasis, dengue, trachoma and many others are given, too often, archaic drugs, some highly toxic, some ineffective. Some diseases are neglected because they are rare in western countries, so no market has emerged to develop such drugs. Some are neglected because western drugs are not made available or affordable.

In my case, I live with diabetes. I have access to western medicine, treatment and care. When we were in Mali for the EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I went to visit the local diabetes support clinics. There were two – only in Bamako – and they could not afford the drugs or the insulin, so the result was amputations and blindness, liver disease and early deaths.

My call is for more research for neglected diseases and more support for care projects in developing countries.

Clinical research is slow and patchy. There is plenty of basic research and knowledge about parasites and genomes, but there needs to be more bridging research to translate basic research into tested and safe drugs and clinical applications.

I support very much the DNDi call for more research in this area, and I hope colleagues will sign up to its campaign. The call is also for more help – both available and affordable – for diseases which affect the developed world, like diabetes, epilepsy, depression and schizophrenia. Fifty-two million people are afflicted with epilepsy in our world; 80% of them are not treated; 70% could live seizure-free lives with comparatively cheap five-euros-a-day anti-epileptic drugs. The story goes on.

I very much welcome what the Commission has brought forward on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB. Its communication and then the programme for action are very welcome. We know that there were more new infections with AIDS in 2004 than in any previous year. We know that anti-retroviral prices are an increasingly serious public health hazard – that is a statement by the WHO. We know that malaria is giving real opportunity with the new drugs made from the plant Artemisia, and we need to accelerate the production and distribution of that as well as of insecticide-protected nets.

With TB we need to recognise the link to AIDS – the multi-drug resistance versions which kill two million a year. I urge the Commission to carry on its good work on TB, AIDS and malaria and to renew its efforts in the neglected diseases, because they are also killing and debilitating people across the developing world.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Bowis on his report. He has identified some of the essential points on which the Commission will focus its action over the coming years with the assistance of Parliament and the Member States.

The European Commission supports the improvement of results in the field of health by means of projects, sectoral budgetary support and general budgetary support relating to results in the field of health. The Commission will also continue to support research and development with a view to preventing, treating and curing diseases, including the so-called neglected diseases. The action programme to speed up the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in external actions, proposes supplementary actions for combating these three major diseases of poverty. The programme proposes a series of coherent and concrete actions that are often jointly managed by the European Commission and the Member States, to be undertaken both in the partner countries and at world level, with a view to strengthening the fight against these diseases and to contribute to achieving the Millennium development objectives.

Our actions must contribute to increasing the credibility of the policy of prevention, of access for treatment and of investments in the development of new vaccines and other tools and interventions for prevention or treatment. Within this context, Europe will enhance its political dialogue with its partners, with a view to helping them to confront the enormous challenges facing them by means of ambitious strategies and active participation by civil society and the private sector. Europe will contribute to strengthening the capacities of these countries in key fields, in particular regulation in the field of the evaluation and licensing of pharmaceutical products, as well as research.

I would also like to inform you of other initiatives that I have already taken and which are closely linked to the action programme. The first initiative relates to the human resources crisis in the health sector in the developing countries. As you know, this problem is critical in the countries that are trying to enhance their actions within the framework of the fight against the three diseases. I shall therefore present the College with a communication indicating the means for strengthening this fight, in cooperation with the Member States of the European Union and the African Union.

I am also going to launch a new initiative aimed at guaranteeing the availability of new medicines. This requires additional support from the World Health Organisation. It will also require new measures at European level, with a view to encouraging – as you have said very well – the private sector to invest in research and development of new medicines more specifically geared towards the curing of diseases suffered by certain countries that are clearly currently of little economic interest to the sector.

I have tried to give you a clearer idea of how the Commission intends to implement the action programme, through cooperation with the Member States of the European Union, the programming of resources and the launching of specific initiatives. I very much hope to hold a dialogue with you on these issues.

  Alexander Stubb, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I have always dreamed of being the last speaker before the vote: that is a guarantee for having a lot of people in attendance, although no one really listens.

I wish to make three very brief points. The first is that my Group and I support Mr Bowis' report, which is excellent. Development policy is often seen as some kind of post-colonial deal that eases our conscience. This time it is not: it is about people and preventing epidemic diseases spreading around the world. These are issues that touch all of us and my Group therefore supports it.

My second observation is that this field needs more research. We know very little about epidemic diseases and how they spread. Extensive work is being done, but more money needs to be invested and the Commission, and indeed the European Union, could be the right source.

My final point is that we need more money. It is absolutely clear, as also pointed out in Mr Bowis' report, that funding is the main priority. For example, between the years 1975 and 1999, less than 1% of new medicines was for the treatment of tropical and epidemic diseases. We really need to do some work. What we basically need is more money and research, but my Group fully supports the report on the table.

(At this point the debate was suspended for voting time)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

7. Voting time

  President. – The next item is voting time.

(For details of the outcome of the votes: see Minutes)

8. Natural disasters (fires and floods)

– Before the vote on paragraph 10:

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (PSE). – (PT) I should like to propose an amendment, whereby the phrase ‘and creating a joint border civil protection corps’ in paragraph 9 of the Resolution be replaced with the phrase ‘and creating a European civil protection corps taking special account of the vulnerabilities of border zones’. I should also like to point out that there is a small mistake in paragraph 17 of the Portuguese translation. The English version of paragraph 17 should therefore be taken as authentic.

(The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment)

9. Basic guidelines for sustainable European tourism

10. Gender discrimination in health systems

11. European schools

12. Tourism and development

– Before the vote on recital Q:

  Thierry Cornillet (ALDE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I have an oral amendment. It is true that the wording of paragraph Q is a little abrupt when it says, ‘tourism is the enemy of totalitarianism and dictatorships’. I would therefore like to tone it down so that my fellow Members can accept the amendment, changing it to: ‘the development of tourism may be a means for combating totalitarianism and dictatorships’.

(Applause)

(The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment)

President. – That concludes voting time.

13. Explanations of vote

- Natural disasters (fires and floods) (RC-B6-0458/2005)

  Gilles Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to congratulate and thank all the Members who have been involved in the drawing up of this resolution. This is unfortunately not the first and probably will not be the last. I hope, however, that it will be followed up. I personally have voted for it because it contains a paragraph 12 which addresses the Commission and asks it to take full account of the need to fund measures for preventing forest fires. In 1992, there was a regulation. This regulation was abolished in 2003 in favour of Forest Focus, which is currently provided with EUR 61 million for ecological protection programmes and only EUR 9 million for the fight against fires.

I myself come from a forest region and I must tell you that the foresters regret this situation, since the funding is necessary for the creation of firebreaks, equipment and monitoring and control systems which are very effective in terms of preventing forest fires.

I therefore hope that the Commission will take full account of this resolution and that it will give back the prevention of forest fires and the creation of preventive systems the place they deserve within our budget. Otherwise we will unfortunately be obliged to admit that our compassion is often short-lived.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – I consider the joint draft resolution on natural disasters to be an extremely important signal for the European citizens, and I voted to support it. Its importance is underlined by the fact that climatic extremes are no longer chance events, but a well-defined weather trend.

The influence of global warming on daily weather is obvious. Achieving the Kyoto targets has become a great challenge for the whole world. If we do not sharply reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, scientists believe that Europe is yet to feel the force of the weather in the next half century. The time has come to devise a clear strategy and take measures including financial instruments that will allow us to prevent, avert or at least postpone natural disasters.

The long time it took to release the aid for the Slovak Tatra mountains has shown us that remedying the consequences of natural disasters in the future will require full commitment on the part of Europe, and immediate financial aid from the solidarity fund when a Member State requests it.

  Jan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the resolution on natural disasters because we are able to support the overall thrust of the resolution. We share the view that disasters are largely due to climate change, bringing about extreme weather conditions. If climate change is to be reversed, the global work on the Kyoto protocol must be continued and stepped up. We also believe that the EU Member States can join in helping one another cope successfully with the emergencies that arise in the wake of natural disasters. We think, however, that some of the proposals in the resolution are too detailed and far-reaching. We are dubious about agricultural aid being used for setting up fire-breaks, and we do not want to see an EU-funded system of agricultural insurance.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We welcome international solidarity when countries are hit by natural disasters or other events with devastating consequences. We do not, however, believe that the EU should use events of this kind to strengthen its influence over different policy areas. The Commission should not carry out detailed analyses of the causes of forest fires. The EU should not develop a common policy for preventing forest fires. No EU bodies should be set up with responsibility for monitoring a variety of climate factors. It is a pity that the European Parliament should try to take every opportunity to promote the positions adopted by the EU.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the adoption of this resolution, to which we made a substantial contribution.

We wish to highlight the adoption of the following proposals, which we tabled again in plenary:

- insists on the need to apply the EU Solidarity Fund immediately to areas and countries affected;

- urges the Commission to expedite all the relevant Community administrative procedures, namely those relating to the need to reprogramme the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and to make the overly-rigid processing of these funds more flexible;

- emphasises the need for Community support for the replanting of forests in the affected areas;

We trust that they will come to fruition.

We also regret that our proposals were rejected, which were as follows:

- a public farming insurance scheme, funded by the EU, should be set up in order to guarantee farmers a minimum income in situations of public calamity, such as droughts, fires and floods;

- urges the Council to take into account, in its proposal for the forthcoming financial perspective for 2007-2013, the need to create mechanisms in support of the affected population with a view to the prevention of further large-scale disasters resulting from climate change, aimed at trying to minimise their consequences.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. The widespread fires and floods experienced this summer in Europe further emphasise the need to take seriously a global strategy on climate change.

It is appropriate to ensure that the Solidarity Fund rules clearly allow for aid to populations directly affected by natural disasters, and that funds can be released quickly on receipt of Member State requests.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) It is a good thing that the European Parliament has at last realised the need for something to be done about natural disasters. As a matter of urgency, and not least in view of the large-scale fires in southern Europe and the major flooding in central Europe, the EU needs to develop its existing public-sector capacities. The wholesale failure of the US Administration in the face of the disastrous floods in New Orleans is another reason why it is time to put a stop to the neoliberal compulsion to cut costs and break up institutions one by one that save lives.

We must prevent the merger of civilian and military structures advocated by such spokespersons on EU military policy as Javier Solana, the EU’s representative for foreign and security policy, and the Green MEP Angelika Beer, for this would result not only in the militarisation of civilian structures, but would also expose civilian aid workers to the very considerable risk of being regarded as part of the armed forces and thus – as has happened in Afghanistan – as another party to the conflict.

In order to make more funding available for disaster aid, such EU projects as the Galileo satellite guidance system, which is also capable of being – and is intended to be – used for military purposes, should be stopped. Not only does Galileo subsidise the aerospace and armaments firm EADS, but the system is also being introduced too late in the day to be a success. Galileo is also intended to play a crucial role in future European security and defence policy, which is to be oriented towards armed intervention.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The disaster that has once again struck Portugal, which has reduced hundreds of thousands hectares to ashes, left families homeless, destroyed areas of countryside and worst of all taken a number of lives, deserves our concern and our commitment to finding solutions to keep its effects, where possible, to a minimum. A serious, concerted effort is also required to ensure that this does not happen again.

It is clear that climate change, and the extreme heat that is has brought, is the direct, immediate cause of the scale of the disaster. Human neglect, however, is a further factor that should not be discounted.

I personally believe that the commitment shown by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, on the initiative of the MEPs from the People’s Party in Portugal (CDS-PP), will ultimately make a major contribution towards raising awareness among the Community institutions and towards providing resources.

This resolution, which also refers to disasters in other Member States deserving of our solidarity for similar reasons, will help the decision-making process and the implementation of the measures required. Of these measures, I should like to highlight the urgent need to reinstate aid for creating firebreaks and the call for the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund. With regard to these two aspects, incidentally, I have no choice but to conclude that the Portuguese Government has been dreadfully negligent.

Queiró report (A6-0235/2005)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) As a Member of the European Parliament for an area of France, the Massif central, which relies very heavily on the development of tourism, I am happy to have supported the report by Luis Queiro and I too would like to congratulate him on his excellent work.

This vote has been eagerly awaited by tourism professionals. In fact, tourism is one of the European Union’s sectors that is experiencing the greatest progress. It involves more than 2 million companies, the majority of which are SMEs.

I am very satisfied with the amendments calling for the simplification of the special VAT system in relation to the profit margin of travel agents and tour-operators, as well as the preservation of the competitive position of operators established in the European Union compared to third-country operators.

I also hope that the Council will take a decision on reduced VAT rates without any further delay, thereby allowing Member States to apply reduced rates for restaurants, as already exist for other activities relating to tourism. Restaurateurs have been given many promises and they are now expecting concrete results from us. Let us not disappoint them!

Finally, it is essential that the European Council and the European Commission should take a global approach in favour of tourism ...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Maria Carlshamre and Cecilia Malmström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) Tourism is a very important industry for most EU countries, but it does not belong to the area of Community policy. Yet this report calls on the Commission to adopt a series of measures in the sphere of tourism. The report also proposes that a special post be set up in the EU budget for tourism-related measures. We believe that tourism is an example of something that the Member States should deal with themselves and not an area in which the EU should interfere. We have therefore voted against the report.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The Moderates have voted against the report on tourism and accordingly emphasise that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, tourism is the Member States’ area of competence. Because this is not a Community area, the report’s tendency to view it as such, together with the various steps it proposes, are also things to which we are opposed. For example, we see no reason for the Commission to prepare a tourist package comprising a survey of current directives on consumer rights within tourism. Such measures should be developed in the Member States with the parties concerned.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Queiró, which, broadly speaking, was worthy of my support and that of my group.

Coming from Madeira as I do, a region in which tourism is one of the main factors in its sustainable growth, it stands to reason that I support the report, and I do primarily for the following reasons: firstly, because of the importance of tourism, at European, national and regional level, and its contribution towards economic growth, job creation and technological innovation, which in turn represents a contribution towards fulfilling the aims of the Lisbon Strategy; secondly, the development potential that it offers regions with economic difficulties and specific geographical characteristics, such as the outermost regions; thirdly, the contribution made by EU and Community measures – supporting, coordinating and complementing the actions of Member States – towards the development of the tourism sector; fourthly, still in this context, the EU’s incentive to set up the most effective structures and provide the appropriate financial resources; fifthly, the role of tourism in environmental protection, in regional planning and in preserving and revitalising cultural values, traditions, customs and natural and artistic heritage; and lastly, security concerns and the protection of the rights of the tourist as consumer.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We are voting against this report. This is not an issue with which the EU should concern itself. Paragraph E of the report states that tourism does not at present constitute an area of Community policy but, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, comes within the remit of the Member States. That is an absolutely correct assessment.

In spite of that, the report contains a host of proposals for a tourism policy at EU level.

- tourist services would be classified at EU level

- a special training network for tourism-related skills would be set up

- bodies representing tourists in their capacity as consumers would be established

- a contact group would be set up with the participation of the Member States and the tourist operators

- a network would be established to enable organisations concerned with high-risk sports and leisure activities to exchange good practice.

We are opposed to all such proposals.

In spite of the fact that the draft Constitution for the EU has been rejected, it is referred to as the basis for tourism being an EU issue. It is proposed that a special tourism line should be established in the EU budget. The June summit clearly showed that the Member States do not wish to pay for all sorts of new policy areas.

The report’s justification, namely that tourism contributes to growth and employment and is therefore central to the Lisbon process, can be applied to just about every area. We believe that the principle of subsidiarity takes precedence over such ways of thinking.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the adoption of our proposal, which:

- ‘points out that preserving the cultural heritage (in particular that which is designated world heritage by UNESCO), is of major importance to the sustainable development of tourism in the EU’, and calls ‘upon the Commission to make more money available for preserving the cultural heritage’.

That being said, we regret the rejection, among others, of the following proposals that we tabled, which expressed:

- ‘concern at the amount of precarious work in the tourism sector, as a result of contractual arrangements, wage levels, working conditions and seasonal factors’, and stated that ‘in order to improve the quality of the services provided and to promote greater social cohesion, investment must be made in creating high-quality jobs and in helping the workers in the sector to obtain qualifications (vocational training, improved working conditions, promotion of stable contractual arrangements)’;

- and stated ‘that the tourism sector makes a major contribution towards economic development, towards employment at regional level and towards territorial cohesion’ and that it is necessary ‘to support the development of this sector, both on a broad scale, through various Community policies and funds, and specifically, via the creation of a dedicated Community programme aimed at promoting the sector and the synergies between the various economic and social agents involved’.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) I agree with the broad lines of this report. Nevertheless, I would raise certain reservations in relation to the fact that its approach to the development of tourism is overly focussed on the protection of the environment and the consumer.

The voice of the consumers and the defenders of the environment is already fully heard within the European institutions: the protection of consumers and of the environment are subject to specific headings in the Treaties and entire directorates-general within the Commission deal respectively with these two areas.

Why, therefore, do we want to over-emphasise these fields? I personally believe that any tourism policy should principally focus on the economic activity generated by the tourism industry and that a balanced approach to the different areas can only be achieved if the interests of providers of tourist services (hoteliers, restaurateurs, tour-operators, crafts of all kinds, private transport etc.) are fully defended.

The rapporteur is right to state that tourism creates growth, but in order for this to be fully the case, we must allow our national economic actors to be competitive and prevent them from being hindered by regulations and taxation as they exist in particular in France.

Svensson report (A6-0250/2005)

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The Moderates have voted against the own-initiative report on gender discrimination in health systems. Like many other issues in connection with which there are different solutions and traditions in the different Member States, issues of gender equality and of health care and medical treatment should be dealt with at national level. The EU should only get involved in such issues in cases where the individual Member States cannot deal with them better themselves.

The above-mentioned report addresses many important aspects of women’s health and access to health care. Unlike the rapporteur, Mrs Svensson, we believe that many of these aspects are best taken care of by individual Member States, individual hospitals or individual people. One way of developing and improving health care and medical treatment, without, for example, the EU interfering in national health strategies or the Commission being required to carry out investigations into certain tendencies within health care, is through best practice and the exchange of information between the Member States, hospitals, research institutes and other affected parties, this being a development we should sincerely welcome.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted in favour of this initiative report, which highlights discrepancies between men and women in terms of prescription, treatments and costs.

Although I oppose human cloning, I believe that there is merit in researching the potential for stem cell treatments for degenerative diseases.

  Karin Jöns (PSE), in writing. (DE) The fact that members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have rejected paragraph 10 of the Svensson report or abstained from voting has to do with differing interpretations of the UN Resolution to which it refers and to the unfortunate fact that it was not possible, in the course of preparatory deliberations, to deal with the differences between versions of the report in different languages. In my capacity as the PSE Group’s shadow rapporteur, and in order to prevent misunderstandings, I would therefore like to make this clarificatory statement:

It goes without saying that, if any person in my group rejects paragraph 10 or abstains from voting on it, it does not mean that he or she is in favour of human cloning. We unreservedly endorse UN Resolution A/59/516/Add 1 (‘Declaration on Human Cloning’), which states that practices contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning, must not be permitted.

As we do not want to tolerate such things under any circumstances, it is more specifically demanded in the German version that ‘human cloning shall be excluded from support and funding under European Union programmes’. This demand is made explicitly in the future tense, as the intention is that such practices should never be permissible in the EU and that it should of course never be possible to fund them surreptitiously.

It is regrettable that versions in many languages – English, French and Swedish among them – give the impression that we are today allowing EU programmes to promote the cloning of humans. That is self-evidently not the case, and for that reason, we have not agreed to paragraph 10 of the report.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues are supportive of efforts to deal with gender discrimination in health systems across the EU. Poor access to healthcare and any form of exploitation of women are matters that should be addressed by Member States in public policy development. It is clearly desirable that Member States share information and best practice on how these problems should be addressed and sections of this report do provide some useful ideas.

However, there a number of suggestions in this report with which we take issue and which have led to our decision on the final vote. Using structural funds for preventative medical purposes and demanding specific conditions on employment of medical personnel are issues that are rightly the preserve of Member States.

  Cecilia Malmström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) The own-initiative report on gender discrimination in health systems addresses many very important issues affecting women’s health, especially the fact that it is male physiognomy that is the point of departure in modern medicine, in spite of the fact that there clearly are significant biological differences between the sexes. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs to which my party, the Liberal People’s Party, has called attention on several occasions. Despite the report’s good intentions in terms of promoting women’s health within the EU, I am voting against the report. I choose to do so because I believe that, in too many respects, the report contravenes the principle of subsidiarity. A good many of the proposals presented infringe the sovereignty of the Member States and also encroach on the right of individuals to take their own decisions affecting their own lives. It is not for the European Parliament to decide whether women should be entitled to Caesarean sections or whether nursing staff should have shorter working periods and higher salaries. At the same time, the report is characterised in other areas by its unduly broad-brush approach to wordings. I am thinking here mainly of the sections on ovarian stimulation and on removing egg cells.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I should like to congratulate Mrs Svensson on her important report on gender discrimination in health systems, to which I give my full backing. I particularly wish to highlight the need to ensure that both sexes can enjoy the benefits of treatment, but that they can also provide medical treatment and care on the basis of equal opportunities.

I should also like to point out the need to invest in health research with patients’ gender taken into account. I therefore support the initiative to include research into the health situation of the sexes in the new health and consumer protection programme (2007-2013) and take it into account when planning the Seventh Framework Research Programme.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) As long ago as 1957, in the Treaties of Rome, the removal of inequalities between men and women was defined as an objective. A certain amount has been achieved since then, particularly as a result of women’s health programmes in the 1990s, but much still remains to be done.

For example, the proportion of women working in healthcare may well generally be very high – it is over 78% in Austria – but it is small to the point of insignificance in senior management and other professions that enjoy high status and consequent high earnings.

This runs counter to what has been called the ‘feminisation of ageing’, as men form the majority of the population up to about the age of 45 and women thereafter. This makes it essential that greater consideration be given to problems specific to women.

The establishment by some Member States of universal screening programmes for the early detection of breast cancer in women between the ages of 50 and 69 was another advance, and there is no doubt about the importance of doing this as the report suggests and urging the others to take the same course of action. We should, however, be concerned about the fact that it is between the ages of 35 and 55 that breast cancer most frequently proves fatal, and so we must do more to promote awareness of the dangers among this age group and adapt the screening programmes accordingly.

Honeyball report (A6-0200/2005)

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues Conservatives are largely supportive of this report that suggests much needed reform to an outdated system where the EU gives €127 million to European Schools. However, it is essential that a budget ceiling is put in place for the EU's contributions; that Member States hosting the schools give a greater contribution towards the local costs; that there is a realistic contribution from parents of Category III children. We also urge the Commission to make an appropriate response to the Advisory Board's recommendations to deliver value for money and to protect the interests of the EU taxpayer.

  Sergio Berlato (UEN), in writing. – (IT) It is unacceptable that fees should have risen by 62.2% for 2005/2006 compared with 2002/2003. That is a scandalous rise, because it is prohibitive for most of the families involved and because it was decided while the 1994 agreement, which covered a 10-year period, was still in force.

Because European Schools provide a public service, such unilateral decisions violating families’ established rights should not be allowed.

Whatever compromises may be possible on budgetary matters, we feel we must stand fast on a number of points: 1) European Schools should exist in all Member States; 2) there should be as many language sections as possible, according to the principle of respecting cultural identity; 3) the maximum class size should be reduced from the current 32; 4) it would be worth making a few adjustments to the curricula: art history, for instance, is currently excluded, although it would encourage a greater understanding of the common cultural values that have inspired the peoples of Europe over the centuries; 5) a vocational baccalaureate should be added alongside the current arts- and science-based European baccalaureate: both courses would remain a specific, valid point of reference for providing young people with a European training.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The European Schools system is taking on a life of its own with the debate as to whether ‘the European Schools system fosters the concept of European citizenship’ (to quote recital C of the report).

We can understand the need for European Schools designed to provide mother-tongue education to the children of EU officials. However, the system has come to look odd when, for example, only 1.6% of the pupils at the European School, Culham are children of staff at EU institutions and bodies. With EU enlargement, the number of official languages has become so large that the whole situation involving European Schools needs to be reviewed. With EU bodies being placed in decentralised locations, European Schools would now have to be founded in all the Member States.

We believe that a more flexible solution needs to be found when it comes to the education of EU officials’ children. The EU institutions and bodies should, as employers, quite simply pay the school fees (up to a certain level) for their staff’s children. If the parents then choose to send their children to a state or local authority school or to a private independent one, they should sort the matter out locally. As a rule, there is the opportunity to choose between a local and an international school in those places where the EU institutions and bodies are situated. The system of European Schools appears to have had its day.

We have therefore voted against this report.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) Since 1957, Europe has set up special schools intended to educate the children of the staff of the European Communities together while accepting a very limited number of external pupils. So what was the thinking behind this policy of exception, applying a principle of corporatist preference, a policy which furthermore is condemned in other fields by this same Europe? Do as I say and not as I do!

This system of European schools therefore promotes the concept of European citizenship, which is, for Europe, what the concept of national preference should be for France and the other free nations of Europe. But the development of these schools is intended not to build the Europe of nations to which we aspire, but to promote European integration; a policy which has just been condemned by the French people on 29 May 2005.

These schools are not only discriminatory against non-European civil servants, but against all of the children of Europe. They also create a system of outrageous privileges intended almost exclusively for civil servants of the European institutions in order to reproduce a single and obligatory European model: a federal Europe by integration.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. The European Schools exist to provide an education in their mother tongue for the children of officials of the European Institutions. Unlike some Members I welcome this. Children of EU officials deserve a quality education in their mother tongue and the existence of the schools helps the institutions in the recruitment and retention of suitable qualified personnel.

The Rapporteur is right to focus on two issues which the schools have so far failed to address, firstly, access and provision for pupils with special needs which must be improved, secondly, the need to introduce a more vocational curriculum and set of qualifications.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The European schools are obviously beneficial and valuable and should be viewed as a facility offered to Community employees. Like any institution, however, it is necessary from time to time to assess the quality and effectiveness of its operations and, reasonably and judiciously, to propose useful and effective reforms that will make a difference. As this is the main thrust of the report before us, I voted in favour.

There is one aspect raised in the report, however, which I wish to make a point of emphasising, namely the issue of not communitarising the Member States’ functions and responsibilities.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) The motion is worthy of being supported by the European Parliament. The concept of multilingual and multinational education implemented in these schools could serve as a model for Member States’ educational systems. Nonetheless, the programme has its weaknesses. There are no standard rules for all such institutions concerning the admission of candidates, overly large classes, and pupils being obliged to attend lessons given in a language other than their mother tongue. There are no recommendations either concerning the education of children with special needs. Such shortcomings must be remedied.

Following enlargement of the European Union, it is appropriate to consider the need to create similar schools on the territory of the new Member States. The establishment of the External Borders Agency in Warsaw should offer just such an opportunity, because education must be provided for the children of the officials employed there. Institutions of this type will play an important part in promoting the idea of European integration amongst future generations.

Cornillet report (A6-0173/2005)

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) As author of the report on tourism in Europe, I have followed Mr Cornillet’s work with interest. I feel that we both work on the basis of the same opinion that tourism is an industry with the potential to revitalise societies, and that this should not be neglected.

Nevertheless, I believe that this report proposes measures that go beyond the Union’s remit and harm private initiative, which lies at the heart of this industry.

The scope of the Cornillet report stretches even further – it cuts across our policies on development aid. In this respect, tourism can make a significant contribution towards democratisation and political balance in these societies, as it promotes job creation, helps to develop new technology and contributes towards vocational training.

Yet it is through private initiatives that this process will develop and there is no doubt in my mind that we do not need regulatory or interventionist measures, which could prove counterproductive. I therefore abstained in the vote on the Cornillet report.

14. Corrections to votes: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

15. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

16. Major and neglected diseases in developing countries (continuation)

  President. – The next item is the continuation of the debate on major and neglected diseases in developing countries.

  Karin Scheele, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to wholeheartedly endorse the congratulations that greeted Mr Bowis’ report this morning. I am sure that will come as no surprise to him, for he has presented a very even-handed and forward-looking report on an important subject, and I hope that it will receive the backing of an overwhelming majority in this House.

The subject of major and neglected diseases in developing countries has a considerable human rights dimension to it. The rights to health and to access to medication are primarily social issues, for it is above all the developing countries that are affected by the neglected diseases, and in them, as so often, the poorest of the poor. It is for that reason that I think it is a good thing that the Bowis Report explicitly puts these in the context of other political issues, such as, for example, the cancellation of the poorest countries’ debts.

If these countries carry on spending 40% of their gross domestic product on servicing debts, then there will be no changes in the situation or in the health systems of the countries themselves, no matter how many resolutions we adopt in this House.

I am very glad to see that Mr Bowis devotes a large part of his report to the problem of HIV/AIDS, and, as usual, takes a very progressive line on them. We must be tireless in making the point that the most important thing that can be done to combat HIV/AIDS is to prevent it, and the statement in the Bowis Report that 2004 saw new and extremely high levels of infection is an indication of a political situation of which this House has been critical for a long time, namely that there is too little funding and too little support to enable preventive measures to be properly implemented, and this criticism is primarily directed at the Bush administration in the United States.

I believe that it is wrong to approach this dogmatically, as if it were only a matter of principle, without looking at the reality of the developing countries. I am grateful to Mr Bowis for enabling us in the European Parliament to join with the Commission in showing that the European Union is going down another road.

In all the statements, whether from the non-governmental organisation ‘Médecins Sans Frontières’ or from the World Health Organisation, one point is underlined, and that is that we will not resolve the problem by relying on market forces; rather, we will get a grip on it only with massive public investment and a greater role for the public sector, not only in Europe but also in the developing countries that are affected. I believe that this point is all too seldom made, while we very often hear demands for less public intervention.

If we are serious about wanting to resolve this problem, we need an affirmation to that effect, and I was very glad to hear the Commissioner speak today about how consideration is being given to concrete measures of support, which would also involve investment in fundamental research.

  Johan Van Hecke, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Mr Bowis has indeed written an excellent report that deserves our all-out support. I think that he is right to call for the extension of the Commission’s campaigns against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria to include other neglected diseases. People seem insufficiently aware that diseases like African sleeping sickness, leishmaniasis and dengue form a major threat to the health of very many people in the poorest countries.

If medicines are available at all, they are either of very dubious quality or completely obsolete. Virtually no research and development is being done into these neglected diseases. The pharmaceutical industry is mainly interested if the sales are profitable and only invests if there are sufficient incentives. Possible policy measures that could boost investments include tax credits, innovation rewards, pre-qualification assistance and commitments to the purchase of patent rights.

As rapporteur for the regulation that is intended to ensure the implementation of the WHO decision on intellectual property rights (TRIPs) and access to medicines, I hope that the Council and Parliament will reach agreement very quickly on a text that will make it possible for this important decision to be applied immediately in the 25 Member States.

Moreover, while the Commission and Member States must actively support the implementation of the Doha Declaration and oppose any measure taken by the WHO member states that could undermine these commitments, African leaders should also accept their responsibility in the fight against the major and neglected diseases. It is important that they too should make health care a priority. In this connection, it is irresponsible for certain African governments to levy a tax on the sale or import of medicines, putting these out of the reach of the poor.

The international community will, however, need to supplement the public and private investments at national level with long-term financial support. We in the European Parliament must continue to press consistently for 35% of development aid to be spent on health and education. Only in that way can we give renewed hope to tens of thousands of people who are still dying of diseases that could, and should, have been wiped out a long time ago.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Bowis for his very constructive work, above all because he goes beyond well-known diseases such as AIDS, malaria and TB and deals with sleeping sickness, leishmaniasis and Chagas disease. These are forgotten diseases here in the West, but they make their presence all too sharply felt in the South, with millions of victims every year.

The tsunami brought people’s suffering to light, and aid flooded in. If we can give these diseases a higher profile and mobilise the same resources, it will be possible to reduce the suffering of millions of people. Yesterday, we voted on the need for paediatric medicine, and Parliament unfortunately accorded additional patent extensions worth many billions of euros to the pharmaceutical companies as compensation, so we need in all fairness to be able to find the mere EUR 3 billion needed for devising treatments for these diseases that affect children and adults in the developing world.

TB and AIDS exist here in the West, so treatments do too. These diseases mainly affect adults, however, and we do not have treatments suited to children. Public funds need to be invested in this area, for the children of the developing world have no way of financing their medical needs themselves. The money may, for example, come from a 1% tax on the profits of pharmaceutical companies that has to be paid when they have found cures. There are many other solutions.

It is our shared responsibility to ensure that resources for combating these diseases are created immediately. How developed a civilisation is may be judged on the basis of how it deals with its most vulnerable members. The world’s most vulnerable group consists precisely of these poor and sick children. If we cannot even help them, humanitarianism has gone out of the window, and we should return to the caves.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, I would like to make a few comments on the report on behalf of our colleague, Mr Maštálka, who, due to urgent duties in the Czech Republic, could not attend this part-session.

First, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Bowis, on his report. It is a well-balanced, well-written and well-presented report.

Secondly, we are talking about a problem that directly or indirectly affects three-quarters of the world's population, and its possible solutions. This means that immediate practical steps need to be taken and financial and other help provided.

Third, these diseases require a complex approach. Cooperation is needed between international organisations, NGOs and the private sector, as well as dedicated individuals such as researchers and petitioners. For maximum effectiveness, there needs to be complete dedication, attention and support, both financially and in the form of know-how and experts from the industrialised countries, and close cooperation with developing nations, based on partnership.

Fourth, the problem of neglected major diseases cannot only be associated with poor developing countries. Some of the European Union's neighbouring states are not considered developing countries and yet their epidemiological situations and possible solutions are similar in nature to those in the developing world. Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, as well as Russia, have serious problems with HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and other diseases. We should include them in our debate and when considering financial and other forms of aid.

My fifth point is that, although we have discussed the threat of bioterrorism in our committees and at our part-sessions, I wonder whether we are prepared for the inevitable spread of some of the diseases mentioned in this report. There are often disaster scenarios that link the spread of some tropical diseases and their mutations to global warming. There are even warnings that some diseases such as malaria might affect our continent. Do we want to wait until our lives are directly affected before we act? People in the developing world are human beings too and it is our duty to help protect them.

We should not narrow down the issues presented in this report to the accessibility of drugs and cures for diseases, but should also take into account the situation of those less fortunate than ourselves. Thank you for your attention.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, although poverty-related diseases claim many victims, it is still the case that not enough attention is being given to HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and various other diseases. In some cases, there are insufficient safe and effective medicines available and if they are, their price often renders them unaffordable to the sick.

The Bowis report underlines that as a result of this, it is virtually only poor people who are affected because there are no profitable markets for the medicines. Moreover, as we have seen in the cases of tuberculosis and malaria, renewed outbreaks of the diseases can be traced back to the lack of sufficient investment in research and development. If this is to change, there must be joint efforts at international level. This illustrates the importance of the dynamic approach for which the Bowis report presses.

Although some diseases are not given enough attention in the developing countries themselves, it would be useful if there were initiatives in Europe that could support the control of them. The example that springs to mind is leprosy. Should the report not have devoted more attention to this disease? Has the Commission already launched various initiatives in order to combat leprosy?

One of the points made in the Bowis report is that we should ensure that the EU’s approach, in cooperation with the Member States, is realistic and readily understood.

If, however, we argue in favour of obligations on the part of governments and industry that are imposed by the international community, there is relatively little hope of concrete improvements on the ground. Health is not enforceable but is a result of improving care that is supported locally by the people.

Finally, it is important to have an understanding of the issue as a whole. Despite a strong link between disease and poverty, it is unwise to mistake the control of specific diseases for the objective of poverty reduction in general. Understanding is of crucial importance for parliamentary control in terms of the nature of the policy measures and their efficacy.

I would like to thank Mr Bowis once again for his stimulating report.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) I would like to thank Mr Bowis for his important report, to which I also proposed several changes and amendments, most of them accepted by the committee. I would like to also thank Mr Bowis for accepting these remarks.

I agree with him that aid to developing countries and resolving this problem is a complex issue, but if such aid is to be effective, it needs to be comprehensive and target-oriented. This means not only the need for meticulous statistical calculations of the types of disease and their morbidity, together with their expected rates of spread, but also proposed solutions as set out in his report.

The diseases at issue are those which, if ignored at the outset as it was the case, for instance, with HIV infections, may spread throughout the world. The fact that we have taken the lesson was evident in the rapid and effective reaction to SARS and bird flu. We in Europe cannot afford to sleep quietly, reassured by the fact that we have resolved the problem of tuberculosis thanks to the availability of drugs and diagnostic capabilities that allow us to effectively prevent the disease, when we know that countless children in Africa are dying of the disease every day.

When I spoke of comprehensive aid, I also had in mind the supply of drinking water in developing countries, since its shortage directly contributes to the emergence and spread of certain diseases. I also had in mind educational programmes for children and young people concerning, for example, the issue of reproductive health, sex education and hygiene. Within the framework of this aid it is also important to provide guarantees, including financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies that stopped manufacturing certain drugs for tackling diseases of poor people, since there was no one to pay for them.

Last but not least, it is necessary to ensure better conditions, in particular safety, for health workers who provide assistance in these regions.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I fully endorse this excellent report by the rapporteur Mr Bowis, but I feel that little justice can be done to the topic of major neglected diseases in developing countries in just two minutes. 1.8 million people died in 2002 from tuberculosis alone; 2.2 billion are at risk of malaria, which is preventable and curable provided that sufficient ACT or the new combination therapy is made available; 39.4 million people are living with the HIV virus, and last year alone 3.1 million died from AIDS, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. Only 700 000 of the 6 million who needed antiretrovirals could access that treatment.

The huge human, social and economic fall-out from this is incalculable. 60 million people, again in sub-Saharan Africa, are at risk from sleeping sickness via the tsetse fly. 2 500 million people – two-fifths of the world's population – are at risk from dengue, another mosquito-borne infection, which is now endemic in 100 countries, with no specific treatment or even a vaccine yet.

There is no specific treatment or vaccine available yet for the ravages of Ebola, which has hit the headlines in recent years in these parts and which has killed 1 200 since the virus was first discovered. The list of neglected diseases continues. We could also add, as our rapporteur does, the 121 million people living with depression. Nearly 9% of men worldwide and nearly 10% of women have a depressive episode each year. 873 000 people commit suicide, and that is probably underestimated. 50 million live with epilepsy, over 80% of them in the developing world; 24 million live with schizophrenia; 37 million live with dementia, mainly Alzheimer's and, with an ageing population, this is increasing all the time.

In conclusion, we have listed the problems, but what are the causes? Lack of clean water, lack of sanitation, lack of essential drugs, the cost of essential drugs, drug resistance issues, ineffective pesticides and drugs, drug toxicity, but above all, the main cause is the lack of political will in the developed world to do something about it. Our response to the SARS pandemic shows what we can do if we make communicable diseases a priority. This led to the establishment of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and, as our excellent rapporteur says, we urgently need the same dynamic approach to deal with the other major global diseases. Mr Bowis led us in relation to the Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and he leads us here in this report. Thank you, John, you have done an excellent job.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to take my turn to thank and congratulate my honourable friend John Bowis for the highly comprehensive report which he has presented to us. Our debate today is particularly topical in the run-up to the major UN General Assembly debate on the millennium development goals.

However, it is also topical owing to the problem created by the emergence of avian influenza and the risks created by its transmission to Europe. That is why I call on Commissioner Michel to activate all the necessary mechanisms and to take all the precautions needed to protect public health in Europe.

Every day we see a dramatic increase in diseases in developing countries, especially on the African continent. This situation is an insult to mankind and imposes on the international community, on the UN and on the European Union, the need for global action which will go beyond bombastic pronouncements and will immediately create and implement an integrated strategy.

The increase in diseases is the result of the dramatic economic and social situation in which people live in developing countries. At the meeting of Heads of State or Government in New York, when the millennium goals will be examined, pretty words and wishes may be superfluous, but one thing is certain: none of the goals set will be achieved, especially goal no. 6 on halting and beginning to reverse the spread of AIDS.

International commitments and undertakings are not being kept. Despite the undertaking by G8 to write off the debts of the poorest developing countries, no progress has been made to date. Despite commitments on the integration into national legislation of WTO agreements on intellectual property rights, which help poorer countries import cheaper drugs, no progress has been made.

Even European countries are delaying ratification and I call on the European Commission to exert all the necessary pressure in this direction. The European Commission must also, within the framework of humanitarian aid, demonstrate particular interest in the granting of bursaries to developing countries for the medical and nursing professions.

Finally, I should like to comment on a particularly important problem, the problem of the increase in mental and neurological illnesses in conflict and war zones. I refer in particular to the case of Palestine, where Israeli occupation, the blockade of the occupied territories, poverty and imprisonment have dramatically increased the proportion of mental illness, especially among young people and women. The European Commission should address the problem by financing treatment programmes in cooperation with the World Health Organisation.

Poverty and the continuing spread of illnesses are the slavery of modern times. We bear a huge responsibility. A responsibility towards world peace, security and stability.

Thank you very much, and my warmest thanks and congratulations to Commissioner Michel, who is doing a very important job.

  Sharon Margaret Bowles (ALDE). – Mr President, I very much welcome this report. In recent years waiving or reducing royalties on drugs for poor countries has been championed by the EU and I urge us not to be fainthearted in pressing for more concessions, whatever the complexity of the arguments, many of which I do not fully believe, and I say that as a European patent attorney, as well as a politician.

Only yesterday we voted measures to compensate for the cost of research for paediatric medicine. Clearly, when market forces of themselves will not provide cost-effective research for drugs for our own children, it is not surprising that there are even fewer resources available for developing and poor countries. For malaria and TB, which are already increasing in developed countries, there are several partnership research projects under way which include a pledge to make the eventual drugs affordable for developing countries. One such project is being led by Oxford University. It aims to produce a malaria vaccine and is being run in conjunction with an Oxford biotech company and a German pharmaceutical company. A TB vaccine is being similarly investigated elsewhere by others.

As well as being preventative, vaccines are usually one-off treatments, something which is an additional benefit in environments and countries where drug storage and dosage regimes are hard to follow or supply routes are insecure. But we have to recognise that, especially for lesser-known diseases, public funding will be essential and I believe that the EU should include this in its programmes.

I can support this report, as will many, simply from my heart and sense of humanity, but there are reasons to support it with your pockets, for with many of these diseases delay in action will come back to bite in other ways later.

  Kader Arif (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all, as has been done previously, to congratulate my fellow Member, Mr Bowis, on his excellent report on major and neglected diseases, which is both comprehensive and balanced.

On the eve of the United Nations Summit in New York, where the Millennium Goals will be at the centre of debate, this report forms part of a highly topical subject area. It is pointless to remind you that we already know that these goals will not be achieved in the timeframe that we had set ourselves and that they are about to be added to the list of promises broken by the rich nations.

As three out of eight of the principal Millennium Goals concern health care issues, the work of my fellow Member, Mr Bowis, should ensure there is a greater level of awareness of this reality. In addition to showing the necessary awareness of the situation, I would like the European Parliament to deliver a strong and clear message to the Member States to revive the goals. The health care issues that the poorest countries must face fuel the spiral of their under development.

The observation is simple; those who today have most need of treatments do not have access to them. Why? Either because they are expensive or because fundamental research and the development of research are inadequate, indeed non-existent, for certain major and neglected diseases. Furthermore, when these drugs do exist and are affordable, the populations in some cases do not have access to them, as they are not adapted to the particular sanitation conditions in these countries.

The problem is more serious and of a structural nature; while the fundamental research is mainly carried out by the public sector, the development of these drugs is almost entirely in the hands of the private sector. Without a guarantee of profits, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest at all in investing in the development of new molecules. Any innovation is therefore dependent on obtaining highly profitable patents. It is therefore practically impossible for populations with weak purchasing power, the vast majority of whom come from the countries targeted by the Millennium Goals, to obtain these drugs, which are vital nonetheless. This logic also leads to prices being fixed at an artificially high level. In the era of globalisation, ladies and gentlemen, the health of each person must be the responsibility of all. As regards drugs, it is needs that must dictate our strategy for action to deal with the worldwide issue of health and development.

Furthermore, we must also encourage and support developing countries so that they might devote a minimum of 20% of their budgets to health care policies, policies of investment in research and development or policies for adapting intellectual property rules. These countries’ financial resources are, therefore, insufficient on their own. There can be no progress in today’s world as regards the major challenge of health care without a shared commitment from the public authorities and the private sector. The pharmaceutical industry must emerge from an exclusively profit-making mind-set and revise its commitments and its priorities, in particular in the research and development sector but also in the marketing sector. As for the public authorities, they must lay down legal frameworks, set objectives and offer perspectives that guarantee the common good while respecting the interests of each person.

I therefore draw the attention of the Council and of the Commission to the need to take initiatives: to draft a new international treaty on research and development in medicine, to include within the seventh European Union Research Framework Programme a specific reference to research and development for neglected diseases, which would be guaranteed funding, to ensure that the Doha Declaration on compulsory licences is not challenged by bilateral trade agreements, and, finally, to encourage the swift entry into force of the Community regulation, currently being debated by Parliament and the Council, enabling the generic medicines industry to produce treatments that will prevent health care disasters with tragic repercussions for a large part of our planet.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one global megatrend is that people want to live, and keep their health, for longer, and this is also something of great concern to us in the European Union. Parliament has decided, by an overwhelming majority, to double the funding for the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. I hope that the Council will act in line with our decision and enable this Seventh Framework Programme to enter into force in the shortest possible time.

Along with doubling the budget, we also need to get the world of business involved, which, in the developing countries, means those small and medium-sized businesses that move to places where the only state structures present have to date proved themselves incapable of getting a grip on the problems. It follows that we should promote localised production in small and medium-sized businesses, along with those small businessmen who really are familiar with the needs and aspirations of local people, and, above all, we should also focus our attention on the services they use, such as the water supply, which has already been mentioned today. We should be promoting small businesses that would take responsibility for the local and regional water supply and have the right idea how to go about obtaining fresh drinking water, which is so much needed and sought after.

In the field of development aid, we should endeavour to give guarantees, support and loans to entrepreneurs who declare themselves willing to attend to the needs of the local people in a coordinated way and in a global context. I think this would be a good use of resources and ask the Commissioner to consult with his fellow-Commissioner Mr Verheugen, for an initiative of this sort surely needs to be put centre stage.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, as Mr Rübig said, people want to live longer and healthily. The people in the developing countries, who are the subject of this debate, want to be allowed to live, and to live in a manner worthy of human beings.

As one might put it: ‘poor, sick, unemployed, hopeless’ – in these countries the one state often leads to the other. I regard this report as an eye-opener; it raises awareness, cries out and brings us face to face with diseases that we cannot even pronounce properly even if we have any idea how many millions of people suffer from them. No sooner did avian flu pop up than we in Europe declared ourselves prepared for it. Have we, in Europe, made preparations against infection with these diseases? We have not. Are we prepared and willing to help people fight these diseases in their own countries? Not to any adequate extent.

I want, then, to put forward three proposals. Here comes the first; under the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council, we resolved to raise Europe’s development aid payments to 0.7%. We must, I think, as a matter of urgency, join together with the Member States in planning how much of that can be spent on combating disease and on the health sector, with due regard for poverty, work and health.

Secondly, we should increase the funding for research into them in Europe. Thirdly, I ask that all organisations, such as the one I chair, that receive EU funds in connection with development policy, should be invited to a conference at which we could consider how, together, we might be more effectively active in these fields in the developing countries.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like once again to pay tribute to the quality of the report presented to us. I am in agreement with nearly all that has been said on this matter.

This comes at just the right moment today: two days ago, I was in fact at the rearmament conference, if I dare say so, of the Global Fund to fight against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. There, I specifically announced a number of measures I intended to take, in particular to boost the research into diseases that are endemic in developing countries and poor countries and that, unfortunately, do not always interest the pharmaceutical industry, on the grounds of poor cost-effectiveness. I am therefore more or less in agreement in saying that the public authorities and the Member States must obviously become more involved in these policies. I also announced a number of measures to encourage health professionals living in Europe or elsewhere, and who are part of the diaspora, to return to their countries. We could implement a number of incentives to this end.

I will not conceal the fact that I am increasingly tempted to propose a progressive plan to you shortly in order systematically to increase the proportion of our budgets devoted to education and health care, either in the tenth EDF, or in the forthcoming budget, since this issue has still not been resolved. In actual fact, I increasingly believe that education and health care are of the utmost importance. Even though we must, of course, urgently respond to a series of difficulties and harness the resources to do this, we must reflect seriously on a real – I would say almost systematic – strategy in the areas of education and health care.

I have heard people talk about a figure of 20%, indeed 35%. I believe that it is perhaps difficult to envisage 35% for the moment, but we could certainly plan a gradual increase over several years of the resources invested in these two sectors. I also believe, although I will no doubt come back to this point later on during the debate on the European Union policy and the debate on budgetary aid, that it would be advisable to open negotiations with the governments on sectoral aid. This would also enable us, within a specific and coherent framework with minimum conditions, to encourage governments, as public authorities, to take charge of these priority sectors.

I have taken note of many ideas that also appear in this report. I can assure you that I will draw a great deal of inspiration from them in order to carry out and propose policies to you in this area. Like you, I am very alert to this area, and I wish to thank all of the speakers and the rapporteur for having made available to us this excellent tool, which is a source of inspiration and which I will be sure to use.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates.

WRITTEN STATEMENT (RULE 142)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the New Italian Socialist Party and of the Committee on Development I wish to make the following remarks.

The health systems in developing countries are permanently in trouble: repaying and servicing the debt take up roughly 40% of GDP, while the resources allocated to education and health remain pitifully low. In addition to the efforts made by individual countries, the international community must, in any case, agree to supplement those investments with adequate long-term financial support.

The hope is that the seventh framework programme, like the strategic Millennium Goals, will include a specific reference to research into the diseases that affect those countries and also allocate the appropriate funding. It is an absurd and, in many respects, intolerable fact that, because there are no profitable markets, there is practically no research being conducted into those diseases that almost exclusively affect poor people in developing countries.

Such a situation needs to be put right quickly by means of a serious, tangible and prompt international commitment.

17. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Rule 115)

18. Famine in Niger

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on famine in Niger ⁽¹⁾.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE), Author. – (EL) Mr President, we face a harsh reality: poor countries, especially the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, are hungry and rich countries are making promises. Climate changes on the planet, as demonstrated in the case of New Orleans and with the prolonged drought and temperature increase in Africa, do most damage to underdeveloped countries and poor populations.

The leaders of the members of the UN due to meet in New York must realise at long last where their responsibilities lie and must move from pronouncements to specific actions. The dramatic famine which the people of Africa are suffering imposes the need to plan global strategic aid, not belated mercy actions.

The objective set by G8, primarily to combat poverty and hunger in Africa, is linked to direct and bold decisions. However, it is undermined by the very stance of its members. A typical example is the continuing delay in actually writing off the debts of the poor countries. The anarchic liberalisation of the international trade in agricultural products is widening the gap between developed and developing countries. The global food crisis is now of a structural nature. It is threatening stability and needs international structural intervention.

From this point of view, although humanitarian aid needs to be increased, it cannot answer Africa's serious problems. The crisis in Niger has confirmed the serious deficit in the UN and the European Union of early warning and prevention mechanisms. As the case of Niger demonstrates, this deficit is causing a huge increase in financing for ex-post humanitarian intervention.

Nonetheless, any strategy still based solely on generous international humanitarian aid – Mr Anan has called for a tenfold increase in the UN Assistance Fund – will not be effective in the long term unless the international community starts a 'green revolution' in Africa. Far-reaching changes and reforms in the state, society, the economy and agricultural production are needed.

The European Union has important comparative advantages in Africa and must put the important decisions it took at the Council of Ministers on 24 May 2005 into practice.

(Applause)

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Author. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, on 28 August, Mr Annan declared: ‘We are all responsible for the famine in Niger.’ Must we do the same? In actual fact, I myself sent a letter to you in April in which I questioned you about the threat of famine in Niger. I also seize this opportunity to thank you for your response. Yet there we have it, we always have to wait to see horrific images on our screens before we intervene.

Indeed, only in June, the government of Niger, which has long denied the scale of the crisis, refused the free distribution of emergency food rations, in order, it said, to avoid destabilising the market, when we know full well that the poorest people were unable to obtain and afford these reasonably priced, subsidised food products.

We therefore keep coming back to the same question: what are we doing for this dying, declining Africa? Admittedly, the world has finally turned its attention to the fate of Niger. Aid is finally there. The donors realised that this crisis was a real famine, affecting a third of the population of Niger, or 3.6 million people, which is a huge number. What we can still call for in our resolution is for aid reserved for these populations to be equal to demand and, of course, to reach the most vulnerable people without exception. Yet on that subject too, I am not telling you anything you do not already know.

I am referring in particular to the nomadic populations, for example, who are not necessarily on the lists of the World Food Programme and who have lost almost all of their livestock, which is itself also dying of hunger. Consequently, a number of suicides have been recorded among the Fulani, a proud people who cannot bear to beg. This famine also reminds us that we must conduct a real development aid policy.

Commissioner, I am very well aware that you can back up words with figures and actions. Therefore, what sustainable development project is the Commission implementing for Niger? For Africa? What about support for agricultural exports? All these questions will constantly be asked, but I believe that, one of these days, they really will have to be resolved at European Union level.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), Author. – (CS) Although this item has the heading ‘Famine in Nigeria’ in the Czech version of the agenda, I intend to discuss the situation in Niger, as stated in other versions of the agenda, including the French, German and English versions, and in the motions for resolutions that have been tabled.

One distinctive feature sets the African continent as a whole apart from Europe. There is a constant stream of hundreds and thousands of people crossing the continent’s borders, which were only firmly established in the first half of the 20th century, and this phenomenon is entirely impossible to control. Many people travel with their livestock and all their belongings, particularly in the Sahel region, to which Niger belongs, and this is why crises spread so rapidly between the various countries in this region. A great many people who are familiar with Niger’s abundant natural resources, such as the large deposits of uranium ore that are mined in the country, would be surprised to learn where the profits from these activities end up. Measures to reduce corruption and to bring pressure to bear on the country’s government to put budgetary resources to efficient use are therefore a logical and necessary first step.

There is no denying that the imposition of VAT on flour and milk could make things worse as far as food supplies are concerned. The fundamental error, however, is the lack of support for modern agriculture, based on the construction of irrigation systems and water resources for the development of crop production. The widespread practice of nomadic pastoralism, which is particularly common in the northern part of the country, leads to desertification and an escalation of the crisis over the years. What is more, the fact that nomads travel across borders could result in the crisis spreading to other countries, in particular Mali and Burkina Faso.

Two decisions must therefore be taken without delay. The first must be to address the immediate need for food aid, and the second to develop a broad-based programme for constructing irrigation and water resources. An essential addition to this programme must be a system for teaching a sufficient number of farmers about rational agricultural practices, based on crop production methods that benefit the area in question. In addition, trees must be planted in order to prevent desertification. It is likely that the most difficult task will be to restrict the practice of pastoralism in areas that are most at risk.

Other countries in the region must also be involved in this programme, since we will otherwise be faced with an ever-increasing number of related problems as the desert spreads south. Food supplies only provide a short-term solution to the problem, and a broader solution needs to be found in the long term. Pressure to liberalise public services and to open markets up rapidly is quite clearly not what is needed, and could make the situation even more critical in the near future. During the vote, we should therefore endeavour to adopt a resolution worded in such a way that it can act as the basis for a genuine resolution of the problems faced both by Niger and by the region as a whole.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE), Author. – Mr President, this motion reflects an anxiety, based on evidence from previous African famines, that dealing with the immediate crisis by flooding the country with foreign food aid might undercut local producers and increase poverty in the longer term. However, there are ways of tackling this crisis which do not risk damaging the local economy.

The NGO Oxfam, for example, is operating income creation schemes so that people can afford to buy food. Oxfam has reduced the number of weak animals by buying them at a fair price and slaughtering them. It is also using voucher-for-work schemes, covering activities such as the removal of animal carcasses, drying of slaughtered meat and reforestation.

The crisis in Niger this year is not exceptional; for many people, the hunger they now face is only a slight worsening of what they see every year. Despite short rains and locust infestation, food production this year was in fact only 11 % below the five-year average. Therefore, the real question is not what caused the crisis this year, but what is causing endemic hunger and poverty. The answer to that is complex; there are reports that, in the villages where women and children are starving, grain is lying in locked household stores, which women are forbidden by custom to enter. We often talk about the importance of the role of women, but there can be no starker an example than this of the damage that occurs when women are powerless. Only one in four girls attend primary school in Niger; if girls start to go to school then women will start to break into their own grain stores.

Finally, we in Europe are making the long-term problem worse because of our failure to take strong enough action on climate change. All the agricultural improvement programmes ever invented will be useless if the desertification of the Sahel continues. Overgrazing and deforestation are factors, but so is the rise in the world's temperature. So let us have some joined-up thinking here in the European Parliament. Next time we are discussing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, let us remember marginal lands and famine in Africa.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE), Author. – Mr President, I should like to start by quoting the words of James Morris of the World Food Programme. He said, 'Niger has sent us a message in the whimpers of children too malnourished to cry for help'. He also said, 'Sadly, the spotlight has already shifted and donations have again dried up.' That is the problem. 2.7 million people in Niger are in urgent need of food aid. There is growing concern that, while food aid distribution continues across the worst affected parts of the country, financial support for emergency operations is tailing off. In the second half of August the WFP only received two donations. Funding for its emergency operation is still under 50% and $29.6 million are still needed to deliver the aid required.

A food crisis is complex. Weather patterns, food production, markets, technologies, sanitation, health care, education and child-rearing practices have all played their role. Last year's drought coupled with the invasion of locusts, followed by drought this year, have combined with an increase in food prices, which have tripled in rural areas and doubled in cities, partly as a result of demand from neighbouring countries such as Nigeria.

We share the view of the MSF, which has been critical of the slow response, first by the Government of Niger and then by the UN. The WFP only expects to deliver food rations to 110 000 people, 10% of the worst-affected area's 1.2 million. The concern is that the food distribution is not reaching those in the greatest need, especially children under five, and the food being distributed is not appropriate for the young children and infants who are the main victims of this current epidemic.

We are concerned, too, that the crisis will spread to the other countries in the region. The wider Sahel and northern areas of Mali are already suffering and in Burkina Faso farmers have already lost up to 90% of their harvest and are having to sell their cattle to raise money for basic foods. We need urgent action and we need it now.

  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I echo the comments made by my Group colleague, Mrs Isler Béguin, in questioning the Commission's action in this area, but we must also play our part in this House.

The situation in Niger almost defies description – a country of 12 million people afflicted on a regular, ongoing basis by all manner of natural disasters, compounded by domestic error and international indifference until it is too late, and by incoherence on an ongoing basis.

It was hoped that the G8 Summit, which we in Scotland hosted, would take some brave steps towards providing an ongoing framework, perhaps giving the Commission a lead for ongoing, coherent, constructive engagement with countries like Niger. We were sorely disappointed, but at least the debt relief announced was a step forward.

It is our role in this House to monitor that those words are actually turned into action. Perhaps we can discuss that at the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which – I am delighted to say – will be coming to Edinburgh in November. We in this House must play our part in providing a coherent framework and I look forward to working with the Commission on that basis.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, today’s debate highlights one of the many tragedies of our contemporary world. Ours is a world in which it has been calculated that a child dies of starvation every seven minutes, despite the great advances made in technology, research, production and new techniques.

No one present here today can even begin to imagine the agony of those dying of starvation, nor can we understand the plight of adults and children reduced to abject poverty. Niger is not the only place where this is happening. Other countries in sub-Saharan Africa and indeed elsewhere in the world are similarly afflicted. Niger itself is currently suffering from drought and a plague of locusts. As a result, five million people are starving, and over one million, including children, are in imminent danger of dying of starvation. This should weigh heavily on all our consciences. In particular, it should weigh on the consciences of those governed solely by the profit motive, who resort to market principles restricting food production, with scant regard for inalienable human rights, human dignity and moral principles.

The much-heralded success stories propounded amongst other places from this House have become an indictment in the face of the de facto globalisation of poverty and the threat posed to the peaceful coexistence of nations. Debates like the one we are engaged in today will change nothing, nor will humanitarian aid handed out by the very rich G8 countries, for whom Africa seems to have become a priority. Debt relief and a long-term development policy are required, and also a spirit of solidarity with countries in the developing world.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the food crisis that Niger is currently sustaining is intolerable. It is intolerable because populations, and children in particular, are starving and are in vital need of aid. Yet, the way in which this crisis has been exploited to criticise the slowness of the donors and to accuse them of failing to provide aid to people in danger, prompts me to make a handful of remarks aimed simply at presenting an objective analysis of the prevailing situation in Niger and at offering accurate information, at least with regard to European aid.

Niger is one of the poorest countries on the planet. It forms part of the driest region of the Sahel, where the supply of food is always in the balance. Security of the food supply in Niger is extremely fragile and there are recurring malnutrition problems. The slightest climatic uncertainty, such as rain failures or indeed the destruction of crops by predators, be they birds or locusts, the slightest market price disruption immediately gives rise to food shortage problems. People use up their stocks too soon, storehouses are empty from April and food products become scarce at the markets or are sold at soaring prices. People have to wait until the following harvest in September or October, always assuming, of course, that there is a proper rainy season. The crisis that we are currently facing is, however, more severe than in previous years. The invasions of locusts at the end of the summer of 2004 and the poor rainfall in several areas of the Sahel, and particularly in certain regions of Niger, resulted in a very poor harvest.

As far back as September 2004, the Commission released EUR 25.5 million for the anti-locust campaign in the most affected countries of the Sahel, that is to say Senegal, Chad, Mauritania, Mali and Niger, and funds have been allocated to the FAO (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation).

As far back as February/March 2005, the warning signs of a difficult food shortage emerged in Niger. There was a rapid increase in the price of grain, a drop in the price of livestock, a mass and premature transhumance of herds and a shortage of local food products at the markets. In March, the Government of Niger, relying on information from the national agency for the prevention and management of food crises, broadly supported by the Commission, released money to buy 42 000 tonnes of grain resold cheaply, and distributed food in return for work requiring high-intensity labour. For its part, the World Food Programme, intervening in support of the national agency, launched an appeal for a sum of EUR 2.3 million, to which the Commission responded immediately with an allocation of EUR 1 million. At that time, no one, not the government, the WFP or the NGOs, were able, due to the lack of precise overall data, to assess whether it was a slightly more difficult crisis than in previous years or a serious food crisis.

The Commission consequently made contact with aid organisations to ascertain their analysis, and, above all, their plan, as we did not receive any request for funding at that time. None of the NGOs, and none of the operating bodies with which we currently work, contacted us to make an appeal to us, as is usually the case, given that, as you know, the Commission itself does not participate in this type of intervention operation.

It was only at the end of May and beginning of June that the nutritional surveys carried out in certain areas of the country revealed the crisis underway. It was then that the humanitarian partners appeared. The Commission thus took two urgent decisions, through ECHO, to release a total amount of EUR 6.3 million. That is the chronology of events.

What is the situation today? A recent ECHO evaluation mission concluded that nutritional requirements are today being met to a satisfactory degree, even though there is some delay in implementing the aid. The Commission is obviously prepared to step up its aid if additional needs emerge. At present, what is needed is effective coordination between the partners on the ground to enable them to target areas successfully and to speed up the aid. The European Commission has also released EUR 2 million for Mali, EUR 4.6 million for Eritrea and EUR 4.5 million for Ethiopia, countries that have also been affected by food and nutrition crisis situations.

This crisis concerns us, and calls for us all to learn the lessons from it in full. For my part, I can see two main lessons. With regard to Niger first of all, it is crucial that, in addition to humanitarian efforts, a long-lasting solution be found to addressing the country’s vulnerability, by enhancing the food security strategy. That is precisely the policy that has been adopted by the Commission over many years in an attempt to respond to this crisis on a long-term basis. I am mainly referring to irrigation projects, projects to build reservoirs and so forth, which benefit from Community funding.

Niger’s national early warning systems and mechanisms for detecting food shortages must be supported and enhanced. Rural development and market organisation programmes form part of this objective, as do school meals. The Commission is Niger’s principal donor. The ninth EDF has enabled this country to benefit from a funding package of nearly EUR 400 million, including EUR 60.6 million for developing food security. The budget heading ‘food security’ is devoting EUR 15 million to a support programme (2004 to 2006) for the national agency for the prevention and management of food crises. But for a handful of European countries, the Commission is, however, practically alone in helping this country.

The debates, which will begin next year, on allocations after the ninth EDF will without doubt take account of the lessons learnt from this food crisis. Yet, it must be stated right now that, whatever the Commission may do for Niger, the challenge remains immense. It will be difficult to rise to it without more substantial development aid from the entire international community. Increasing the funding for development aid is, as you know, the Commission’s priority, and that is the message we will deliver in New York.

Secondly, with regard to the response from the international aid organisations, I regret to observe that it could have been better coordinated and been the subject of greater coordination with the Government of Niger and among the aid organisations, be they NGOs or United Nations agencies, and whether at the warning and detection stage or at the stage of responding to the crisis and targeting needs. The Commission is prepared to give its backing to an independent evaluation aimed at identifying the means for improving aid coordination in a similar situation.

I would like to say a word about donor action. I confess to being troubled – I do not disguise the fact – by the remarks made by certain humanitarian organisations. As a donor, the Commission could have acted more swiftly if, in the spring, it had discovered, there at the scene, the humanitarian organisations it had hoped to find. I note, however, that, once the media machine snowballed, there was no longer any difficulty in finding partners prepared to come to Niger. I have always paid tribute to the expertise and commitment of the humanitarian organisations that are our partners, but the remarks that I heard from a number of them about the food crises in Africa, whether in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa or South Africa, asserting that the problem was due to the inadequate donor response, surprised me. It is pushing it, intellectually, to argue along those lines. The food crises in Africa – as you are very well aware – are complex phenomena that are the result of several factors: the climate, demographics, the state of health of the populations – one only has to think, for example, of the disastrous effects of AIDS in southern Africa as a result of lower physical resistance – political governance and economic governance. To claim that donor aid would be enough to prevent these crises does not appear to me to be entirely fair. It is also, furthermore, a slightly paternalistic and moralistic attitude, which I reject.

Rest assured that the Commission will remain extremely vigilant, and I hope that, from now on, when we become aware of a problem and an appeal is made, we will find operator and partner organisations to enable us to work more swiftly.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates.

(1) See Minutes.

19. Breaches of human rights in China, in particular as regards freedom of religion

  President. – The next item is the debate on seven motions for a resolution on breaches of human rights in China, in particular as regards freedom of religion⁽¹⁾.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), Author. – Mr President, religious freedom is a fundamental human right and an important indicator of the level of civilisation of a society. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that religion has in some cases been exploited for political and economic gains. Nor can it be denied that religious fanaticism has, in some cases, led to many extremist manifestations aimed at our democratic institutions. In essence, the balance between religious freedom and adequate protection of the citizen is a very fine one and requires extreme wisdom in framing legislation, coupled with an honest determination to apply it correctly.

Not unexpectedly, such will is lacking in totalitarian states, where religion is perceived merely as a possible threat to the political stability of the ruling regimes. This, it appears, is the case with China. Recently, thanks to international pressure, the Chinese Government put into effect new regulations on religious affairs, but it is already abundantly evident that these changes do not go far enough and policies limiting religious freedom persist. Numerous examples of persecution and harassment of religious groups and individuals in China are well documented and need not be mentioned here again. We call on the Chinese Government to put a real end to religious repression in the country and, furthermore, to immediately release from detention and stop the prosecution of all individuals persecuted by the state authorities as a consequence of their religious beliefs and practices.

I urge you to support this joint motion for a resolution.

  Józef Pinior (PSE), Author. – (PL) Mr President, we should welcome the development of the relationship between the European Union and China in the areas of trade, economics, culture and politics. China could become a strategic partner for the European Union in the effort to create a new world order. It should be borne in mind, however, that a genuine partnership must be built on the foundation of shared values. Our positive approach to China cannot overlook violations of human rights in the People’s Republic of China, nor can it condone attacks on political and trade union freedoms. We must never forget either that China is not a democracy.

In its resolution, the European Parliament highlights violations of fundamental human rights in China, notably concerning freedom of religion, and in particular as regards Christian churches and denominations. We call on the Chinese authorities to put an end to strict controls, repression and persecution of religious groups, both Christian and others. I have in mind also Tibetan Buddhism and Islam.

The Roman Catholic Church has largely been driven underground. This is a cause of great concern for us, as is the situation of the Protestant churches. In addition, we call for explanations of the fate of certain Roman Catholic bishops and missing priests. We call for the release of Catholic priests and Protestant clergy who have been arrested and imprisoned, and for the release of all lay persons punished for their religious practices.

The Chinese authorities must undertake to guarantee compliance with Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which provides for freedom of religion in China. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the information provided by the organisation Reporters Without Borders, concerning the conviction of Mr Shi Tao, an Internet user. On 30 April 2005 a court in Changsha sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for revealing State secrets. Mr Shi Tao was a journalist working for the Dangdai Shangbao economic publication, and his crime was to publish on the Internet information contained in a confidential Central Propaganda Department document, forwarded to the editorial department prior to the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The action of the Yahoo Internet portal that revealed Mr Shi Tao’s details to the court should also be investigated.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Author. – (ES) Mr President, China is once again the subject of debate in this House, and I fear that this will not be the last time that we deal with this issue.

The growing relations between the European Union and China offer a great opportunity for both parties, and I would go as far as to say even for the world in general.

Nevertheless, these relations cannot be based solely on improving the commercial relations of each party. If what the European Union wants is policy on China to be credible, it must demand much more clearly that it radically improve its policy on human rights.

The European Union-China dialogue on human rights is a good instrument for doing this, but I fear that it is clearly being underused. There are various problems that China is not dealing with responsibly, given its role in the world, which is becoming increasingly interdependent: trade union freedom, freedom of expression, press freedom and also religious freedom.

I am one of those who advocate that governmental and public institutions should be secular in nature and that it is essential to ensure the separation of political and religious powers, but I also believe that true secularism must guarantee freedom of religious practice in the private sphere. I am therefore concerned about the constant complaints from various groups concerning the difficulties they face practising their religion in China.

Just as I oppose a State providing special finance and support for a particular religion rather than others — a few days ago, for example, I condemned the fact that the Commission had dedicated so much money to the World Youth Days promoted by the Catholic Church — I do not believe it is acceptable for institutions to violate the individual right to religious freedom. As such, this is a human rights issue that we must complain about and denounce.

In summary, in this Resolution we are calling on the Chinese authorities to put an immediate end to all religious repression, to ensure respect for international standards of human rights and to guarantee democracy, freedom of expression, association and the press, and also, as the Resolution states, religious freedom in all territory controlled by the Chinese authorities.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Author. – (NL) Mr President, present-day China is still being ruled by a party that is Communist in name but has not – and this is certainly true of its leadership – been Communist for many years. These days, nothing matters except the pursuit of economic growth and export benefits on the world market, achieved by low wages, poor working conditions and the banning of independent trade unions, all of which is highly reminiscent of the dictatorial model which South Korea used in the past in order to become an industrialised nation. Whether the large majority of the people will gain any benefits from this will not be evident until a few decades down the line. Meanwhile, a society has been created with large discrepancies between the people in terms of power and income and with major disregard for nature, landscape and the environment. It is a far cry from the protection of man and the environment that we Socialists hold dear.

Although the Chinese leaders are no longer Communists, they have unfortunately retained the worst features of the Communist state tradition. They do not tolerate independent organisations and other centres of power alongside them. People can adhere to a faith, but are not allowed to organise themselves to any serious degree. The leadership fears that independent churches could become a source of opposition, and so, in line with a combination of atheist tradition and power politics, it is the government that decides which faiths shall be permitted and under what circumstances.

It is a matter of general knowledge that it is not the official Catholic Church that is allowed, but a nationally controlled variant. Less well known is the fact that the Jewish faith – which, before the revolution of 1949, had a large following, particularly in the large cities along the East coast – is completely banned. We should not give this China the opportunity to threaten neighbouring countries or clamp down on domestic opposition. It should therefore go without saying that the arms embargo should be enforced.

Under no circumstances should EU Member States be allowed to sell arms to China. Any attempt to lift the arms embargo would be reprehensible. It would not be in anybody’s interest to launch a new costly arms race and incite new threats. That is exactly why Europe, too, should press for disarmament.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), Author. – (DE) Mr President, while I congratulate Mr Meijer on his excellent and very precise speech, I have to say that I was amazed to hear what some Members said earlier on. No wonder Christians are so brutally deprived of their rights and persecuted as they currently are when we consider how some of Europe’s leadership class behave. Even in this House, there are those who, when they speak, cannot bring themselves to denounce the violations of Christians’ human rights in China unless they have prefaced them with expressions of hostility to the Church that have nothing whatever to do with this issue, and who, in a debate devoted to the fundamental rights of victims of persecution, cannot refrain from indulging in criticism of World Youth Day.

While there is of course no Christian monopoly in this European Union of ours, and quite rightly not, 85% of the EU’s inhabitants are Christian, 56% being Catholics. These people, too, have a right to appropriate political representation. Who is supposed to speak up, not only for the persecuted and tiny Christian minorities in China, but also for that country’s Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, if we do not? The Islamic world takes up the cause of their brothers and sisters of the Muslim faith who are persecuted in places such as China; it is only we Europeans who have to keep on downplaying these violations of human rights or adopting a critical attitude. In so doing, we make ourselves complicit in them.

Seeing the pictures of Mr Blair at the EU/China summit reminds me of how it was he who told us that the EU was for him more than a free trade zone. I see no evidence of that being so, for, if he really did regard it as a community of values, he would adopt a foreign policy that focused on human rights – including these human rights – even in his dealings with a large country such as China. The same can be said of Chancellor Schröder, to whose solitary attempt at relaxing the arms embargo we have, thank God, put a stop. We need a unity that transcends party boundaries if we are to speak out clearly, even to a large country such as China, in the cause of human rights and religious freedom.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM), Author. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to quote a brief, revealing excerpt from a letter by an anonymous Chinese Protestant: ‘I am really looking forward to receiving spiritual food’, something which, according to him, is in short supply in the official Protestant church because the state keeps it on an ideological leash.

It is precisely this government violation of the freedom of religion in the People’s Republic of China that has led to a growing stream of flourishing, non-registered Protestant house churches. In the light of China’s new rules in religious matters that took effect on 1 March this year, they are exposed to a wave of random government repression, including cruel disturbances of services, hefty fines, arrests, destruction of private houses and beatings or reprimands along the lines of ‘teachers cannot believe in Christianity’. What was particularly shocking was the account of the raid on 7 August this year on a Protestant house church in Shenyang province. Among the thirty worshippers, there were some 10 women who were forced first to undress and then to pose naked. Those who offered resistance were brutally beaten up.

During a recent inquiry into whether it is the central government or local authorities that are responsible for the violations of freedom of religion in China, a salient point came to light. Some local authorities are sympathetic towards Christian fellow citizens and actively protect them on account of their loyal contribution to the local economic and social development. This is a practical example that the Chinese central government would do well to follow, because after all, it always determines what exactly normal religious activities are, and it is those alone that are permitted by law.

Commissioner, I would ask you, your fellow-Commissioners, or else the Council, to explain in detail to the Chinese authorities this disturbing criterion for the fundamental right of freedom of religion. What are normal religious activities? More than anything, I hope that you and the Council will press for the release of all those who, whatever their beliefs, are imprisoned or suffer under the lack of freedom of religion in China.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), Author. – (PL) Mr President, sadly, it is becoming traditional for us to devote Thursday afternoons to debating actions perpetrated by the Chinese authorities against their own people and against all others they have subjugated. I would remind the House that we recently debated violations of human rights in Tibet. The term violations of human rights is somewhat of a euphemism, when the actions actually being referred to include murder, imprisonment, mass disappearances, and when people are prevented from practising their religion and there is no question of freedom of any sort. Let us call a spade a spade. This should be termed criminal activity, not violations of human rights.

We have been observing events in China for the last 60 years. Those of us who hail from former Communist states know full well how Communist authorities tend to behave, regardless of whether they are ideologically committed to Communism or not. That is immaterial. I speak from personal experience, and still have a strong memory of the early years of Communism in Poland. Quite simply, it is a case of a vicious Communist or post-Communist dictatorship.

Everyone is persecuted. Believers in Islam, Buddhism, Jews ... all are hunted down. As to those that are persecuted most cruelly ... well, perhaps not, because in Tibet Buddhists have been persecuted equally cruelly, but it should be said that Christians and especially Catholics are persecuted. In particular, those Catholics are targeted who adhere to a fundamental principle of the Catholic Church, namely unity with the wider church, personified in the Pope. Certain schisms have been encouraged, and a national church has come into being, though obviously this could never be recognised.

Things are getting worse, not better. As stated in our resolution, the number of arrests is increasing. So too is the number of cases of torture, unexplained disappearances, detentions through the criminal system, and the number of isolation camps. The very term ‘isolation camp’ should make our blood run cold. We Europeans are well aware of the horrors perpetrated under Nazi German and Communist Russian domination.

The European Union has had diplomatic relations with China for 30 years. There has been much talk of dialogue. I wonder about the nature of this dialogue and what it involves. It seems to mean this House adopting one resolution after another on Thursday afternoons when most Members are already on their way home.

At the same time, however, others who could have a significant influence on what might take place in China are presenting the case for a relaxation of the embargo. France and Germany are doing so particularly eloquently, maintaining that the embargo is ineffective. All this is happening in the context of a situation when we should be isolating China as much as possible. This is not just about economics. Above all, it is about moral principles. The European Union should make it abundantly clear that there can be no deals or dialogue of any kind with China. China deserves outright condemnation.

  Filip Andrzej Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, last week Tang Jaixuan, a former Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, said to the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights that every country should promote and protect human rights in its own way, and that there should be no outside interference in this respect. We simply cannot go along with this view. Respect for fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion, is not an internal Chinese concern. It is a concern for all those who are not egotists or opportunists.

We should bear in mind that freedom of religion is also possible in non-democratic countries. Czechs, Jews and people from the Netherlands emigrated to Poland in the 16th century not because our country was a democracy, but because all religions could be practised in complete freedom in Poland. We should also remember, however, that there were and still are political systems that only recognise religious leaders of different persuasions if they support the theory that all authority is God-given, even the cruellest.

China should respect not only freedom of religion, but also the independence of churches and religious associations. Secular authorities cannot be allowed to influence decisions on who might become a Catholic bishop, the 15th Dalai Lama or the 12th Panchen Lama. Tibetan monks cannot be compelled to attend ideological training. The 87-year-old Gongola Lama has stated that on training courses of that nature, instructors indoctrinate the monks on the nature of love for the common Chinese fatherland, and mould them into subservience to the law. They also teach the monks that the Dalai Lama is a danger. Certain monks are forced to sign a document stating that they no longer recognise the spiritual and political leadership of the Dalai Lama.

World history is full of accounts of repression for religious motives. It is worth remembering, however, that such repression proved ineffective, even under the cruellest of regimes. It will prove ineffective in China as well. It does not matter if a person has their work or property taken away, is imprisoned, expelled, crucified or gassed. Neither the Pope nor the Dalai Lama can call up any so-called divisions, because the source of religious strength is not to be found in believers or in the clergy, but in the very nature of religion itself. For most religions, death is not a tragic end but the start of a new life.

  Catherine Stihler, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, religious freedom is a fundamental human right and, as a previous speaker said, the Chinese Constitution claims, at Article 36, to allow for freedom of religious belief, yet the rhetoric is not the reality.

One example given by Amnesty International was the case of Zhang Rongliang, who was the leader of one of the largest house church networks in China. He was detained in his village; the police searched every house in that village, confiscating any Christian material; his wife and child have been in hiding; he has been imprisoned five times for a total of 12 years, during which time he was severely tortured.

This House has also raised the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, the Tibetan monk, who was sentenced to death by the Chinese authorities in an unfair trial. He is now in prison for life, but no one knows where he is being held, and his family would like to know.

Until China deals seriously with religious freedom, we will have to highlight human rights abuses in this House. We have to speak up for those who do not have the freedom to speak for themselves.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is an established fact that China is well known for its scant regard for human rights. Any further emphasis would be euphemistic.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is lacking in this Parliament’s resolutions – including cross-party resolutions like this one – is a little intellectual honesty.

Paragraph 3, which asks that it should be made clear to the Chinese authorities that a genuine partnership can only develop when shared values are fully respected and put into practice, ends up being hypocritical.

The resolution then becomes ridiculous when, after listing a lamentable series of breaches and making the usual demands, it welcomes the fact of having a EU-China human rights structured dialogue. Not a word of serious condemnation, let alone any suggestion of sanctions.

Associating oneself with this resolution would be to make oneself a laughing-stock and morally complicit with the most violent combination of free-market and communist ideas that has ever occurred. I urge my fellow Members not to vote for this resolution.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the People’s Republic of China is not complying with the principle of respect for the fundamental human rights of the individual. For many years now, Communist China had been failing to meet the most basic universal standards and requirements concerning freedom of expression, thought, action and creation.

At the most recent EU-China Ministerial meeting in May 2005, the Union expressed its concern with regard to four aspects of human rights. In particular, it called for those still imprisoned further to the 1989 pro-democracy movement to be released, for censorship of the media to be reduced, for the ‘re-education through work’ system to be reformed, and for ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We ought also to be calling for an end to repression of the Roman Catholic Church. The latter is not recognised by the regime.

Over 126 families lost loved ones in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and the circumstances surrounding that event remain unclear. According to Amnesty International by the end of last year alone over 50 persons were imprisoned for publishing on the Internet information that could be damaging to the authorities. Amnesty International has also reported that 3 400 people were executed and over 6 000 sentenced to death in 2004 in China. These statistics are truly alarming.

The Chinese Government is mercilessly exterminating the people of Tibet. It is resorting to false accusations of law-breaking, fixing the outcome of trials in advance and organising mass deportations of Tibetans from areas subsequently resettled with ethnic Chinese. Over 100 Tibetan religious leaders are being held in Chinese prisons on charges of subversive activity. The world is standing idly by as one of the oldest and most important cultures of all times vanishes before its very eyes.

How many more tragedies and statistics will it take for the world to start taking notice of the violations of human rights being perpetrated in China? Diplomacy will fail to produce the desired outcome. The Union must rise to an enormous challenge. Its action will determine whether China will manage to take specific measures in response to the calls for it to change its policy towards its own people.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, China is a great nation and has been a great civilisation, but its name and standing are diminished by its human rights abuses.

I want the Chinese to listen to the words of my colleagues and to this resolution on religious freedom. I want them to release the Catholics and Christians in prison. I want them to bring justice to the Muslims, the Uigurs in Xinjiang. I want them to bring justice to the Tibetans and withdraw their threat of imposing their Panchen Lama. I want them to stop the abuse of psychiatry. I want them to listen to the voice of Miss Fen Yang, arrested when visiting friends and sentenced without trial to two years in a female labour camp, where she is abused and brainwashed. I want them to listen to the mother of Wang Nan, who died in Tiananmen Square. Her mother was arrested for receiving a parcel of T-shirts. Those are the abuses that we cannot tolerate. Only if China listens, acts and puts an end to these abuses will it earn and deserve our respect.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to reply on behalf of my fellow Member, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner.

Although significant progress has been made on human rights issues in China over recent years, in particular in the area of economic and social rights, the European Union remains concerned by the overall human rights situation in the country and, more specifically, by the restrictions on civil and political rights that have been enforced.

Respect for human rights is, in fact, a crucial component of the European Union’s external policy. The European Union has regularly raised this issue with the Chinese authorities in a frank and open manner, both through political dialogue – including at the top level, as was recently the case during the last bilateral summit held in Beijing on 5 September – and through the bilateral dialogue specifically devoted to human rights.

In the framework of the European-Chinese dialogue, the issue of freedom of belief, religion, expression and association has always been one of the main priorities of the European Union. The Union, in particular, has continually expressed its deep concern regarding the situation of individuals who have been persecuted or stripped of their fundamental rights for having openly practised their faith, no matter, moreover, what their religion or belief. A number of imprisoned religious figures mentioned by Members of this House appear on the list of individual cases that the Union systematically sends to its Chinese negotiating partners in the framework of the human rights dialogue. Furthermore, the European Union has, on several occasions, officially approached the Chinese authorities through its representatives in Beijing. Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche and Pastor Zhang Rongliang – to mention some recent examples – are among those on whom these actions have been focused.

The abolition of the death penalty, or at least the introduction of a moratorium on its application, China’s swift ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and cooperation with the United Nations’ mechanisms also feature among the priority issues regularly addressed with the Chinese authorities. In the latter case, the European Union specifically made calls, during the last session of the human rights dialogue held in Luxembourg on 24 and 25 February 2005, for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief to be able to travel to China as soon as possible.

The European Union undoubtedly intends to continue and develop the dialogue with Beijing in the area of human rights through seminars connected to these issues. Alongside the dialogue, these seminars also make it possible to raise the awareness of certain major players in Chinese civil society. We hope that the next session of the specific dialogue on human rights, which will take place in Beijing on 24 and 25 October 2005, will enable significant progress to be made.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates.

(1) See Minutes.

20. Political prisoners in Syria

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on political prisoners in Syria⁽¹⁾.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), Author. – Mr President, this Parliament has dealt with the issue of human rights violations by Syria in the past, and there is no doubt that, following both European Union and international pressure, some improvements in the field of respect for human rights have been accomplished over recent years.

Unfortunately, however, these improvements do not go far enough. The example of the continued imprisonment of two ill parliamentarians, Riad Seif and Mamoun al-Homsi, and the recent persecution of many civil activists, such as Hasan Zeino and Yassin al-Hamwi, are pertinent proof of that. As is, indeed, the Syrian authorities' continued tactic of imposing obstacles on the registration and free operation of non-governmental human rights organisations in the country. As well, of course, as the tactic of intimidating and harassing numerous Syrian human rights activists.

The Syrian Government must realise that this situation is unacceptable to the EU, and its continuation will no doubt hinder the accomplishment of a future EU-Syria Association Agreement. We call upon the Syrian authorities, and especially the current President, Mr Bashar al-Assad, who has given hopeful signs of wanting to open up the Syrian political system, dominated for many years by the Ba'ath party, to proceed in a speedy and determined fashion in the much needed process of democratisation and reform of his country.

Such changes will not only earn him and his Government much respect abroad but, more importantly, they will greatly benefit the Syrian people.

Colleagues, I urge you to support this joint motion for a resolution.

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE), Author. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, if we had to choose the subjects of our debates today, in relation to breaches of human rights, we would perhaps have chosen Tunisia, where human rights defenders were besieged yesterday by the Tunisian army. The problem concerning Tunisia demonstrates in a general manner how seriously we treat human rights in our Association Agreements. That is the reason why we wanted this resolution on Syria.

We want Syria to open up and become democratic. For months now, we have been calling for cases involving political prisoners such as Riad Seif and Mamoun al-Homsi to be treated seriously. Mrs Patrie and I, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the President of Parliament, Mr Borrell, sent letters in August calling for the release of these two political prisoners who have already served two thirds of their prison sentences. They are former members of Parliament who are in a poor physical condition. These letters have remained unanswered.

We want the forthcoming Association Agreement with Syria to clearly indicate that human rights are a condition on which we will not compromise. We do not wish to isolate Syria. It is a country that we consider to be a friendly country, which must become democratic and which we can assist. However, for the time being, we are keen to address the following message to the Syrian Government: now that it is time to reach a decision on this Association Agreement, please take this message seriously; do not think that, in every instance, we will have to table resolutions in order to finally start a constructive dialogue with Syria on human rights, in particular with the subcommittee on human rights that we are calling on you to set up.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Author. – (ES) Mr President, while we are in the midst of celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona Process, we must remember that respect for human rights is one of the cornerstones of Euro-Mediterranean Association and, in this context, the Resolution we are voting on today on the situation of political prisoners in Syria deserves special attention.

We would therefore call upon the Commission, the Council and the Member States to make it clear to the Syrian authorities that the agreement we are currently negotiating must include clear clauses on human rights, as established by the Euro-Mediterranean Association.

Furthermore, like Mrs De Keyser, we are calling for the establishment, within the context of the Association Agreement, of a sub-committee on human rights in relation to Syria, as has been done in the case of Jordan or Morocco, with a view to holding a structured dialogue on human rights and democracy. This sub-committee would become a key element of the action plan.

Finally, we must once again insist on the importance of consulting and involving civil society in the work of this sub-committee, in order to better supervise the human rights situation.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Author. – (NL) Mr President, even before the era when power ended up in the hands of father and son al-Assad, Syria laboured under the belief that that country deserved to be much bigger and more powerful than it really is, and that it should include Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and parts of Iraq.

Syria blames France and Great Britain for needlessly splitting up these regions, which they had won from Turkey in the First World War and for hence making impossible their return to the greater Syria that existed before the Ottoman Empire.

Over 40 years ago, the desire for greatness caused Syria to join with Egypt and Yemen in leading the attempt to create a United Arab Republic. It was when this project failed and Syria also lost the Golan area in 1967 to Israel that the seeds of an authoritarian and militaristic regime were sown. The regime is intolerant of ethnic minorities, of Christianity and of interpretations of Islam that deviate from the version propagated by the state. It is also intolerant towards domestic opposition, distrustful of neighbouring countries and even more distrustful of great powers further away.

Over the years, violent acts by exiles from other countries have been supported from Syrian territory and it is also suspected that recent political assassinations in Lebanon were organised from Syria. The European Union hopes to establish strong relations with all the states in its immediate surroundings, including all countries around the Mediterranean. Indeed, if Turkey ever joins the European Union, Syria will become our immediate neighbour, as will Iraq.

My group thinks that it is not only economic or military considerations that should play a role as our relationship with Syria becomes even deeper. The European Union must place more emphasis on the release of political prisoners, the right to opposition and the government’s democratisation. How will the Commission do this? Whilst we should appreciate the circumstances as a result of which Syria has ended up in this bad situation at present, we should not resign ourselves to this. The democratisation of Syria now takes priority over closer trading relations. The al-Assad family’s criminal regime must not be rewarded for bad behaviour. By taking this line, we will contribute to making Syria democratic, and the recognition of a Palestinian state will also have a part to play in this.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Author. – Mr President, Syria remains under President Bashar al-Assad, the sole Baathist regime left in the Arab world following the demise of Iraqi Baathism. Since 1963, Syria has operated under a state of perpetual emergency, which is the legal basis for many of the repressive instruments imposed by the government and which it justifies on the grounds of the ongoing conflict with Israel following Syria's loss of the Golan Heights in 1967 and the struggle against Islamist terrorists who oppose the secular socialist state.

More recently, as Syria has pursued a more active engagement with the EU through participating in the Barcelona Process and signing a EuroMed association agreement, all areas of its domestic policy have been subject to intense international scrutiny, in particular its poor human rights track record and alleged holding of political prisoners, with deaths in custody and arbitrary arrests, the preventing of free assembly or of citizens from leaving the country, and, of course, the use of torture.

Matters have not been helped by Syria's lamentable behaviour in turning a blind eye to Islamist terrorists crossing into Iraq from its territory in spite of its own fight against Islamism, as well as its covert support to terrorist training for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, in spite of its continuing denials of such support. Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon under international pressure has been marred by the arrest of the pro-Syrian security chiefs in connection with the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a fierce critic of the Syrian regime. Syria remains a one-party state although there is talk of ending this state of affairs.

This resolution calls for clemency for a number of cases cited by Amnesty International and there can be no doubt that the plight of the stateless Kurds in Hassake and the discrimination against the still remaining small Jewish community are totally unacceptable.

As rapporteur on the European neighbourhood policy, I believe that it is nevertheless important to keep Syria engaged in dialogue with the EU and to encourage the process of democratisation and observation of fundamental human rights which Syria has signed up to in its international obligations - obligations which it must meet if it really wants to enjoy a beneficial EuroMed action plan in future.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to follow on from Mr Tannock’s conclusion. When President Bashir Assad succeeded his father in office, he was the focus of a great deal of hope. Syrian Christians who know him well tell me that he, as a member of the Alawi minority himself, has a very tolerant attitude towards other faith communities, not least the Christians.

It is all the more disappointing that the Baath regime’s brutal machinery of oppression is still operational, with the secret services at work in Lebanon, and the police in Syria itself. I would like to emphasise that, as we have ties with Syria through the Mediterranean dialogue and the Mediterranean community, we have to apply particularly rigorous standards to it. While we ought to support it in its desire to draw closer to the European Union, we cannot do so unless it upholds fundamental human rights and moves towards pluralism and democracy. That such a thing can happen only step by step is obvious, but the process must be begun without delay, and we must send a clear message to that effect.

  Béatrice Patrie, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the partnership between Europe and the Mediterranean countries has already enabled significant progress to be made on the road to constructing a foundation of shared values: human rights, representative democracy, equality between men and women and social progress. In this respect, the opening of an electoral process in Egypt – which is, admittedly, imperfect – and the regained sovereignty of Lebanon are cases in point. Unfortunately, the recent events in Tunisia show us that it is difficult to progress along that road. That is why questions must clearly be asked about the conditional nature of our partnerships. If an Association Agreement concluded with a country is seriously breached, this should be able to bring about its suspension, even on a temporary basis. In Syria, the arrival in power of President Al-Assad has given rise to a great deal of hope. Conflicting political signs are, however, reaching us, allowing some confusions and uncertainties to remain as regards completing the ratification process for the Association Agreement. In my role as Chairman of the Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries, I recently took a delegation from our Parliament to Syria. During this visit and particularly in the presence of President Al-Assad himself, we laid a great deal of emphasis on the need to respect fundamental freedoms and on the need to secure the release of the two former parliamentarians, Mr Seif and Mr al-Homsi. Their release is the subject of an item in the report on the visit, drafted by our Mashreq Delegation. The release – I quote – ‘of the two imprisoned Syrian parliamentarians is a preliminary condition for the signing of the Association Agreement.’ The vote on this urgent resolution will act as a powerful message from our Parliament: respect for human rights and respect for fundamental freedoms are non-negotiable factors in our partnerships.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, the UN was quite right to express concern about violations of human rights in Syria.

I fully support the European Parliament’s motion for a resolution calling on the Syrian authorities to release political prisoners held in that country. Their number includes several Syrian parliamentarians we consider to be our colleagues. Syria must be persuaded to ratify the convention banning the torture of prisoners.

It is, however, difficult for me to support the proposal in the draft calling on Syria to guarantee that those arrested will be well treated. After all, we know that this refers to political prisoners, so we ought really to be insisting that no political prisoners are ever taken, and not condoning the fact and politely asking Syria not to be too cruel to them.

It is essential for human rights and Syria’s respect for them to be a sine qua non when it comes to the Union entering into an Association Agreement with Syria. It would be inconceivable for us to be associated with a country that held political prisoners and practised torture and other forms of anti-democratic repression, resulting in the persecution of religious minorities such as Jews or Christians.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, unfortunately the hopes cultivated even about the recent conference of the Ba'ath party in Syria have quickly been dashed. The regime continues its anti-democratic methods and autocratic practices against any protestors. President Assad appears to be too weak to overturn the autocratic, nepotistic and back-scratching regime which permeates the political system.

The two former members of parliament in prison whose immediate release we are calling for – together with an immediate end to all political prosecutions – are also victims of the accusation of nepotistic behaviour on the part of the regime.

However, I believe that it will be in the interests of the people of Syria and their rights for the European Union to sign and ratify the association agreement. This will give us more tools to control and exert pressure, such as the human rights clause and structured political dialogue.

(Applause)

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission fully participates in the European Union’s efforts to support human rights in Syria. On the basis of the principles outlined in the Barcelona Process Declaration, our goal is to establish a constructive human rights dialogue with the Syrian authorities. In this context, the European Union troika has, in the past, taken steps following the arrests of opposition figures, including Mr Al-Turk, and the judgment on two parliamentarians, Mr al-Homsi and Mr Riad Seif.

Very recently, the Commission conveyed to the Syrian Ambassador its grave concern regarding the detention of public figures and of members of Parliament and, more specifically, that of Mr al-Homsi and Mr Seif.

The European Commission’s Delegation in Damascus is very closely monitoring the detention of these two political prisoners. A short time ago, the Head of Delegation drew this situation to the attention of the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Moallem. The attempt to have Mr al-Homsi and Mr Seif released was a failure even though, under Syrian law, they could be granted early release after serving three quarters of their prison sentences.

The law, however, requires the two political prisoners to sign a declaration announcing that they will cease all future political activities detrimental to the Syrian State. They refused to sign it. From a Syrian point of view, therefore, nothing more can be done to release the prisoners.

We can also observe conflicting, yet positive, signs, which are perhaps the outcome of international pressure: consider, for example, the acquittal in June of this year of Aktham Naisseh, a human rights activist.

However, the overall situation is, unfortunately, unsatisfactory, and the Commission will continue, in close cooperation with the Presidency and the Member States, to bring up other individual cases at every level of its contacts with the Syrian administration.

With regard to the Association Agreement negotiations, the Commission remains convinced that a human rights dialogue will be more effective in the framework of the contractual relations provided for in the Agreement. This Agreement, including the provisions on free trade, cooperation and political dialogue, and with the clause on human rights and democracy as crucial components, will be an important instrument for opening up Syrian society and for making it more democratic.

As regards enhancing the MEDA programmes with the aim of supporting the development of a democratic society, the Commission, under the current national indicative programme with Syria, continues to have support for civil society as one of its priorities in the area of cooperation, and it hopes to continue along these lines thanks to future programmes.

Since it has been mentioned several times, I will say a word about the Association Agreement. The Commission remains aware of the current political difficulties regarding the signing of the Agreement with Syria. By arranging the military withdrawal from Lebanon, Syria has taken a first positive step towards implementing Resolution 1559 of the United Nations Security Council. It is clear, however, that, owing to the current situation, that is to say the continued and visible presence of the Syrian secret service in Lebanon, as well as the lack of cooperation in Iraq, Syria absolutely must take strong and positive action in order to restore confidence and must do this before it considers any possible signing of the Agreement.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place in a few moments.

(1) See Minutes.

21. Voting time

  President. – The next item is voting time.

(For the outcome of the votes and other related details: see Minutes)

22. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Rule 115)

23. Famine in Niger

24. Breaches of human rights in China, in particular as regards freedom of religion

25. Political prisoners in Syria

- Before the vote on the entire joint motion for a resolution

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, there is an oral amendment to recital E: when talking about ‘Riad al-Hamood, civil society activist’, it must be specified that ‘Kurdish’ precedes ‘civil society activist’.

(Having established that there were no objections to the oral amendment, the President put the amended text of the resolution to the vote)

26. Major and neglected diseases in developing countries

  President. – That concludes the voting, and we shall now proceed to the explanations of vote.

27. Explanations of vote

Bowis report (A6-0215/2005)

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The Moderate delegation has today voted in favour of a report on major and neglected diseases in the developing countries. We believe that disease and ill-health are dominant problems in these countries and that they are both causes and consequences of under-development.

However, we have our doubts about the EU expressing views on the way in which the pharmaceutical industry prices different products. We also have our doubts about forcing the pharmaceutical industry to reinvest a portion of its profits in R&D in relation to neglected diseases. We should prefer to encourage the pharmaceutical industry voluntarily and for ethical and moral reasons to decide to re-invest a portion of its profits in research into diseases affecting poor countries. This is in line with assuming responsibility for global development.

What should also be drawn attention to are the African governments that deduct sales or import tax on antiretroviral and other medicines. This leads to medicines becoming unavailable to many impecunious groups. In those cases, the governments concerned must be strongly encouraged to abolish such taxes.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The global fight against infectious diseases is a very important issue demanding extensive international commitment. The June List is of the view that international cooperation should be practised within already established organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), with skills and experience in this area. The June List recommends limited EU cooperation. We are critical of a situation in which the EU seeks influence and powers in relation to issues already being dealt with by existing international organisations.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) As a result of the economic development and the improved quality of life in Europe, we have a number of responsibilities towards the rest of the international community. Whilst one may subscribe to a worldview that sees free trade as one of the main keys to development, one must also bear in mind that there are certain areas that cannot simply be left to the whims of the market. This is because, however global it may be, the market does not favour more worthwhile objectives. That is not to discredit the market, but to point out that, inevitably, it does have its limitations. In this context, we must not forget that certain diseases hamper the development of the world’s poorest countries. It is therefore essential that the EU’s development initiatives – the effectiveness of which is sometimes open to question – should involve combating these diseases, within the context of development aid as a whole.

28. Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

29. Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

30. Membership of committees: see Minutes

31. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

32. Written statements (Rule 116): see Minutes

33. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

34. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

35. Suspension of the sitting

  President. – I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 5 p.m.)

The United Nations experts have recently unveiled a $100 million programme to reduce the risk of bird flu spreading to humans. The UN also called on the global community to come forward with funds to help stave off the potential for a pandemic, which in a worst-case scenario could kill tens of millions of people around the world.

Will the Council indicate if this matter has been discussed in Council and what practical measures it will be recommending?

(EN)The Council thanks the Honourable Member for giving his attention to this important question. As regards the possibility of financing the costs of prevention and treatment, the Council is examining, in the frame of the Financial Framework 2007-2013, a Commission proposal for a new EU Solidarity Fund Regulation. The proposal includes the possibility of contributing towards the costs incurred by actual expenditures in the event of a pandemic under certain conditions, including the costs of vaccines and antivirals. As regards the other measures discussed, the Council would like to refer to question H-0508, recently put by the Honourable Member to the Council, for a detailed reply.

What plans does the Presidency have to ensure the implementation of the SME Charter?

(EN)As the Honourable Member will be aware, the European Charter for Small Enterprises is implemented through the open method of co-ordination introduced by the Lisbon European Council. The Charter calls on the Member States and the Commission to take action in ten key areas to support small enterprises. Its implementation is largely a national responsibility with the European Commission monitoring progress and reporting regularly to the European Parliament and the Council on developments throughout the Union, while encouraging in a wide range of related areas the necessary conditions for SMEs to fulfil their vital role in the relaunched Lisbon process, namely the creation of jobs and more growth. For example, to complement the Charter, the Entrepreneurship Action Plan addresses a wider range of entrepreneurship-related issues to promote entrepreneurship across Europe.

During the UK Presidency, several of the main policy priorities are of immediate relevance to the implementation of the Charter and will assist in driving it forward. Economic reform initiatives include implementing the recommendations of the Sapir and Kok reports; promoting the knowledge society; strengthening the Internal Market; improving the business climate; and supporting national labour market reforms foreseen in the Lisbon Strategy. Better regulation activities include delivery of the Commission’s Better Regulation Agenda of March 2005; stronger impact assessments on new EU legislation, increased business input into the legislative process and simplification of legislation.

Many of the key legislative dossiers currently under debate will have a strong impact on small enterprises: in particular the 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP 7), Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), access to finances under the Basel-II agreement, to name but a few.

Moreover, the meeting of the Competitiveness Council in October 2005 will address entrepreneurship issues including a new initiative on the Centres of Enterprise competition, the Commission’s communication on entrepreneurship education and learning, and industrial policy issues. The November meeting of the Competitiveness Council will address other areas of direct relevance to the Charter, namely CIP and FP 7.

In addition, the UK Presidency is organising several major events of special importance for small enterprises, such as the High Performance Workplaces Conference, the Risk Capital Conference, and the Social Dialogue Conference. (For information on these events, the Honourable Member is referred to the UK Presidency Homepage http://www.eu2005.gov.uk.).

The Lisbon Agenda is intent on making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. Since its inception, 83 'Lisbon directives' have been adopted by the EU. 63 of those should have been implemented, but only 10 have actually been implemented by all 25 Member States.

Does the Council agree that the adoption of more Lisbon legislation will not further the Lisbon agenda unless Member States begin to honour the legislative undertakings that they give?

Does the Council agree that peer pressure is an effective way of improving this situation? If so, will the Council Presidency continue with the tradition of naming and shaming those Member States which have failed to implement the Lisbon directives?

If not, what does the Council intend to do to improve this situation?

(EN)The Council agrees that the transposition rate of Internal Market directives remains disappointingly low and that Member States should speed up the transposition of Internal Market directives. Furthermore, directives are often not implemented or applied correctly, as illustrated by the high number of infringement proceedings launched by the Commission. Member States need to cooperate more positively with each other and with the Commission to ensure that they deliver the full benefits of Internal Market legislation to their citizens and businesses.

Peer pressure has been effective in improving the situation and it will continue to be important. Nevertheless, naming and shaming have not always been considered the best way to improve the situation. For example, the European Council has rather chosen to increase Member States' involvement with the introduction, in particular, of the "national reform programmes" and to streamline the monitoring procedure.

The EU and its Member States are working actively to counter the greenhouse effect and the resultant climate change. That is to be welcomed, but regrettably we also need to increase our preparedness for the climate change which we know will come about. The effects of climate change will include greater numbers of fires and floods. The number of diseases - for example malaria - is expected to increase too. New preconditions will probably apply to handling of food: for example, it is thought that problems connected with salmonella will worsen.

Has the Council analysed the likely impact of the anticipated climate change, and, on the basis of such an analysis, will the Council propose measures?

(EN)The Council shares the Honourable Member's view that there are several challenges to be met when addressing climate change, its likely impacts and vulnerabilities as well as ways and means of addressing those impacts and enhancing adaptive capacities.

Determined and consistent mitigation efforts are required to keep the requirements for adaptation at a manageable level. In fact, planned adaptation is more cost-effective than reactive stand-alone adaptation and this can often be achieved through integration of adaptation aspects into planning and implementation of sectoral actions. Reducing vulnerability and strengthening adaptive capacity is best achieved through general development efforts.

However, the EU has envisaged a need to enhance adaptation efforts through some specific actions by the international community; such actions could be aimed at increasing awareness of adaptation requirements, strengthening the international and national knowledge base and disseminating this knowledge. The resources available for specific adaptation actions will be limited and as such should be used wisely in an enabling and catalytic way.

The UNFCCC is the framework for international efforts to tackle the problem of climate change and, in practical terms, it should promote wide understanding of climate change, its impacts and responses. Efforts to mobilize additional adaptation funding should be largely focused on mainstreaming adaptation aspects into general development funding and on mechanisms outside the UNFCCC purview.

Further to the recent Gleneagles G8 Summit communiqué on climate change, can the Council comment on the implications thereof for EU Member States and EU policy?

(EN)The Council welcomes the results of the G8 Summit in Gleneagles on climate change (communiqué on climate change, energy and sustainable development and the related Gleneagles Plan of Action) and recognises the importance of this informal grouping in setting the global agenda, also in environmental questions.

The plan of action adopted by the G8 leaders identifies a range of activities to promote research, information exchange, and cooperation on energy efficiency, renewable and other clean energy sources, adaptation to climate change and illegal logging.

The aim of the G8 is to build a political momentum that in the wide range of public, private, local, national and international bodies that must align their efforts if the world is to keep a stable climate. The action plan sets no specific targets and commits no new funding. Those discussions will take place inside a properly constructed and legitimate multilateral forum.

At Community level, significant progress has already been made over the past year and is under way in areas identified in the G8 communiqué, as well as in several others, in terms of the adoption and implementation of a number of key common and coordinated policies and measures. Examples are the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the Directive linking project-based mechanisms to greenhouse gas emissions trading, the Council Decision for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions, the Directives on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources, and on co-generation, the Directive on bio-fuels, the Directive on the energy performance of buildings, the proposal for a Regulation on fluorinated gases, the proposal for a framework Directive on eco-efficiency requirements for energy-using products, the proposal for a Directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services.

Furthermore, the European Union will actively participate in the first meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal, in conjunction with the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention, at the end of this year, aiming to build the widest possible international consensus on the issue of combating climate change.

In the light of recent discussions on the contribution trade can make to development, does the Council believe there should be a budget line for trade facilitation?

(EN)The Council recognises that trade liberalisation in itself is not sufficient to combat poverty in developing countries. In order to achieve economic growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction, trade and development policies need to be better integrated through the development of national poverty reduction strategies. Coherence in the interventions of multilateral organisations, working in partnership with other donors and developing countries is essential to ensure more effective poverty reduction.

In November 2002 the Council adopted conclusions on the Communication on Trade and Development, and in may 2005 the Council adopted Conclusions on the EU contribution to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) where it reiterated its firm commitment to provide support to developing countries to enable them to seize trading opportunities, in particular by assisting them in integrating trade into their national development strategies and securing the necessary domestic reforms.

In fact, financial support for trade-related assistance has been stepped up since the Doha Ministerial Meeting of November 2001. Total commitments over the period 2001/03 have reached € 2 billion. Special attention has been devoted to the improvement of developing countries’ capacities in the field of sanitary and phytosanitary requirements. Another focal area has been to improve the negotiating capacity and the ability of developing countries to formulate and implement coherent trade policies, to engage in the negotiation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and to participate in the WTO work, in line with the EU’s commitments at the International Conference on Financing for Development in March 2002.

In the light of the efforts to simplify the Community's instruments regarding External Relations, however, it is unlikely that an additional dedicated budget line would be useful. Aid for trade facilitation needs to continue to be integrated fully into Community country programmes, agreed with recipient countries, within the relevant external assistance Instruments (e.g, Neighbourhood Partnerships and Development Co-operation).

What discussions has the Council had to ensure that transposition of the Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC⁽¹⁾ is flexible enough to permit consumers to have access to the range and dosages of supplement to which they have been safely accustomed, often over many years?

(EN)As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, Article 249 of the Treaty specifies that a Directive is binding upon a Member State to which it is addressed as to the results to be achieved, but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and methods to pursue those results. The Council has clearly no competence to discuss the transposition of a given Directive. It is for the Commission to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market by, inter alia, ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken pursuant thereto are applied.

Only in recent weeks has it finally been established that on 17 February 2003 at least 13 secret agents of the United States Central Intelligence Agency kidnapped the imam of the Milan mosque, Abu Omar. Accused of having links with international terrorism, he was held illegally in Italy and secretly transported to Egypt where he was also subjected to torture. The Milan Public Prosecutor's Office has opened an investigation and had an international arrest warrant issued for 17 CIA operatives.

Does the Council not consider that it should strongly condemn this unacceptable violation of Italian sovereignty by the United States government? As it has become clear that Egypt is the final destination for various international kidnappings by the CIA, what steps does the Council intend to take vis-à-vis the government in Cairo to persuade it to end this cooperation based on violation of the territorial and political sovereignty of one or more EU Member States?

(EN)The question raised by the Honourable Member concerning the secret CIA operations in Milan has never been discussed in the Council. It is a matter for the Italian courts.

In the past the UK Government has been particularly reluctant to co-finance socio-economic measures for the benefit of fishermen badly affected by the effort limitation and cuts in TACs and quotas. What will the Council's position be on such issues?

(EN)I wish to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy links, in recital 4, the CFPs objective of providing sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources to an obligation of taking into account "the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner." Article 5 of the Regulation requires the Council, when adopting recovery plans, to have regard, amongst other things, to "the economic impact of the measures on the fisheries concerned" (Art. 5(4) (d)).

In Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 amending the Fisheries Fund, Member States are given the possibility of introducing "nationally financed accompanying measures for crew members of affected fishing vessels in order to facilitate temporary cessation of fishing activities in the framework of plans for the protection of aquatic resources" (Art. 12(6). The Fisheries Fund gives Member States the possibility of granting compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels for the temporary cessation of activities in a number of cases (Art. 16).

With regard to the Honourable Member's reference to the position of the UK Government, this is a question of national policy and would therefore seem to fall outside of the scope for questions to Council.

Following the United Kingdom Government's recent decision to postpone indefinitely the ratification of the EU Constitution, what plans, if any, does the Council now have and, if so what is the timetable for those plans, to establish the European External Action Service following the recent 'Yes' vote in the Luxembourg EU Constitution referendum, which brings the total number of ratifying states to 13?

(EN)At its meeting on 16-17 June 2005, the European Council considered that the outcome of the referendums in France and the Netherlands reflected concerns from Europe's citizens which needed to be taken into account.

In their Declaration on the Ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, the Heads of State or Government underlined the validity of continuing with the ratification processes. At the same time, they agreed to include a period of reflection that will enable a broad debate to take place in each of the Member States, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties. They considered that in this debate the European institutions will also have to make their contribution, with the Commission playing a special role in this regard. The results of this reflection will form part of an overall assessment of the situation by Heads of State or Government in the first half of 2006. The Heads of State or Government also decided that the timetable for the ratification in different Member States would be altered if necessary in response to the recent developments and according to the circumstances in the Member States.

The establishment of the External Action Service is one of the provisions of the Constitutional treaty; as such, it shall take effect only when the Treaty itself comes into force.

The June report on the implementation of the Action Plan to combat terrorism from the Presidency and the EU Counter terrorism Coordinator indicated the need to improve information-sharing among Member States on vaccine supplies available in the event of a bio-terrorist attack. Does the Council agree that, particularly in the wake of the London bombings in July, it must take urgent steps in this regard?

(EN)The European Council, in its June 2005 Conclusions⁽¹⁾, called for "the strengthening of civil protection capabilities, particularly the medical resources available to deal with a bioterrorist attack, and the development of a rapid reaction capability based on the civil protection modules of the Member States".

This point was reiterated in the Conclusions of the Council on 13 July⁽²⁾. The Council invited:

"Member States to undertake regular joint counter-terrorism exercises to test resilience;

the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and the Commission, as appropriate, to report by December 2005 on the development of

emergency response capabilities both at Member State and EU level, including those required to respond to a bio-terrorist attack, and building on civil protection modules of the Member States;

arrangements to share information, ensure coordination and enable collective decision-making in an emergency, particularly for terrorist attacks on more than one Member State."

The Council is therefore well aware of the importance of the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

The press has reported a number of allegations that the newly appointed President of the Islamic Republic of Iran was involved in terrorist acts, in particular the attack on the US Embassy in 1979 when diplomats were taken hostage, the murder of political prisoners in Iranian prisons in the early 1990s and planning the assassination of political dissidents in Europe throughout the 1990s.

Can the Council say what steps it has already taken to investigate these allegations?

Can it say whether it considers its statements regarding the fight against terrorism compatible with the support that it has repeatedly given to the authorities in Teheran, especially its assurance that it is ready to work with the new President of Iran?

(EN)The EU is not aware of the allegations mentioned in the questions of the Honourable Parliamentarian being corroborated by any investigations. In any event, the EU will judge Iran and its new President by their actions.

The EU has repeatedly underlined the importance it attaches to the fight against terrorism, which remains a matter of concern in relation to Iran. As the European Union stated following the Iranian elections in June, depending on the measures Iran takes in response to EU concerns relating to inter alia the fight against terrorism, the EU is ready to continue looking into ways of further developing political and economic cooperation with Iran. The EU policy on Iran is thus not only compatible with the fight against terrorism, but underlines the importance the EU attaches to this issue for EU-Iran relations.

Approximately four million people in Niger and Mali are facing a serious famine. A plague of locusts last year and the continuing drought have led to the loss of livestock and failed harvests, meaning that people in the area have lost their livelihoods and their food. People are eating grass and leaves as there is nothing else to eat.

This is the biggest crisis currently facing Africa. The UN has launched an appeal in which it estimates that USD 11 million are required for emergency humanitarian aid. However, only 25 per cent of that has so far been collected. Emergency aid is needed to help the people of Niger and Mali get through the summer until the next harvest in October.

Does the Council intend to increase food aid for the people of the Niger Basin?

(EN)From the locust crisis in 2004, the European Union and its member states has been actively contributing to palliate the famine in the Niger Basin. EU aid has been offered through Community and Member State contributions. In September 2004, the Commission channelled € 25.5 million through the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) for the anti-locust campaign in Senegal, Chad, Mauritania, Mali and Niger. Following the United Nations appeal in May 2005, the EC launched a € 4.6 million emergency decision for Niger together with a € 2 million decision for Mali, which had already received a 1.2 million package for food security operations. In early July, the Commission launched a second humanitarian decision for Niger, in the amount of € 1.7 million to support the food distribution efforts of the World Food Programme targeting the most vulnerable populations. Member States have also offered substantial contributions to palliate the food crisis in the region. In late July, the Commission’s humanitarian aid department sent an assessment team to Niger to evaluate the situation in the light of the operations already ongoing, and to facilitate coordination among all humanitarian actors, whether or not they are being financed by the European Commission. The EU will continue to follow the matter closely.

In view of the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by France and the Netherlands and the forthcoming referenda in other Member States, and the political will expressed by the institutions of the Union on the need to continue the ratification process, possibly with a more flexible timetable and starting with a period of reflection, dialogue and further clarification, what initiatives does the Council envisage taking in this direction?

Is the Council thinking of proposing that the Commission should take specific measures at both European and Member State level to inform European citizens more fully about the Constitutional Treaty and conduct a substantive dialogue on the European social model and the more general identity crisis in the construction of Europe as well as the future of Europe in various Member States? How does the Council evaluate the political communication and dialogue that has taken place so far?

(EN)Whilst Heads of State or Government agreed in June that the timetable for ratification of the Constitutional treaty would be altered if necessary in response to recent developments, decisions on this issue are a matter for individual Member States.

Agreement was also reached in June on the need for a period of reflection to enable a broad debate to take place in each Member State. Again, the organisation of this debate is primarily the responsibility of each Member State rather than the Council, although the institutions, in particular the Commission, will be able to make their own contribution.

The Council has not carried out any evaluation of the debates so far. It however welcomes in principle any initiative intended to improve the level of information available to Europe's citizens.

The Council Presidency is calling for yet more enhanced and rigorous controls on money flows in the fight against terrorism. How can this be achieved without gravely impeding genuine commercial and personal transactions with red tape and regulatory officiousness and without causing damage to European competitiveness?

(EN)The Presidency of the Council convened an extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 July 2005 in response to the London bombings. This led to the adoption of a Declaration in which the Council condemned the terrorist attacks on London. Besides strengthening its commitment to combating terrorism, the Council Declaration also gives immediate priority to building on the existing strong EU framework for pursuing and investigating terrorists across borders, in order to impede terrorists' planning, disrupt support networks, cut off any funding and bring terrorists to justice.

Among the various actions/measures mentioned in the Declaration, those concerning the financing of terrorism are considered to be priorities. The most important is the formal adoption of the Third Money Laundering Directive, which is scheduled for later this month. This Directive will be extended in scope to cover not only money laundering but also terrorist financing, and will in addition be widened to include certain persons, institutions and activities currently excluded. Another important tool is the Regulation on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, which will enter into force shortly. The Regulation aims at supplementing the Third Money Laundering Directive by providing a common system for cash controls at the EU's external borders. Finally, the Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Regulation on wire transfers ensuring full traceability of all international wire transfers. In order to avoid unintended and undesirable consequences of constantly stricter and more comprehensive CFT measures, all three legal acts have thresholds to avoid unnecessary interference with legitimate small-scale transactions. Moreover, the Third Money Laundering Directive is based on a risk-sensitive approach allowing authorities to adapt their efforts to the level of risk, thereby not only avoiding overloading the administrative system with low-risk cases but also protecting the right of citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to carry out their legitimate business in a competitive environment.

Member States are committed to the speedy adoption of the above-mentioned legislation and to implementing it in their national framework as soon as possible, and in any case within the given deadline. The Presidency also intends to make the funding of terrorism one of the main topics for discussion at an informal meeting of the Finance Ministers later this month and may subsequently take additional initiatives. The Council will continue to assess whether further measures at the European level are necessary and will present a enhanced Action Plan for combating terrorism to the December European Council.

In the light of the recent terrorist attacks in London and in other European countries, how does the Council envisage developing the successful role of the Joint Investigation Teams and other areas of cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the security services across the EU?

(EN)On several occasions in recent years, the Council has reiterated the strong commitment of the European Union to the fight against terrorism. The serious terrorist attacks which occurred in 2001 in the US, in 2004 in Madrid and last July in London have put these concerns at the top of the political agenda.

As regards the Joint Investigations Teams, only a few investigative teams have been set up to date. In 2003, in order to facilitate the use of the Joint Investigation Teams, the Council adopted a Recommendation on a model agreement, intended as a comprehensive but flexible model adaptable to the particular circumstances of each case.

In July 2005, the UK Presidency suggested and Member States approved the proposal for the designation of national experts on Joint Investigation Teams in each Member State. The initiative creates a network of national expert contact points for the purpose of sharing best practices and giving advice on the practical and legal matters. They should facilitate the work of police and judicial authorities in the setting up of Joint Investigation Teams. A first meeting of those experts will be hosted by Eurojust and Europol in November 2005. In addition, the Presidency has asked for Member States to submit information to them concerning Joint Investigation Teams that have been established up to now so all can have a clearer sense of how the Framework Decision is being operated.

To facilitate the exchange of information between all law enforcement authorities, the Council is considering a Swedish legislative initiative of June 2004 on serious offences, including terrorist acts.

The Council has set out its intention to reach an agreement on it by December 2005.

The Council also agreed in its Declaration of 13 July 2005 to adopt by September 2005 the Decision on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences. That Decision will repeal Decision 2003/48/JHA of 19 December 2002 by extending the scope of exchanges of information to all stages of criminal proceedings, including convictions, and to all individuals, groups or entities investigated or prosecuted for, or convicted of, terrorist offences.

First inconsistency - in the White Paper entitled 'Prospects for the EU in 2005', the UK states that the financial perspective must cover the needs of the new Member States. In its document entitled 'Financial Perspective - Why 1% is not realistic', the Commission explains that 1% of GDP entails a huge cutback in funding for Bulgaria and Romania as well as for the full integration of the 10 new Member States. Nor will the 1% enable an agreement to be reached to ensure financial balance between the 25. Second inconsistency - the strengthening of competitiveness urged by the UK Presidency is incompatible with its 1% proposal.

Ultimately, can the enlargement agenda be actively carried forward with a budget smaller than the level of commitments already agreed and without losses on the part of the old Member States? How does the Council intend to cooperate with the Commission and Parliament to break the current deadlock without losing competitiveness?

(EN)The Council has not yet concluded the Financial Perspective package. It is not therefore possible to respond to the Honourable Member's question without making assumptions about the size and shape of the eventual agreement. It is however already widely accepted that such an agreement will inevitably entail some reductions in each and every category of expenditure by comparison with the Commission proposal. It is also clear that the fifteen "old" Member States are ready to play their part in carrying forward the enlargement agenda.

The Council will continue to work closely with the Commission, and in cooperation with the Parliament, on resolving all the elements necessary in order to achieve an overall agreement as soon as possible.

In the light of the recent events in London, where four British-born young men were ready to carry out a suicide terror attack, we should ask ourselves what led to this and what kind of brain-washing incitement was influencing those individuals and communities. We welcome the fact that, after learning of the terrible incitement to and promotion of terrorism on Al Manar TV, the Spanish Government reacted by taking the Hizbullaah TV Al Manar off the satellite provider, as the French Utelsat and the Dutch New Skies Satellite (NSS) had previously done. It is to be hoped that, by the time this question is discussed, the French Globecast (providing the feed - via an up-link in Europe, and thus falling under the jurisdiction of Article 22a of the Television Without Frontiers Directive) will have done the same. That leaves us, EU citizens, exposed to the hate and incitement broadcast on Al Manar - received from the ArabSat and NielSat - Egyptian and Saudi satellite broadcasters.

What is the Council doing in this regard, and did the Council raise this question with the Egyptian and Saudi authorities? Will the Council raise the issue at the meeting of the EU-Egypt Association Council, to be held on 13 December 2005?

(EN)The Council, at its meeting of 23 May 2005 discussed the problem of incitement to hatred in broadcasting from countries outside the European Union, and took stock of work initiated to respond to the problems posed by the satellite broadcasting of non-EU channels in the European Union.

The Council kindly refers the Honourable Member to its reply to questions H-470, 554 and 561/05 presented at the Question Time of the part-session in July 2005.

As to the question of diffusion of al-Manar programmes via Egyptian and Saudi satellite providers, the Honourable Member is informed that to date, the Council has not raised the issue with the Egyptian and Saudi authorities.

Could the Council please indicate its priorities for the simplification of EU legislation and how it will cooperate with the Commission so as to ensure that these simplification plans are implemented?

(EN)The Council adopted Conclusions on the subject of better regulation and simplification of legislation on 25 November 2004, agreeing on a list of priorities for simplification of Community legislation ⁽¹⁾. This list, which covers 15 legal acts in different sectors, was submitted to the Commission with an invitation to include these acts in future updates of its rolling programme for simplification. The Council expects the Commission to take appropriate measures in response to this list of priorities, welcoming, in the meantime, the Commission's initiative to invite the Member States to communicate their respective priorities for simplification directly to the Commission as part of its ongoing work in this area.

The Council expects the Commission to report on the outcome of this initiative by October this year where after the Council will assess the situation and address the issues of better regulation and simplification of legislation in a policy debate at the November session of the Council with a view to adopting Conclusions.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Council remains strongly committed to a close and constructive co-operation with the European Parliament and the Commission in this high priority area.

Will the Council give details of its intentions with regard to cofinancing the CAP, bearing in mind the need to ensure that farmers in the individual Member States are not disadvantaged and that the principles of the single market are maintained?

(EN)Financing of the common agricultural policy as currently constituted is based on two different types of measure: firstly, direct aid, in particular for funding support measures for the agricultural sectors and, secondly, aid for rural development and accompanying measures.

Measures of the second type are co-financed from the Community budget, which consequently entails financial expenditure by the Member States and possibly farmers. The amount of this aid is limited so as not to infringe free competition rules and in order to comply with the principles of the single market.

The Council has to date received no legislative proposal from the Commission that would lead to alteration of this structure. Accordingly, the rules and principles of the internal market remain in force.

In its annual report, the Joint Supervisory Authority (JSA) reveals that the Schengen information system contains files illegally opened on demonstrators at international protest rallies, observing that this is a dangerous departure, made even more so by the fact that organisations with repressive powers such as EUROPOL have access to this information, which is, in addition, being forwarded to and supplemented by the American authorities. At the recent meeting of the Council of Ministers for Justice convened in response to the London bombings, the JSA’s findings were totally disregarded and it was decided as a matter of routine to keep files on all those concerned resident in the EU and to monitor their communications.

Whom is the EU actually targeting? Why are files being kept on all participants at mass protests as if they were common criminals? Does the Council not consider this to be a direct infringement of some of the very individual freedoms and democratic rights embodied in the Member States’ Constitutions?

(EN)The Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement does not provide a legal basis for introducing a category of persons referred to as "demonstrators", "violent troublemakers" or "hooligans" in the SIS. Neither does a technical implementation exist for introducing this type of data on persons.

Article 96 of the said Convention allows information to be entered in the SIS about aliens to be refused entry to the Schengen area. There have been suggestions that Schengen states might be creating alerts on individuals such as anti-globalisation demonstrators using the provisions of Article 96.

These and other considerations led the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority to carry out an inspection on the use of Article 96 alerts in the Schengen Information System.

On 20 June 2005 the JSA published its report on the Article 96 inspection.

The report includes the following phrase : "No reports were received that data were processed on so called anti-globalisation demonstrators."

The adoption of EU legislation on the retention of telecommunications data is not related to the application of the Schengen Information System.

In the interests of transparency and respect for the elected Parliament, what measures are being introduced in Council to ensure that Parliament's views, as expressed in resolutions, are taken fully into account and properly addressed? I am thinking in particular of Parliament’s recent resolution on Zimbabwe.

(EN)The Council can assure the Honourary Parliamentarian that the Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament are always studied with the outmost interest and attention.

The percentage of young people in Europe is expected to fall considerably in the coming decades. It is a general realisation that large numbers of children are living in European countries in conditions of poverty and social exclusion.

Will the UK Presidency propose measures to safeguard in law the right of disadvantaged social groups of young people to take part in the Community acquis and will it take particular measures to improve their living conditions, education and vocational development so that they do not become victims of exploitation?

(EN)As the Honourable Parliamentarian is certainly aware, at its heart, the Lisbon strategy promotes the idea of a positive interaction between economic, employment and social policies. It aims at promoting a model of sustainable development for the Union which raises the standard of living of all European citizens by combining economic growth with a strong emphasis on social cohesion and the preservation of the environment. In so doing, it stresses the need to improve EU level coordination mechanisms in order to foster consistent and mutually reinforcing policies in the economic, employment and social areas.

While robust economic and employment growth is a vital precondition for the sustainability of social protection systems, progress in achieving higher levels of social cohesion is, together with effective education and training systems, a key factor in promoting growth.

In this context, the latest Joint Commission and Council report on social protection and inclusion, in the framework of the application of the open method of co-ordination (OMC), stresses that the measures taken by Member States mainly aim at preventing early departure from formal education and training, facilitating the transition from school to work, in particular of school leavers with low qualifications, increasing access to education and training for disadvantaged groups and integrating them into mainstream provision and promoting lifelong learning, including e-learning, for all. Many recognise the need to invest more, and more efficiently, in human capital at all ages.

Eliminating child poverty is also seen as a key step in combating the intergenerational inheritance of poverty. Particular focus is given to early intervention and early education in support of disadvantaged children and enhancing income support and assistance to families and single parents. Several countries also put increasing emphasis on promoting the rights of the child as a basis for policy development.

The Joint report does, however, stress that a lot has still to be done both at national and EU level to achieve the overall aim of the social inclusion process. In particular, Member States should strengthen the mainstreaming of social inclusion objectives across all EU policies, make greater use of the OMC's potential to contribute to effective delivery and ensure that Structural Funds continue to play a key role in promoting social inclusion.

The forthcoming evaluation process, to take place in 2005, should focus on delivery in order to prepare for a new cycle of the OMC after 2006. The Member States and the Commission should particularly assess how national strategies can be made more effective by the use of targets, benchmarks and indicators, better links with economic and employment policies, effective monitoring and evaluation provisions and the use of the structural funds. The extent to which national strategies have been able to involve local and regional government, social partners and other stakeholders, and to contribute to raising awareness about poverty and social exclusion should also be assessed.

The issue of youth employment has already been the subject of a thorough debate at the informal meeting of the Ministers of Employment and Social Policy in Belfast, on 7-8 July 2005, during which Ministers agreed on the urgent need to implement specific measures. The annual Social Inclusion Round Table, which will be held in Glasgow on 17-19 October, will concentrate on the key priorities set out in the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, in particular as regards youth employment and training. In addition, the European Social Fund Conference in Manchester on 14 October will examine how the Fund is supporting national policies to promote employment opportunities for all.

What plans does the Council have to implement the statement made in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making that the European Parliament and the Council may, on the basis of jointly defined criteria and procedures, have impact assessments carried out prior to the adoption of any substantive amendment at first reading or at the conciliation stage? Is the Council prepared to make this procedure a reality in the case of the draft directive revising the Bathing Waters Directive and the draft directive on battery recycling?

(EN)In relation to the specific examples of environmental legislation mentioned by the Honourable Member of Parliament, the situation is the following:

The Presidency understands the importance of impact assessments being carried out in line with the agreed interinstitutional objectives of better regulation in future. These issues should be further explored between the three Institutions in the ongoing work under the Interinstitutional Agreement, with a view to reaching agreement on a methodology for such impact assessments.

The draft Directive on batteries and accumulators was chosen as a pilot project for an impact assessment of possible substantive amendments by the Council during its first reading. This impact assessment was carried out during the second semester of 2004 with the support and guidance of the Dutch Presidency. The Council's common position was formally adopted in July 2005. The Council does not foresee another impact assessment on this legislative proposal. Concerning the draft Directive on bathing water, which has reached the stage of conciliation, the Council does not envisage carrying out a specific Council impact assessment.

On the basis of experience gained, negotiations have been initiated within the high-level group with a view to establishing common principles at the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. A text was examined at the last meeting of the group and should be approved shortly.

In the year which celebrates the 60th anniversary of the victory over fascism, the German Agency responsible for the defence of the constitution has classified the International Federation of Resistance Movements (FIR) in its report for 2004 as 'hostile to the institutions' and as a 'leftwing extremist organisation'. FIR, which incorporates resistance movements from nearly all European countries and Israel which fought to liberate Europe from the fascist yoke, has issued a statement describing the decision as a political scandal and calling for the removal of the above descriptions.

Does the Council consider that this act is slanderous of resistance fighters and their movements and constitutes another attempt to rewrite history? Will the Council take measures to give the resistance the respect it deserves and to ensure that government agencies do not take action or issue statements of an unacceptable nature which are offensive to the historical memory of the peoples of Europe and thousands of resistance fighters?

(EN)The question raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Council and therefore the Council is not in a position to discuss it.

I have received various requests for help from members of the public and professional associations who are most concerned about professional international lorry drivers from Spain who are imprisoned in appalling conditions – notably in Morocco – for being used without their knowledge as mules for smuggling goods and/or trafficking illegal substances or materials. The fact is that lorry drivers currently do not have the means to check the goods in their holds. They are arrested at borders and charged as though they alone bear the responsibility for transporting the material in question. Once the drivers are imprisoned and the lorries are impounded, most companies keep quiet and end up abandoning the drivers, who have to deal with the situation alone.

Is the Commission aware of this? Does the Commission know whether the situation has occurred or is occurring at other external EU borders, what the extent of it is and whether other drivers are affected? How does the Commission think that drivers’ rights and the presumption of innocence can be guaranteed? What practical steps – i.e. sealed cargo, the validation of road freight convention documents, or voluntary checks – could be taken to prevent illegal freight transport? How might the assistance provided by EU delegations to drivers imprisoned abroad be improved and made more effective?

(EN)Firstly, to the Commission’s knowledge, there is no international legislation in relation to carriers’ liability for smuggling of drugs. Neither is there any legislation at EU level covering this matter.

The Commission is aware of this issue but it is not in the position, at this stage, neither to ascertain the extent of the situation nor to know to what degree other drivers are affected.

In respect of the powers of the Commission, it should first be emphasised that it is unable, either in third countries or the EU, to intervene neither in individual cases nor in the day-to-day running of the national criminal justice systems.

However, nationals of the European Union who find themselves in this type of situation in a third country benefit from the protection of the Consul of their Member State of origin. If the national has no representation from his own country he can benefit from the protection of a Consul of any other Member State as a consequence of Article 20 of the EC Treaty.

In relation to the protection of the individual’s rights and the presumption of innocence, two Conventions are applicable. Within Europe, the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the ECHR) sets forth a number of fundamental rights and freedoms. These rights are mirrored at international level, notably in the 1966 United Nations (UN) Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN Covenant is relevant in respect of Morocco which is not a party to the Council of Europe.

The ECHR, in particular Articles 5 and 6, guarantees the rights of individuals who find themselves subject to criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the provisions of the 1st Protocol number to the ECHR on protection of private property and the relevant case law, are also pertinent where a vehicle is seized and confiscated.

In terms of the practical steps, this is certainly something that can be examined further. Indeed for several years now the European Commission has been engaged in constructive dialogue with industry in this area. A Carriers’ liability round table takes place ever year at which this subject may be brought up.

In February 2002, Hindu extremists instigated mass violence against the Muslim population of the Indian state of Gujarat, including rape, murder and the destruction of homes and businesses. In August 2004, the Supreme Court of India issued a key decision ordering that more than two thousand complaints and approximately two hundred cases, which had previously resulted in acquittals, be reviewed. Over one year since that decision, the perpetrators continue to walk free amongst their victims, whose lives were ruined by merciless and targeted violence.

Given that the strategic partnership between the European Union and India entails the pursuit of dialogue on democracy and human rights, what steps does the Commission plan to take to put pressure on the Government of India to fulfil its obligations under international law and bring to justice those responsible for the 2002 mass killing of two thousand Muslims in the State of Gujarat?

(EN)The promotion of human rights worldwide is an important aspect of EU foreign policy. It is a matter of identity for the EU. The Commission systematically raises human rights issues with all its partners. Not one country in the world, including EU Member States, has a perfect human rights record; therefore no State should be immune from international scrutiny.

India is no exception to this principle. The 2004 Commission Communication on “A Strategic Partnership with India” and the draft EU-India Action to be endorsed at the upcoming EU-India Summit include explicit provisions on human rights. The EU-India partnership goes beyond shared political and economic interests – it is also value-driven. The Commission takes the view that the EU and India, as the world’s largest democracies, should be able to address all human rights concerns in a frank and open manner. This is the mark of a mature relationship.

The EU Troika and India have, since 2003, held regular consultations on human rights in New Delhi. During these consultations, the EU has consistently emphasized the importance of the pursuit of justice with regard to the events of Gujarat and encouraged the Government of India to provide rehabilitation and support to the communities affected by violence. It has welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court of India, in August last year, imposing a review of several hundred complaints and judicial cases related to the Gujarat events. It also welcomes the Indian Government’s intention to introduce legislation aimed at preventing discrimination and violence between communities. Given India’s commitment to democracy and rule of law, The Commission is confident that those responsible for the atrocities committed in Gujarat will be held to account.

Could the Commission advise how much funding Boeing and Airbus have respectively received in the past five years from the European Investment Bank? Is it appropriate for the EIB to fund a non-EU company which is in head-to-head competition with a vital European Union company?

(EN)Between 2000 and 2004, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has signed € 1.9 billion of loans in favour of projects promoted by airlines companies involving aircraft acquisition. 72% of this financing involved aircraft manufactured by Airbus and 14% aircraft manufactured by Boeing. The situation has become more favourable for Airbus aircraft only in recent years. Before that, between 1990 and 2001, the EIB funded the acquisition of more Boeing than Airbus aircraft by European airlines.

Under Article 267 of the EC Treaty, the task of the EIB is to contribute to the balanced and steady development of the common market in the interest of the Community. For this purpose the Bank grants loans and gives guarantees which facilitate the financing of projects in all sectors of the economy.

The documentary ‘Darwin’s Nightmare’ by the Austrian director Hubert Sauper, currently being screened in France, raises many questions regarding the management of European development funds in Africa.

In the space of a few years, intensive fishing of the Nile perch, an EU-subsidised activity, has ravaged a whole ecosystem by progressively killing off all the others species of fish, and destroyed the traditional fabric of society around Lake Victoria. The fish no longer end up on local stalls, but are taken to factories, from which thousands of carefully filleted portions are flown daily to Europe. At the same time, the press reports famine in Tanzania and food aid, and the situation described in this film is terrible.

If the facts reported in this documentary are inaccurate, they should be responded to. If they are true, can the Commission explain the decision-making process which led to these absurd and intolerable situations, and take steps to remedy them?

(FR)The Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria, together with four species of tilapia, in the 1950s. This has led to a profound change to the ecosystem of the lake. The large-scale fishing of the Nile perch began in the 1990s with the establishment of several fish-filleting factories by private companies.

The European Union was involved in neither the introduction of the Nile perch into the lake nor in the establishment of these factories and has had no involvement, therefore, in the intensive fishing of this species. According to the information available to the Commission, the documentary referred to in the question does not make any such allegation either. The only connection established by the documentary between the fishing of the Nile perch in Lake Victoria and the cooperation activities of the European Union in the fishing sector in Tanzania – which was unfortunately out of context and hence misleading – relates to European assistance for improving the production conditions and health controls for the fisheries products of local small and medium-sized businesses. Tanzania is one of some 60 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries benefiting from this sectoral programme, which is intended to improve access for ACP countries’ fisheries products to the world market and hence to reduce poverty.

The fishing industry around Lake Victoria provides jobs for more than half a million Tanzanians. There has been a considerable change to the incomes of the local population over the last two decades. The large-scale exporting of Nile perch – a fish which has incidentally never been part of the local population’s traditional diet – has unquestionably improved the standard of living of local communities living beside the lake and is in line with the principle of sustainable development since it assists local small and medium-sized businesses.

What is the Commission’s view on providing for open access to scientific research that is funded by the Community under the upcoming 7th Framework Programme for Research, either online or in subscription-based scientific journals, or on a single searchable database which anybody can access free?

(EN)The Commission already provides information relating to the results of scientific research projects supported under the EU Research Framework Programmes. Project details (including an abstract of the project) are published on the Cordis (Community Research and Development Information Service) website () after the signature of the EC contract. In addition, information relating to the results of EU-supported projects is available in the Cordis Technology Marketplace database. The access to this service is free.

Projects financed by the sixth EU Research Framework Programmes (FP6) are required to provide a publishable version of their reports. In addition, the EC contract requires the contractors to use and/or disseminate the knowledge arising from the project and to describe their plans for doing so in a “Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge”. If project partners do not use and/or disseminate the knowledge generated by the project, the Commission has the right to protect the results and to disseminate them itself.

Similar provisions are foreseen under the forthcoming seventh Framework Programmes (FP7).

23 June 2005 saw considerable delays and cancellations of flights at Charles de Gaulle airport, or at least at its Terminal 2D.

Passengers affected by cancelled flights were repeatedly informed by Air France personnel that unless they were in transit from an earlier flight they had no right to compensation or assistance, as they were considered 'local passengers', their sole entitlement being the reimbursement of their fares by the travel agency where they had bought their tickets.

In view of the above, can the Commission state: if it believes Air France's response to be correct; if it knows whether Regulation (EC) No 261/2004⁽¹⁾ of the European Parliament and Council on compensation and assistance to air passengers has been transposed and is in force in France and in the rest of the Member States; what measures it intends to take in cases of non-compliance; and what measures Air France should be asked to take in the present case?

(FR)The explanations apparently given by Air France to the effect that ‘local passengers’ are not subject to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights has no justification in that regulation.

That regulation does not provide for an exception for ‘local passengers’. Instead, it applies to all passengers whether in transit or not who are subject to a delay or cancellation of a flight.

In the event of cancellation, passengers have the right to compensation, under certain conditions, as well as assistance (food, and accommodation if the proposed alternative flight is on the following day) and the possibility of reimbursement or re-routing to the final destination according to the passenger’s choice. An air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it is able to prove that the cancellation is due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been prevented.

In accordance with Article 16(2) of the Regulation, passengers may now have recourse, if necessary, to the national control bodies with particular competence for dealing with their complaints and disputes with air companies. It does not therefore fall to the Commission to take a position on this case at this stage.

The Commission is careful to ensure the application of this regulation by the Member States and monitors that application by the airlines. In this regard, and given that it is important to ensure uniform application of the regulation throughout Europe, the Commission has just opened up infringement procedures against certain Member States who are late in implementing certain provisions of this regulation. These countries have not yet taken the steps necessary to establish the sanctions to be imposed on air companies in the event of infringement. France is not one of these Member States.

On 21 June, the Stockholm City Court ordered the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Expressen to pay a fine because the newspaper had published advertisements for gambling and betting activities legally operated in the UK. It is not an offence for a Swedish citizen to become a customer of the companies concerned but it is an offence to promote, in Sweden, participation in betting activities offered in another Member State. The relevant legal provisions (Article 54 of the Law) apply only to the promotion of foreign betting activities etc. and they apply regardless of the legality of those activities in the country of origin and regardless of whether the country of origin is another Member State. When provision was made for introducing the offence, the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) advised that there was such a significant risk that it was contrary to EC law that it should not be implemented, unless it could be shown that the ban on the promotion of foreign gambling in Sweden, and therefore the proposed provisions defining such activity as an offence, did not constitute inadmissible discrimination. The editor-in-chief requested the City Court to obtain a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a request which the City Court dismissed. Instead, he was found guilty of an offence.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the Swedish courts request a preliminary ruling in this important matter, which has never been put before the Court of Justice before, and how will the Commission address and remedy the discrimination to which the Swedish provisions obviously give rise?

(EN)In response to the Honourable Member’s question the Commission should first state that its services has not received this complaint regarding the advertisement of gambling and betting services in Sweden. The Commission is willing to examine the matter on the basis of further information, but it does not have the power to instruct the Swedish authorities to put the matter before the European Court of Justice. It is however important for Member States to note that the Court of Justice has consistently held that gambling services are covered by the Treaty provisions guaranteeing freedom of establishment and cross border service provision. The Court has specified that restrictions may be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, such as consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander on gaming. It has also ruled that restrictions based on such grounds and on the need to preserve public order must also be suitable for achieving those objectives, inasmuch as they must serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner.

The Commission is aware of the problems in general in the internal market in relation to the provision and promotion of gambling services. It is for this reason that the Commission has commissioned a study on the gambling and gaming sector in the EU. The study will look at a wide variety of such services and will also report on the various laws applicable in the Member States. The Commission has not decided whether or not to take action in this field, but can say that it expects the results of the study to assist us all in better understanding the issues involved.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a fact of life for more than 50 years. Today there appears to some prospect of progress towards peace. Civilians, and Palestinian women in particular, have paid a heavy price and are continuing to do so. The conflict has exacerbated poverty, unemployment and health problems resulting in pressures and constraints on Palestinian women who are often physically abused by their husbands or fathers because of certain interpretations of traditional or religious customs. As the European Union has a role to play in the peace negotiations, can it not require the Israeli authorities to guarantee access to medical centres for all, and especially for pregnant Palestinian women, and require the Palestinian authorities to take steps to end violence against women and ensure that 'crimes of honour' are regarded as serious criminal offences?

(EN)Disengagement from Gaza offers an historic opportunity. If we can capitalise on the positive effects of disengagement and return to the Roadmap process, there is a very real chance of progress. I agree with the Honourable Member that women should play an important role in this process.

Palestinian women have suffered greatly from the ongoing conflict. The Commission is active in improving conditions and promoting women’s rights.

The Commission is working closely with both Palestinian and Israel authorities to ensure unimpeded access to medical aid, through developing the Palestinian health system to better cater for women and children and calling for an easing of Israeli movement restrictions.

The Commission has actively encouraged the emergence of a vibrant Palestinian civil society with a leading role for women. The Commission has, for instance, supported programmes and campaigns to encourage women to actively participate in elections both as voters and candidates.

The Commission has supported a number of projects through its Partnership for Peace programme on issues related to women and the empowerment for women. The overall objective of this programme is to promote peace, tolerance and non-violence.

In the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU has adopted a Joint Action Plan with the Palestinian Authority (PA) containing commitments to promote women’s rights and ensure equal treatment and opportunities. The Commission intends to follow this up through the implementation of the EC-PA Interim Association Agreement.

The Colombian government has recently passed a law through Congress, with the resounding support of Members with links to paramilitary groups, guaranteeing paramilitaries de facto impunity and thus also enabling known drug traffickers to escape justice.

This law has been strongly criticised by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' representative in Colombia and by all human rights organisations.

At Cartagena the European Commission made it clear that the continuation of its aid to Colombia was conditional upon a legal framework for the demobilisation of paramilitaries.

What stance does the Commission intend to adopt following this decision by the Colombian government in support of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and which represents a serious attack on the rights of victims to secure truth, justice and compensation?

(EN)The Commission has taken note of the adoption on 22 June of the so-called “Justice and Peace” Law by the Colombian Congress.

The Commission and Member States are currently analysing the text and its political implications, taking into account the Council Conclusion of December 2004. Doing so, they consult widely, including inter alia with the Government of Colombia, civil society, the G24 and the United Nations.

The Commission is participating in this assessment and will be guided in this regard by the principles which continue to define its policy towards Colombia, namely respect for human rights and the rule of law.

On 21 June 2005, Ebdal Karimi, a civil servant and instructor for the Dena Hiking Club, had his house in Isfahan (Iran) raided by agents of the Intelligence Ministry of the Iranian regime, and was taken away to an unknown destination.

The agents (six men, some armed and some in civilian clothing) also confiscated his satellite dish and his son's computer.

Ebdal Karimi, aged 48, is a well-known mountaineer who has already given instruction in mountaineering to scores of groups of students throughout Iran. He was earlier imprisoned for two years thanks to his trade union activity in representation of the workers of a civil construction company.

Is the Commission aware of this case? Does it have information on the whereabouts of Ebdal Karimi? Will it make representatives to the Iranian regime to obtain explanations concerning this arrest and guarantees that Mr Karimi's human rights are being fully respected?

(EN)The Commission has limited information regarding the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member. There was indeed a report from the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) about Mr Ebadal Karimi’s disappearance in June but it has been difficult to obtain substantiation or independent confirmation of this report. The Commission understands that questions relating to this case were recently posed in the British House of Commons, but that the lack of sufficiently detailed information made it impossible for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to verify the claims of Mr Karimi’s disappearance.

The Commission continues to be preoccupied by the Human Rights situation in Iran, including in the area of abductions and forced disappearances. Together with the Member States, the Commission monitors the situation closely and act through the various instruments at its disposal. The Honourable Member is, of course, aware that the Commission does this bilaterally as well as multilaterally through the United Nations, and that we have attempted to pursue a targeted human rights dialogue with Iran – with participation of the Parliament – since December 2002. Whenever deemed effective, and based on sufficiently detailed and reliable reports, the EU can also carry out demarches to Iranian authorities regarding individual cases.

The Commission continues to monitor the situation and seek to verify, with different organisations and sources, reports on individual cases such as the one raised by the Honourable Member.

Is the Commission aware of a recent report by a board of inquiry into a major leak at the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) THORP nuclear reprocessing facility plant in Sellafield?

Is the Commission aware that the board of inquiry found evidence that 83 000 litres of radioactive material, containing 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium, spilled into a concrete containment tank and that BNFL staff had failed to identify the rupture for nine months due to ‘operational complacency’?

Does the Commission share the major concerns about the operation of the facility by neighbouring countries, which were not informed of this potential disaster until weeks after the discovery?

(EN)The Commission is aware that on 22 April 2005, British Nuclear Group reported in a press release that a pipe had failed in the feed clarification cell in the THORP plant at Sellafield resulting in a quantity of dissolved nuclear fuel being released into a sealed, contained area.

The assessment of the operation safety status of the plant is a matter for the United Kingdom competent authorities. It is worth noting in this context that the respective EU legislation, Council Decision 87/600/EURATOM of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency, does not oblige Member States to report such incidents.

The Commission was informed by BNG about the exact amount of leaked liquid as well as the amount of uranium and plutonium it contained. According to that information, it had escaped from a fractured pipe into a thick-walled concrete cell (secondary containment), which was specifically designed to handle the event of failure of the primary containment. The information also holds that the event has neither caused harm to any individuals nor led to the release of radioactivity to the environment. The Commission is also aware of the fact that the leak was only discovered after several months.

A verification visit to the Sellafield site under Article 35 of the EURATOM Treaty was carried out by the Commission on 8-12 March 2004, during which the installations to monitor the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil were checked and compliance with the basic safety standards was verified.

The Commission sees this as a serious incident and is considering whether any action needs to be taken with a view to ascertaining compliance with the provisions of the Euratom Treaty.

The Commission will be aware of the existence of unwanted software which inundates home computers with an annoying barrage of pop-up ads, which are often extremely difficult to remove.

The Commission will also be aware that many household-name companies acknowledge that they use ‘adware’ and ‘cookie-base’ advertising to reach potential customers, and that these programs have the potential to monitor online surfing or extract personal information.

In the US, law enforcement is currently targeting the transmitters of these unsolicited and unwanted programs and are threatening to hold accountable household-name advertisers that use adware networks.

Will the Commission consider adopting a similar attitude in the European Union?

(EN)Cookies, adware and spyware, and similar types of software are regulated in Art. 5 – 3 of the e 2002/58/EC. Under this provision, accessing any user’s terminal equipment like a PC or a mobile phone, or storing information on that equipment is only allowed if the user is given clear information about the purpose of such activities, and if the user is offered the right to refuse it.

However, a distinction between “good” and “bad” software programmes in line with recital 25 of the ePrivacy Directive has to be made. Devices such as cookies for instance can be a legitimate and useful tool to analyse the effectiveness of website design and advertising, or to verify the identity of users engaged in on-line transactions. Therefore, when such devices are intended for a legitimate purpose, their use is allowed on the condition that users are provided with clear and precise information, and with a right to refuse it. The situation is different for malicious software, which purpose is in essence to harm a computer system or its user. These forms of malware are clearly banned by virtue from the ePrivacy Directive.

As it is generally the case with EU Directives, the choice of remedies and penalties – and enforcement tools - lies with the Member States. However, in February 2005, the Member States have gone further than the ePrivacy Directive by adopting the ‘Framework Decision on Illegal Attacks against Information Systems’. Under this framework, spyware-related activities such as illegal access and interference with information systems have to be punished with criminal penalties of no less than between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment, and no less than between 2 and 5 years if committed by organised crime.

However, legislation is not enough and may only produce expected results if combined with other measures such as complementary enforcement measures, industry cooperation including standardisation, research activities resulting in efficient technical countermeasures, and better-user awareness. As far as enforcement measures are concerned, the EU has a Contact Network of Spam Authorities (CNSA) that aims to ease enforcement cooperation between national authorities on spam and related issues. The last meeting of this network was mainly devoted to spyware – often spread via spam – and the challenges it represents for enforcement authorities and industry.

Spam, spyware and adware are just examples of many security threats which risk undermining the value of the Internet and electronic communications. The Commission is therefore planning to propose a Strategy for a Secure Information Society that would help making electronic communications networks safer from fraudsters, harmful content and technology failures, and increase trust amongst investors and consumers. The Strategy is likely to focus on combining and updating the instruments available, including raising awareness, need for self-protection, support to targeted research, alignment of policies among the Member States on a voluntary basis, and encouraging industry self-regulation.

Another big step to improve Internet security was taken by the Commission in 2004 when ENISA, the European Network and Information Security Agency, was established. The Agency has already hired its first staff and developed its work programme. In August 2005, ENISA established itself in its headquarters in Heraklion in Greece and will soon become fully operational. ENISA will help the Community, the Member States and consequently the business community to prevent, to address and to respond to major network and information security risks.

Is the Commission aware that the aid agency Oxfam has had to pay $1m in customs duty to the Sri Lankan authorities in Colombo for importing a number of vehicles 'essential to negotiate damaged roads and rough tracks' and which are intended to help the recovery effort in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster?

Is the Commission aware that the Sri Lankan authorities refused tax exemption to this important NGO, impounded the vehicles for one month for 'administrative' reasons and subsequently charged $5,000 'demurrage' for every day they stood idle?

So as not to delay the relief effort the NGO in question had no option but to pay the 300% import tax.

Does the Commission agree that tsunami aid from peoples and governments round the world was not intended to swell the coffers of the beneficiary countries, and will the Commission undertake to raise this question with the Sri Lankan authorities?

(EN)Sri Lanka's government has defended the $1m customs duty it charged the charity Oxfam for bringing in 25 off-road vehicles for tsunami aid work. Finance Minister Sarath Amanagama said the rules applied to all and exceptions were not being made for charities.

Sri Lanka waived duty on tsunami relief for the first four months after the disaster but warned all organisations that the tax would then be reintroduced. The government has said it was worried that the exemption was being abused to bring in non-essential items.

Although Oxfam knew that the tax would be reintroduced, the Commission considers that non-governmental organisations and organisations participating in the reconstruction of Sri Lanka should be exempted from having to pay such a tax during the period of reconstruction and rehabilitation.

The Commission will continue to support this exemption in its discussions with the government of Sri Lanka, as it is urgent and necessary to remove all the existing obstacles to the rapid delivery of aid. It wants to stress the fact that this exemption should be granted by local authorities which should indeed keep control of the whole exemption period. This exemption period will strictly correspond to the reconstruction period.

On 22 June 2005 the Commission submitted to the Council its proposal for the reform of the COM in sugar, which, in view of the price reductions it proposes, the insufficient and partial compensation to farmers amounting to only 60% of the decoupled payment, and the progressive abandonment of production and decline of the industry in areas such as southern Spain in favour of 'more competitive' locations, could be interpreted as a reform that is not compatible with the principles of the CAP.

The principles of the CAP as set out in the Treaties call for the preservation of an income level for all producers which, in the present state of amendment of the regulation, does not appear to be guaranteed.

Does the Commission consider that its proposal on sugar and beet, which protects the more competitive producers to the detriment of certain areas suffering from severe depopulation risks that have already had to accept the reductions imposed by other reforms (as in the case of cotton in Andalusia), is compatible with the principles of the CAP as set out in the Treaties?

(EN)There is no alternative to a profound reform, only with a reform that enhances the competitiveness and the market-orientation of the European Union sugar sector, a viable long-term future for the producers can be assured. Besides, the sugar sector has to become integrated in the Common Agricultural Policy reform process.

Adjustments will have to be made by all producers, in competitive and less competitive regions, but 60% of the fall in the sugar beet price will be compensated by a decoupled payment.

In addition to that, the Reform proposals aim at allowing producers to continue their agricultural activities and there are aid measures foreseen for producers who have to give up and replace their beet production in order to help them to change to other crops for which there is a market demand.

The Turkish government recently submitted to the Turkish Parliament a draft law on the immovable property of minority institutions, which had been illegally confiscated by the Directorate-General for Foundations. Under the draft law, only immovable property that has been transferred to the State is to be returned to its owners and not property that has been sold to private individuals. The Directorate-General for Foundations has already gone ahead with mass sales, which means that when the time comes to return the assets they will be in private hands. It should also be pointed out that the return of immovable property will not take place until after an appeal by interested parties in the Turkish courts, which will decide the final outcome. The Commission has already written to the Turkish authorities urging them to withdraw the relevant legislation.

What is the Turkish authorities' reaction to the representations made by the European Union and what measures does the Commission intend to take in the event of the Turkish government refusing to withdraw this legislation? What action will it take to give real protection to the property rights of religious minorities, particularly bearing in mind the start of accession negotiations with Turkey?

(EN)The Commission has on many occasions raised the issue of freedom of religion with the Turkish authorities. In particular, it has conveyed its view that the draft Law on Foundations currently before Parliament - while an improvement on previous drafts - still fails to satisfactorily address a number of issues affecting the functioning of those non-Muslim religious communities possessing foundations.

The draft law raises questions in relation to the management of the religious communities’ foundations, their property rights and the legal personality of the communities.

On 30 June, on request of the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for EU Affairs, representatives of the Commission Delegation in Ankara presented the Commission’s views on the draft law. The Turkish authorities have also informed the Commission that its views have been transmitted to all relevant persons and institutions.

The EU is an important actor in the international arena. When it takes action at intergovernmental conferences and when it concludes agreements with third countries, this has significant implications. In this connection the EU should promote human rights.

An EU authority for fundamental rights is to be established, and in June the Commission submitted its proposal concerning such an authority. At the same time, preparations are in progress for the setting-up of an EU External Action Service, a foreign affairs administration for the Union. Cooperation between these two will determine how effectively the EU succeeds in asserting the position of human rights in the world.

How will the Commission ensure that decision-makers receive the appropriate documentation on the human rights situation in a given country as a basis for their decisions, for example before an agreement is signed with a third country or before an intergovernmental conference?

(EN)The promotion of human rights is a pivotal aspect of the EU’s action, both in the context of external action – through the Common Foreign and Security Policy and development co-operation – and in the internal context.

Decision-makers involved in human rights policy-making and execution already have access to a wide range of documentation and support, from Commission sources and elsewhere. This includes, for example, briefings by human rights experts within the Commission, which regularly draw on the information set out in the human rights fact sheets (these are updated by Heads of Mission for most third countries every year). It also includes publicly available material such as the EU Annual Report on Human Rights - to which the Commission makes a major contribution each year - and the extensive information available on our website. In addition, EC officials regularly access the reports on human rights issues which are available from external sources, such as the United Nations Treaty Bodies and Special Rapporteurs, the Council of Europe and non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

As regards information on situation of fundamental rights in the European Union and its Member States, the Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, set up by the Commission at the request of the Parliament, presents both an annual report and thematic report and opinions on specific issues related to the protection of human rights in the Union. Furthermore, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia delivers data on phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism at EU level. Along the expertise of the EC officials, this information serves the decision-makers when dealing with matters relating to human rights situation in the Union and its Member States.

The Fundamental Rights Agency, the establishment of which the Commission proposed on 30th June 2005, would contribute to defining of the Union fundamental rights policy by data collection and analysis in this field. The Agency would in the first place concern itself with the situation of fundamental rights in the EU and in its Member States when implementing Community law as well as in those candidate countries which participate in the Agency.

The Fundamental Rights Agency may also have a contribution to make in terms of the EU’s insight into the human rights situation in third countries: the Commission proposal of 30th June 2005 envisages that the Commission may request information and analysis on the fundamental rights situation in countries with which the Community has concluded an association agreement or an agreement including a human rights clause, or with which the Community has opened or intends to open negotiations regarding such agreement.

The Commission is therefore confident that, not only are decision makers receiving the appropriate information on human rights, but that the sources of such information will only become richer in the future.

When, together with members of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, I attended a working breakfast with the Commission President, Mr Barroso, in Strasbourg during the May part-session, we received the very welcome and important promise that all the Commissioners would draw up plans which, taken in conjunction with one another, would constitute a Commission roadmap for equality. Even if, in many Member States, we have made considerable progress regarding certain aspects of equality, much still remains to be done in order to get the better of problems such as trafficking, violence committed by men against women, wage discrimination and differences in the preconditions for good health - problems which should not exist in Europe in the 21st century. My question therefore is a twofold one: when will the roadmap be presented, and what will it contain?

(FR)The current framework strategy for equality between men and women covers all Community policies and encompasses all initiatives within a single framework by using a combination of instruments: legislation, funding by means of programmes and the Structural Funds, the development of specific actions, gender mainstreaming, social dialogue and dialogue with civil society. It focuses in particular on five strategic objectives: equality in decision-making processes, in social rights, in civil life, the changing of roles and stereotypes. The strategy pursues two horizontal strategic objectives: equality in external relations, including development, and equality in the enlargement process.

The strategy expires at the end of 2005, at the same time as the action programme that it underpins. They will be extended until the end of 2006 while we await the implementation of the PROGRESS programme which will ensure the funding of gender equality actions from 2007.

Even though a lot of progress has been made in numerous Member States in many areas in relation to equality, inequalities remain in all fields, as demonstrated by the annual report on gender equality presented by the Commission at the Spring Summit.

In its Social Agenda, the Commission announced that it will present a new communication on future developments of the gender equality policy when the current framework strategy comes to an end.

At the meeting of 7 June 2005 with representatives of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission confirmed the presentation of a new communication to take over from the current framework strategy. This communication will be the roadmap to follow and will discuss actions aimed at achieving equality between men and women in all fields with a view to achieving the objective of the growth and employment strategy and contributing to the implementation of the Beijing Platform. This roadmap will deal with the main obstacles remaining in terms of achieving gender equality and will identify the strategic actions for responding to future challenges.

The Commission is in the process of drawing up this roadmap. Discussions are under way amongst the different services of the Commission. The Commission is also in contact with the interested parties, in particular the Advisory Committee on gender equality. The work of Parliament and the discussions held between the Commissioner responsible for employment, social affairs and equal opportunities and Parliament during July also make valuable contributions. This communication is expected to be drawn up over the coming months and will be presented at the beginning of 2006.

The Commission has presented its proposal for setting up a European Institute for Gender Equality and the proposal to convert the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia into a Human Rights Agency.

The creation of an Institute for Gender Equality gives the Union a unique opportunity to strengthen its work on behalf of greater equality. Unfortunately, a number of voices have called for the incorporation of the Institute for Gender Equality into the new, reorganised Human Rights Agency, which would be very infelicitous. It is of the utmost importance to keep the spotlight on the issue of equality between women and men and there is a need for efforts to develop gender mainstreaming and particular measures to promote equality both within the EU and the Member States. What, therefore, is the Commission's position on the call from certain quarters for the incorporation of the Institute for Gender Equality into the Human Rights Agency?

(FR)On 8 March 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality⁽¹⁾.

According to this proposal, this institute will have the objective of assisting the Community institutions, the Commission and the authorities of the Member States in particular, in the fight against sex discrimination and in the promotion of gender equality.

It must also contribute to increasing awareness of the gender equality policy amongst the citizens and making this policy more visible.

On 30 June 2005, the Commission presented its proposal for a regulation establishing a European Human Rights Agency.

By presenting two separate proposals, the Commission has sent a clear signal that the specific nature of the gender equality policy, which goes beyond the fight against discrimination and respect for a fundamental right, justifies the creation of two distinct bodies. By doing so, the Commission has confirmed its commitment to promote the gender equality policy, to preserve its special characteristics and to provide it with the necessary visibility.

In the light of recent discussions on the contribution trade can make to development, does the Commission believe there should be a budget line for trade facilitation?

(EN)The Commission understands from the recent discussions in the Parliament, especially during the latest meeting of the Committee on International Trade, that the question of the Honourable Member relates not only to trade facilitation, but also to trade related assistance in general.

As regards the concerns underlying this question, the Commission, at Gleneagles, has made a commitment to increase trade related assistance, including related infrastructure aspects, to €1 billion a year.

Development cooperation funding is based on a comprehensive policy and programming approach involving a dialogue with all the beneficiary countries and regions. The Commission believes it will be able to implement trade related assistance, particularly in the area of trade facilitation, as part of this integrated approach. In this context, the Commission recalls the considerable amounts already financed in the field of trade related assistance within the framework of existing instruments, amounting to some €800 million per year over the past five years.

In conclusion, while acknowledging that in some situations a separate budget line could increase the visibility and flexibility of the Commission’s trade related assistance, the Commission believes it will be able to accommodate adequately the concerns underlying the question without such a separate budget line.

In Colombia, human rights violations against indigenous people are 100% more numerous than against the rest of the population. The existence of people like the Kankuamos, the Wiwaws, the Kofans, the Chimila, the Korebaju, the Betoyes, the Nasa, the Tule, and the Embera-Katios is in danger.

What is the reaction of the Commission about this situation? Is the Commission planning to develop special projects directly between the European Commission and the indigenous communities?

(EN)The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member. Indigenous people ‘account for just 2% of Colombia’s population, but they suffer disproportionately from human rights abuses and threats from illegal armed factions. They also represent a disproportionately high number of displaced people.

For this reason, the Commission already allocates an important share of its co-operation funding in Colombia to projects directed at the indigenous community. In 2005, this funding is valued at a total amount of € 24.6 millions or 15% of the budget earmarked this year for Colombia. There are twelve projects, financed by four different budget lines: decentralised cooperation, European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, (EIDHR) cofinancing for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and bilateral cooperation with Latin America. The actions are implemented through local and European NGOs, indigenous organisations and state entities and benefit the indigenous population directly, for example, the Nasa and the Guambianos of the Cauca region, the Emberas, the Awa, the Inga and ethnical groups of the Colombian Amazonia.

The Commission will continue to support projects benefiting indigenous communities in Colombia. Full account is taken of the indigenous perspective when defining strategic documents such as the Country Strategy Papers and guidelines for local calls for proposals. It also forms part of the Commission strategy to promote human rights as a transversal issue of the EC cooperation.

Recently, two conflicting trends have been in evidence in the EU. On the one hand, the new Member States have been intensively preparing for entry to the Eurozone (cutting their budget deficit and restricting public debt), while on the other hand the old Member States have been formally questioning the euro's future (e.g. the statement by the Italian Minister for Social Affairs). In July, a report published by the prominent investment bank HSBC stated that problems have been caused by ECB bank rates in countries such as Italy, Germany and Holland, which could result in these States pulling out of the Eurozone.

Does the Commission share this assessment of the situation and what effects would there be on the future of the Euro if any of the above States were to pull out of the Eurozone?

(EN)No, the Commission does not share the assessment that some Member States could pull out of the euro area due to problems caused by the European Central Bank (ECB) monetary policy. The Commission recognizes that the euro area’s recent economic performance has been disappointing, but growth differences between Member States of the euro area show that the reasons for this underperformance seem to be structural in nature and do not stem from the introduction of the euro.

The benefits of adopting the euro are clear: enhanced macroeconomic stability, no more destabilising exchange rate tensions and a reinforced single market. As there is no provision in the Treaty for a country to withdraw from the euro area, the Commission refrains from any speculations on this topic.

Are any of the 25 Commissioners now, or were they in the past, intelligence assets or officers in their own country or any other?

(EN)The Commission would like to recall that, according to Article 213 TEC, members of the Commission shall be completely independent in the performance of their duties. They shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or any other body.

As concerns the past activities of the Members of the Commission, these are a matter of public record and set out in their CVs which are available on their individual websites. The Commission assumes that the type of activities referred to by the Honourable Member would in any event be covered by national rules regarding the protection of official secrets.

In view of the extremely difficult Baltic cod situation, it is essential for a long-term plan to be drawn up for rebuilding cod stocks in the Baltic Sea. The attempts made by the Commission to draw up such a plan, resulting in two meetings being held on 3 May 2005 and 23 June 2005, are welcome. However, it is disturbing that Parliament and the EP Committee on Fisheries have been excluded both from the decision-making process and even the consultation process on such an important decision, determining the fate of thousands of fishermen whose only source of livelihood is the Baltic Sea and its cod.

Will Parliament and the Committee on Fisheries be consulted on the decision on the long-term plan for replenishing cod stocks in the Baltic and, if so, to what extent?

(EN)The development of a long-term management plan for the cod fisheries in the Baltic Sea is indeed very important. The Commission has held several preparatory meetings with national administrations and stake-holders on this issue. These preparatory meetings should be seen in the context of an increased stakeholder consultation process which the Commission now holds on a regular basis on important proposals and which has been welcomed by the European Parliament. In Autumn 2005 the Commission will present to the Parliament and the Council a formal proposal for a Council Regulation for a long term management plan of the cod fisheries in the Baltic Sea.

The Parliament will according to the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the Treaty be consulted and have the opportunity to discuss this proposal in depth and to propose amendments to its text.

Hitherto, the European Union has been a passive Contracting Party to the Alpine Convention and has, to date, not signed all the implementing protocols thereto, in particular the jointly negotiated Transport Protocol.

When is the European Commission planning to sign and ratify these implementing protocols? When will the European Commission become an active Contracting Party to the Alpine Convention?

(EN)The Alpine Convention entered into force for the European Community in 1998. The European Community as Contracting Party is participating in meetings of the Alpine Convention’s bodies. Up to now, three Protocols have been signed by the Community following a Commission proposal:

the Protocol on Nature Conservation,

the Protocol on Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development and

the Protocol on Mountain Farming.

The Commission adopted on 7 June 2005 a Proposal for a Council Decision on the signature of Protocols on Soil Protection, on Energy and on Tourism to the Alpine Convention. In 2001 the Commission proposed the signature of the Transport Protocol but this has not been adopted by the Council.

The ratification of certain Protocols raises some issues of competence that are currently being examined. Once the issues are clarified the Commission will make the necessary proposals for ratification.

As the Commission rightly noted in the written answer that it gave to my Oral Question H-0481/05 on 5 July 2005, 'The transfer of oil between vessels is a complex technical operation entailing a considerable risk of oil being spilt into the sea'. I remain extremely concerned by the drastic proposals for ship-to-ship oil transfer made in relation to the Firth of Forth which would involve the transfer of almost 8 million tonnes per annum of Russian crude oil and other hydrocarbons.

Can the Commission now indicate the findings of the meeting of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) held in mid-July 2005, at which the idea of establishing a binding framework for the transfer of hydrocarbons between vessels at sea was to be discussed?

(FR)The Marine Environment Protection Committee, which held its 53rd session (MEPC 53) at the headquarters of the International Maritime Organisation in London from 18 to 22 July 2005, did indeed consider the issue of the transfer of hydrocarbons between vessels at sea on the basis of a proposal submitted by Spain and Mexico with a view to the insertion of a new chapter in Annex I to the MARPOL Convention to deal with the possible threat to the marine environment of the transfer of oil cargoes between vessels at sea.

In the light of the positive observations made at that meeting, the Committee decided to enter in the work programme of the Subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) and on the agenda for the tenth session of the BLG, scheduled to be held in April 2006, amendments to MARPOL Annex I for the prevention of marine pollution during oil transfer operations between ships at sea.

The BLG will review all the technical and operational issues pertaining to the potential risk of pollution during ship-to-ship transfer of oil cargoes at sea and will take into account the principles of international maritime law, including those laid down in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the rights and obligations of the coastal and flag States. The BLG will be required to submit the findings of that review, probably accompanied by a specific proposal for binding rules on this issue, to the MEPC in late 2007.

On 6 July 2005 Parliament adopted an amendment to the ERDF Regulation (Article 7(d)) calling for expenditure which relates to renovation of social housing with a view to saving energy and protecting the environment in the context of sustainable urban development to be eligible for funding. As I understand it, there are apparently to be negotiations between the Commission and the Council of Ministers to reduce the impact of Parliament's request, despite the fact that it is unequivocal. The Commission is apparently calling for the eligibility of expenditure on housing renovation to be limited to 3% of the total cost of renovation work, whereas Parliament did not adopt any amendment calling for any restriction whatsoever on cofinancing. Can the Commission confirm that, in accordance with Parliament's request, Community cofinancing of expenditure on the renovation of social housing will be subject only to the provisions of Articles 51 and 52 of the new general regulation?

(FR)The Commission has taken good note of Parliament’s position on the eligibility of expenditure on housing for Structural Funds.

The Commission does not consider this expenditure to be at the heart of the processes of convergence and the restructuring of regional economies. This is why it had proposed not to make it eligible for the Structural Funds.

Nevertheless, the Commission is prepared to examine – within the context of the negotiation with the European Parliament and with the Council – certain particular cases for which this expenditure could become eligible, for example within the context of actions aimed at achieving energy savings and protecting the environment, as proposed by Parliament.

It will, however, be necessary to set the precise limits and conditions for these particular cases with a view to preventing expenditure on housing from becoming, particularly in certain Member States, a significant component of the programmes funded by the Structural Funds, which would fundamentally change the very nature of the cohesion policy.

What guarantees can the Commission provide that European Union aid for Colombia is not being used to fund the reintegration of members of armed groups into society when there is no legal framework that complies with international rules guaranteeing victims’ rights to truth, justice and compensation? Such a framework would enable the EU to provide funding for disarmament and reintegration programmes.

European Union funding granted to Colombia for use in the aid programme for uprooted people can thus be used, via the pilot project run by the Colombian Family Welfare Institute, for the reintegration of demobilised members of paramilitary groups, instead of helping indigenous populations who were uprooted as a result of the armed conflict return to their homes. Does the Commission have information on this? Is the Commission checking what happens to funding provided under the aid programme for uprooted people in Colombia?

(EN)The Commission manages the community budget funds in the context of the existing political guidelines. On the issue of the reinsertion of armed groups, raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission‘s position is based on the conclusions of the EU Council of December 2004. This links EU support to demobilisation to the adoption of a comprehensive legal framework in conformity with international commitments and which takes into account the right of the victims to truth, justice and reparation. The Commission uses financial and technical controls to ensure that funds are actually directed to what they have been earmarked for.

On 22 June 2005, the Colombian Congress adopted the so-called “Justice and Peace” Law providing for a legal framework for the demobilisation of illegal armed groups. The EU has not yet had the opportunity to fully assess this law.

Regarding the EU funds allocated to Colombia for aid to uprooted people, these are used to support projects for the socio-economic reinsertion or relocation of uprooted people in their land of origin, and to facilitate their integration in their host communities. The Commission is working with a variety of partners, including both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to implement its work programme. In this context, the Commission uses different types of internal and external controls to monitor the use of these funds. Additionally the Uprooted People projects in Colombia were positively evaluated in January 2005, as part of the evaluation of this budget line’s global implementation.

The Honourable Member further refers in her question to a pilot project implemented with the “Instituto de Bienestar Familiar de Colombia”. This pilot project is currently financed through bilateral cooperation resources (ALA budget line) and not through the thematic budget line for uprooted people. It is part of a larger programme, managed by el ‘Instituto’, supporting street children in different Colombian cities. In this framework, children that have been affected by the conflict (i.e. internally displaced children, former child soldiers, children in risk of recruitment, and former gang members) are also receiving assistance.

The take-up rate for appropriations under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund is among the criteria for effective implementation of rural development programmes.

As we are coming to the end of the 2000-2006 programming period, and as far as the take-up of resources is concerned, can the Commission indicate the results of the N+2 rule in Greece and in other Member States of the EU-15 during the years 2003-2004-2005 by action/measure funded by the EAGGF?

(EN)In conformity with the n+2 rule, decommitments are not made for measures or actions, but by programme and, in the case of multifund programmes, separately for each individual Fund.

As regards the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)–Guidance, decommitments linked to the n+2 rule for rural development programmes (period 2000/2006), and related to budgetary commitments in the years 2000 and 2001 amounted to less than 1 % of these commitments.

In the year 2000, total budgetary commitments (all Member States) within EAGG-Guidance for rural development programmes of the new period amounted to € 1,239 million. Related decommitments were made in 2003 for a total of € 7.16 million. Three Member States were concerned: Ireland for € 5.06 million (2 programmes); the Netherlands for € 0.07 million (1 programme) and finally the United Kingdom for € 2.03 million (1 programme) - All figures are rounded up.

In the year 2001, the same type of budgetary commitments amounted to € 3,509 million. Related decommitments were made in 2004 for a total of € 13.07 million. Five Member States were concerned: Germany for € 4.53 million (4 programmes); Ireland for € 6.64 million (2 programmes); Italy for € 1.12 million (1 programme); the Netherlands for € 0.5 million (1 programme) and finally Spain for € 0.28 million (1 programme).

In the year 2002, overall commitments amounted to € 2,996 million. Final decommitment figures related to that year are not yet available. So far, a provisional total amount of € 37.21 million has been indicated to the nine concerned Member States. At the end of the ongoing controversial procedure, the final amount could be lower. The detailed amounts provisionally indicated to the Member States are as follows: € 1.85 million for Belgium (2 programmes); € 6.84 million for Germany (6 programmes); € 5.05 million for Spain (8 programmes); € 3.70 million for France (one programme); € 0.014 million for Greece (1 programme); € 7.33 million for Ireland (2 programmes); € 5.89 million for Italy (4 programmes); € 0.21 million for the Netherlands (1 programme); and finally € 6.32 million for Portugal (1 programme).

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey on passengers' rights (1 July 2005), only 35% of Europeans appear to be aware of their rights and obligations linked to the purchase of tickets and contracts concluded with transport companies. As a rule, the main reasons discouraging Europeans from travelling within the EU, apart from lack of information (44%) and high prices (30%), are connection problems between different modes of transport (26%), difficulties in buying tickets (25%), unreliable information (20%) and lack of frequency in the transport services on offer (17%). In the light of these figures, how does the Commission view the situation? Given the need to enhance the mobility of European citizens and European tourism, does the Commission envisage taking specific measures and initiatives to inform European consumers of their rights as users of transport services? Does it support the suggestion of creating, for instance, a single European ticket for combined travel within the boundaries of the EU, or establishing a European travel information service?

(FR)The data from the survey published in the Eurobarometer mixes all modes of transport together. The Commission is aware of the differing situations amongst the various modes of transport, in terms of information provided for passengers and in terms of the protection of the rights themselves. So far, the European Union has focussed its efforts on the air sector. In addition, the Commission has presented a proposal for a regulation on the protection of international rail passengers which is currently at the negotiation stage within Parliament and the Council.

As indicated in Communication COM (2005) 46 of 16 February 2005, ‘Strengthening passenger rights within the European Union’, the protection of users of others modes of transport remains to be guaranteed. This protection cannot be effective unless implemented at Community level, particularly given the size of the sector and the level of use of these other modes of transport by the European public.

To this end, this year the Commission has already launched an independent study on sea transport. It has also launched public consultations on long-distance road transport and will do the same shortly for sea transport. The aim is to assess the current situation and to improve and guarantee the rights of passengers in other modes of transport, following impact assessments.

At the beginning of this year, the Commission carried out a media campaign to accompany the entry into force of Regulation 261/2004 on the rights of air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. The notice indicating passenger rights is currently visible in most European airports and the number of demands from passengers for their rights to be respected has increased considerably.

When the proposal for a regulation in the rail sector is adopted, the Commission intends to launch an information campaign similar to the one carried out this year for the air regulation with a view to informing rail passengers of their rights.

Finally, the Commission has provided the citizens with letter boxes through which they can ask the Commission for information about their complaints. A gradual increase in the number of passenger complaints involving modes of transport other than air transport has been noted. The Commission responds to all of the letters that it receives from citizens and provides them with all the information available relating to their cases.

As already stressed in the White Paper on the European transport policy for 2010⁽¹⁾: ‘The implementation of integrated ticketing systems (…) must be encouraged in order to facilitate transfer from one network or mode of transport to another’. In the above-mentioned communication, of 16 February 2005, the Commission stated its intention to encourage meetings between representatives of air and rail companies with a view to obtaining a voluntary commitment from them to create integrated ticketing systems. Furthermore, the Commission is currently examining the possibilities for improving intermodality between rail and air transport, in particular through the development of integrated ticketing.

At the last part-session in Strasbourg, a meeting of the European Academy was held which, quite rightly, included material on the demographic crisis in Europe and the need for a family policy in the Member States.

What does the Commission propose to do to support a policy to increase the population of our continent? This is a strategic factor of importance to the economic success of Europe.

(EN)The Commission is aware of the increasing concern that arises from the analysis of demographic trends which shows that the ageing of the European population is likely to last for several decades. This phenomenon can in part be attributed to increasing longevity and it is reinforced by the falling birth rates that can be observed in most EU countries.

The Commission is also conscious that demographic trends will also have a strong impact on different aspects of our economic and social life, including on families. Therefore it becomes vital for the EU to anticipate, manage and promptly adjust to demographic changes, bearing in mind that, in the area of family policies, Member States remain solely responsible for their policy decisions.

To support the debate on these issues, the Commission published in March 2005 a Green Paper on "Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between generations"⁽¹⁾ which looks at the management of demographic change and the European Union's role within that. Specifically, it calls for a new solidarity between generations, as part of an attempt to address the issue of ageing from the perspective of the entire lifecycle.

As a follow up, the Commission organised on 11 and 12 July 2005 an international ministerial Conference to draw the attention of all stakeholders, including governments at all levels, social partners, civil society and the academic world, to the challenges posed by demographic change. This event represented a first step in the process of reflection aiming to develop a comprehensive strategy for promoting a new solidarity between generations within the European Union.

The Commission intends to present a White Paper on these issues and, at the same time, will continue to encourage the debate on the implications of population ageing and the exchange of good practices among Member States.

The EU is responsible for promoting family and citizenship law and ensuring the protection and welfare of children, on the basis of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as their education. The new Romanian law on international adoptions, introduced to uphold the rights of children, in actual fact infringes them, since Romania does not yet seem able to offer an adequate response to the numerous cases of abandoned children. Around 84,000 minors are under the protection of the social services (80% of them were taken away from their parents because of repeated abuse), more than 4,000 new-born babies were abandoned in 2004 and more than 1 million children are forced to work.

Does not the Commission consider that Romania should revise the law and allow international adoptions in cases where national adoption capacity is insufficient to protect children from forced labour, maltreatment, abuse and truancy? Does it not believe that it should at least urge respect for the commitment, requested by the European Parliament in its resolution P6_TA(2005)0119, to finding a solution for the cases of international adoption still pending, a commitment reiterated at the beginning of the year by the Romanian government itself? Can the Commission say how deliberations are going in the committee of experts responsible for examining individual cases?

(EN)The Commission has supported the Romanian authorities for many years in their efforts to improve child protection. Decisive progress have been achieved including the adoption of a new legislation on children’s rights and adoption, which entered into force on 1 January 2005. International adoptions are limited only to related foreigners. These laws are considered to be essentially in line with the United Nations Convention on the right of the child and with practices in EU Member States.

Therefore the Commission does not consider that Romania should revise this new legislation. Furthermore the Commission will concentrate its activity in supporting Romania in developing the institutional capacity to implement this new legislation, in particular through training and raising awareness of the population in order to allow a rapid and satisfactory implementation.

The Commission does not know details about the functioning of the committee referred to by the Honourable member.

The EU suffers every year from numerous fires that destroy hectares of forest, especially in the southern Member States and notably in Spain. Despite this, the Community's anti-forest fire strategy remains ineffective, thanks largely to the lack of coordination between the different administrations involved and between Member States at national level. The lack of a harmonised policy and the low level of funds available for prevention are undermining the effectiveness of the fight. The preventive measures set out in the rural development regulation are insufficient and do not guarantee coherence between the actions undertaken. The Commission's proposal on the future EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) does not improve the legislation in this area: indeed, it worsens it by eliminating the aid granted to farmers for creating firebreaks. The latter measure was, unfortunately, agreed by the Member States, including Spain. Since fires constitute the biggest threat to forest conservation in the Union, can the Commission state what concrete measures it believes should be implemented with a view to remedying the existing shortcomings, in the context of the new European Forestry Strategy? Can the Commission also state whether it will continue to treat forest fires as a secondary problem, despite the vital role played by Europe's forests in counteracting the greenhouse effect?

(EN)This question, first of all, provides the Commission with an opportunity to express its sympathy and solidarity with all the citizens of the Union, in particular in Spain and Portugal, who have suffered from the devastating impacts of forest fires which have taken place this summer. The Commission’s thoughts especially concern those who have lost members of their families.

The Commission agrees that preventing and restoring damages caused by forest fires continues to be a challenge for both the EU and national or regional administrations. The Commission disagrees, however, with several statements of the Honourable Member, such as for example indication of a lack of coordination of the efforts on EU-level, worsened aid conditions or secondary importance of forest fires for the EU.

The Commission would like to underline the roles and actions of the different bodies involved in these issues.

In 1998, the Member States agreed on a EU Forestry Strategy. The Strategy also contains elements addressing forest fire prevention as a priority issue.

Member States had to establish forest fire protection plans.

The EU co-finances prevention measures under the forest focus regulation and in the area of rural development policy. In the latter case the measures must conform to the national forest fire protection plans.

The Commission supports the Member States in the implementation of efficient fire prevention initiatives. Nevertheless, the Member States have to design the appropriate measures and to implement them in a coordinated way.

To be more precise: the forest policy in the EU is largely a national competence and is dealt with using the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibility. Therefore, the main role of the Community institutions is to help Member States in implementation of their national policy concerning forest-fire prevention and restoration after forest fires.

Although forest policy falls under the national responsibility, the Commission is aware of the problem of forest fires and has developed several instruments and initiatives to help Member States in their efforts to prevent and fight forest fires. There are instruments, also under the Common Agricultural Policy, that can be used for forest fire prevention.

The Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 provides specific support possibilities for restoring forestry production potential damaged by fire and for introducing appropriate prevention actions. There is no maximum limit to the amount of support granted. Member States can include these measures in their rural development programmes and allocate the necessary funding in function of their priorities and needs. In Spain, for example, the total budget allocated to forestry measures for the period 2000 – 2006 amounts to approximately € 820 million. This figure does not contain the measure of afforestation of agricultural land.

The Commission would like to emphasize, that it will continue these forest fire prevention activities also after 2006. Following the political agreement reached in the Council on the Rural Development Regulation for the next programming period, the conditions for the implementation of this measure remain unchanged.

The Commission’s most recent instrument covering also the field of forest fires is the Forest Focus Regulation (2003-2006)⁽¹⁾ which allows to monitor and to implement forest fire prevention measures as well as to detect the reasons for their frequent appearance. The overall EU budget allocated to the area of forest fires within this regulation amounts to € 9 million for the period 2003-2006.

It is also possible, under the Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions⁽²⁾, to co-ordinate the mobilisation of the necessary operational resources to provide prompt support to a country in case of severe forest fires.

In addition, already in 2001-2002, in the framework of the Community Action Programme in the field of Civil Protection, the Commission co-funded a project (co-ordinated by Greece) aimed at improving dispatch for forest fire control. The project gathered operational dispatchers, decision-makers and researchers, who shared experiences and worked at identifying common practices in order to improve the knowledge and prediction capability on the effectiveness of the firefighting forces sent by dispatching centres.

Furthermore, under the 2004 Call for Proposals in the field of Community co-operation as regards Civil Protection, special priority was given to the organisation of workshops intended to enable fire-fighter trainers to learn lessons from accidents involving fire-fighters while combating fires – in particular forest fires - and to draw recommendations for future training that could be used in all Member States.

Finally, as regards the present forest fires, the Community – through its civil protection mechanism established in 2001 – was able to provide rapid assistance to the fire fighters in Portugal. Within less than 24 hours after the request arrived in the Monitoring and Information Centre of the European Commission, several Member States, notably France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands provided helicopters and waterbombers to combat the fires. This assistance was coordinated and facilitated by the Commission´s civil protection unit and significantly contributed to get the situation under control.

The EU Forestry Strategy of 1998 must be mentioned as an overarching framework for the Community action in the field of forest policy. Protection of forests against fires in the Strategy is treated as an important issue. The Commission in 2005 has presented a report on the implementation of the Strategy. The issue of forest fires is an important part of the report. In addressing the current unresolved problems and emerging issues, the report has proposed to develop an EU Action Plan for sustainable forest management and review the present co-ordination mechanisms relevant to forests and forestry at the Community level. The EU Forest Action Plan will provide a coherent framework for the implementation of forest related actions at Community and Member States level and will serve as an instrument of coordination between the different Community actions, as well as between Community actions and the forest policies of the Member States. The Action Plan will be developed, and later implemented, in close cooperation with the Member States. The Commission believes that forest fire prevention and restoration after forest fires will play an important role in the Action Plan, which is due to be completed by the mid 2006.

And last, but not least: the European Union Solidarity Fund⁽³⁾ has been established to enable the Community to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner to emergency situations if classified as “major disasters”. Following the huge damages of the exceptional summer 2003⁽⁴⁾ it provided € 48.5 million for Portugal and € 1.3 million for Spain. This Fund can only be mobilised upon formal request from the national government of the country affected by a disaster. The application has to be submitted within 10 weeks of the first damage caused. If the Commission considers that all conditions are met, it will propose to the budgetary authority (European Parliament and Council) to make the necessary budget appropriations available.

To date, 5000 different combinations of tariffs have been recorded for services offered by mobile telephone companies. The necessity of imposing greater transparency in the way prices are fixed now seems to be the only option, in the interests of European citizens. The Commission is being called upon daily to take the measures required to protect European mobile telephone users properly. Does the Commission intend to take action to resolve this particular problem by publishing detailed tariffs of the services offered by mobile telephone companies, broken down by Member State? Furthermore, what mechanisms are used to regulate this matter at Community level and what further harmonisation measures are planned and within what timescale?

(EN)There is indeed a huge variety of prices for mobile telephone services, and while this can be confusing for the consumer, it also allows consumers to find a tariff package that suits the way that they use their mobile phones. Some people use the phone mostly during the day time; others make most of their calls in the evenings. The strong competition between mobile phone operators means that there are tariff packages to suit almost every type of user.

In general, this variety is far better than the old type of ‘one size fits all’ tariff that could be very expensive for certain users. It has contributed to the current widespread take-up of mobile phones in the EU.

As far as regulation is concerned, under the Universal Service Directive [2002/22/EC] Member States have the duty to ensure that transparent and up-to-date information on applicable prices and tariffs is made available to end-users. National regulators may specify the content, form and manner of the information to be published, in order to ensure that end-users have access to comprehensive, comparable and user-friendly information.

Information about mobile tariffs is in general published and available. In many countries, consumers have access to guides on choosing mobile tariffs, for example via interactive web-sites, where consumers can find the cheapest package that suits their usage profile.

However, there is one area where the Commission is concerned about high mobile tariffs, and that is the area of international roaming charges. The Commission is taking measures which will improve transparency and help consumers to make an informed choice. This is because, for most consumers, roaming is an infrequent event and does not normally figure in the decision as to which domestic network to select. People using their phone abroad need to know how to minimise their usage costs.

The Commission will start publishing, from autumn 2005 onwards, a special website listing samples of international roaming retail tariffs of operators in all EU Member States.

This website will give information on typical rates that the consumer can expect for a variety of destinations. It will also provide links to other websites, such as operators’, where the consumer can get more information.

Passing on such price signals to roamers will serve to increase the pressure for mobile operators to compete aggressively for roaming traffic on their network.

At the same time, the Commission will be undertaking a review of the functioning of the regulatory framework during 2006. This will be an opportunity to see how the rules on price transparency have worked in practice, and to consider, in the light of a public consultation, whether they need to be changed.

In view of the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Hong Kong from 13 to 18 December 2005, can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the negotiations, especially in the sphere of agriculture, textiles, clothing and services?

(EN)The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) train is on track, although not moving as fast as the Commission would wish. Negotiations will need acceleration immediately after summer. Not all the “negotiating wagons” are moving at the same speed: there is satisfactory progress on negotiations concerning Trade Facilitation while negotiations in the areas of Non Agriculture Market Access (NAMA) and Agriculture move slowly but in the right direction. Other key issues like antidumping and Services are not moving as they should. In order to get to a successful Hong Kong Ministerial there is need for all wagons to move at the same speed.

It is indispensable to continue to push forward on agriculture. The right balance between the various interests at stake should be found, both in developed and developing countries, across the 3 pillars and related issues. Clearly this has to be done on the basis of the objectives of the Doha Declaration and of the July 2004 framework agreement, including their development goals. Before the summer recess there was the emergence from G20 of three key proposals on the three main pillars of agriculture. G20 emerged as effective middle-road negotiating group. G20 proposals are creating good positive basis for further substantial progress in the next three months. In market access, G20 proposal has forced participants to clarify their positions and to state their objectives more clearly than before. The EU can work on the basis of G20 proposals. Its ideas have been positively received by the delegations we have talked to. The EU has shown flexibility on market access. Less good news on the other two AG pillars: much little time has been devoted to export support and domestic support. On domestic support, those who need to reform have not said how they would do so. There is no indication on what they will do. Key principle stated in the July framework is: parallelism + comparable movement in all three pillars. This has not happened. The EU has done reforms and is pursuing them further: the sugar reform is one example. On export support, some progress has been made on export credit, limited progress on STEs, no discernable progress on the question of food aid. No progress on GIs despite its importance for EU, especially in market access for processed agricultural products.

On Non Agriculture Market Access (NAMA) in industrial goods (this covers textile and clothing), prior to the summer break negotiations have been focussing on trying to find a compromise acceptable to all WTO members on a tariff cutting formula. It was not possible to find an agreement but there has been substantial movement and convergence by most delegations towards a Swiss formula. Recently there have been encouraging signals from some Developing Countries that they could accept a Swiss type formula that should result into real market access opening. The EU on its part has clarified its readiness to make substantial tariff cuts. The formula that should emerge should be simple, its consequences easy to assess and must not create disparities between countries with the same level of development. The EU hopes that negotiations in September will be on the basis of one or the other of the Swiss formula proposals that seem to have attracted large support. Moreover, there are several other important issues like preference erosion, NTBs (Non-Tariff Barriers), etc … These issues cannot and will not be neglected, but the starting point remains the tariff cutting formula and its impact on different participants.

On Services, the picture is unsatisfactory and gives rise to serious concerns. Despite the EU substantial offer, the number of revised, improved offers still falls far short of what is needed and most of those submitted so far do not provide for new market access opportunities. Indeed, in most cases they do not even reflect existing levels of liberalisation! This situation is unsustainable and must be corrected by Hong Kong. For the EU, services are crucial for the overall balance of the DDA. For Hong-Kong, modalities with a similar level of specificity in services as for agriculture and NAMA have to be achieved. The bilateral request-offer method of negotiating has not generated meaningful results. As suggested in the recent report of the Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services, complementary approaches to the negotiations should now be explored, at plurilateral and multilateral level, as mentioned in the GATS and in the negotiating modalities of 2001, in order to ensure that there is a substantive outcome in services in the DDA. The EU must live up to the ambitious objective set at Doha and repeated in the July 2004 package, thus firmly attaching the services wagon to the DDA train.

In conclusion, all WTO participants have to be ready to make difficult political choice and the Commission is prepared. Last year, the EU proposed the elimination of export subsidies and it reformed on domestic support. On market access the EU is moving in the G20 direction; it has contributed positively in NAMA, the Antidumping and Services negotiations. Other developed countries as well as certain Developing Countries are called upon to make similar movement on issues which are difficult for them such as domestic support on agriculture, mode 4 in services, antidumping. In Services: there is a need for real domestic political lifting in developed and developing countries. On NAMA: Important political decisions need to be taken and there is a need for all to move. As a general conclusion, the Commission still believes that it can make it for Hong Kong across the board, provided that (a) all major participants, including the EU, set the example and make the difficult political choices between now and September, and (b) that it changes its working methods.

In her speech to the ‘Simplifying Europe’ Conference in Brussels on 28 June, Commissioner Wallström said that there was no agreement or understanding about what we want from Europe and where we are going. She reiterated the need for a new consensus, a ‘common narrative’ on what the European Union is about.

I fully agree with her on the idea of a ‘Plan D’ for dialogue, debate and democracy; on the need for a truly European political culture; and on the need to bring the Union and its institutions closer to national, regional and local bodies.

In this context, I should like to suggest to the Commissioner that an open call for papers be issued, inviting European universities to shape a ‘common narrative on European culture and history’, which could help strengthen awareness of European citizenship, and, via the method itself, would also strengthen the Union’s cultural policy.

(EN)The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of promoting a European civic identity, including through education and culture.

In the field of education, the Commission currently provides explicit support for European integration activities at university-level via the Jean Monnet Action. The purpose of the Jean Monnet Action is to enhance knowledge and awareness on the European integration process via teaching, reflection and debating activities at academic institutions. Under the Jean Monnet Action, the Commission is co-financing projects on themes such as “Culture and Identity in European Integration” and “Europe and the European Idea: History, Culture and Perspectives for the Future”.

Taking up the proposal by the Honourable Member, the Commission will explicitly include the theme of “European citizenship, European culture and European history” as a priority in its next call for proposals under the Jean Monnet Action. Universities will thus be invited to submit applications in this field for new teaching activities (such as Jean Monnet Modules and Jean Monnet Chairs) and for research and conference activities leading to publications.

Also in the field of education, universities are encouraged within the Socrates/Erasmus Programme to develop modules which seek to promote the European dimension in the curriculum across a wide range of disciplines in order to provide a significant proportion of students with a European perspective on their specialist subject areas. The Commission co-funds the development of such modules which should aim to raise the students’ awareness of European culture.

As regards cultural policy, the Commission submitted in July 2004 a Proposal for a decision of the Parliament and the Council establishing the Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013), that will replace the “Culture 2000 programme” from 1 January 2007 onwards. The general objective of this programme shall be to enhance the cultural area common to Europeans through the development of cultural cooperation between the creators, cultural players and cultural institutions of the countries taking part in the programme, thus contributing to the emergence of a European citizenship.

Finally, it has to be mentioned that the Commission has recently proposed a new programme “Citizens for Europe” to promote active European citizenship for the period 2007-2013. Among all the dimensions of citizenship, the “Citizens for Europe” programme deals with the very foundation of citizenship, namely the feeling of belonging to a community, the awareness of a common identity, enriched through its diversity and based on common values, history and culture.

In the context of its "plan D", the Commission reserves the possibility to take other initiatives in the sense desired by the Honourable Member.

In accordance with the provisions of the Green Paper on EU energy policy, the Community must play an important role in ensuring that gas network operation meets the needs of the internal market and all the Member and candidate States. The document stresses the importance of routing the gas pipelines considering the 'interests of EU Member and candidate States, as well as those which are not part of the EU, including Ukraine'. In this context, could the Commission clarify what steps will be taken to ensure the speediest possible EU-Russian investment in the Yamal 2 and Amber pipelines? These investments will ensure energy security for a significant portion of the Member States, guaranteeing cheaper gas and upholding environmental protection principles, as opposed to the planned investment in the Northern European pipeline which is environmentally dubious; initial estimates of its cost are five times greater and it does not guarantee energy security for Central European and the Baltic States. It must be remembered that the sites for the construction of Yamal 2 have already been prepared and a number of investments have also been made, thus guaranteeing faster completion of the pipeline.

(EN)A new additional gas supply route from Russian sources to Northern Continental Europe and possibly up to the United Kingdom is a priority project in the transeuropean networks energy (TEN-E) guidelines⁽¹⁾. Three main corridors’ options are currently discussed:

From Russia via the Baltic States to Poland, Germany (“Amber”),

From Russia via Belarus and Poland to Germany along the existing Yamal Pipeline (“Yamal II”).

An off-shore pipeline from Russia directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea (“North European Pipeline ” – possibly with branches to the Scandinavian and Baltic States).

The TEN Regulation with its modest budget allows in the energy sector mainly co-financing of feasibility studies. Under the Call for Proposal TEN Energy 2004, a study proposed by Poland has been selected for funding to investigate the feasibility of the two alternative projects “Amber” and “Yamal II”. For both routes, it includes investigations of technical, economic, financial, legal and market issues and the impact on the environment. The aim is to provide the basis for a Decision as to which of the two on-shore alternatives is more advantageous taking all relevant aspects into account. The study is managed by the Polish Oil and Gas Company and supervised by the Polish government. The maximum total costs are estimated at € 1,824,000 to which the Commission intends to contribute 50%. The final Commission Decision on the funding is still pending but expected to be made shortly. For the North European Pipeline the Commission was prepared to fund studies concerning the off-shore route but the contract did not mature.

For any project to be realised it is important that:

The countries concerned (for the Amber and Yamal II project in particular Poland) confirm their strategic choice and inform the Commission of their joint commitment to the project;

A firm commitment on starting and end date is given;

Within the EU-Russia dialogue these projects are addressed at the appropriate level, namely at governmental and industrial levels (where the construction Decision is made). It is obvious that support from Russia will be essential for the development of any project.

The percentage of young people in Europe is expected to fall considerably in the coming decades. It is a general realisation that large numbers of children are living in European countries in conditions of poverty and social exclusion.

Will the Commission propose measures to safeguard in law the right of disadvantaged social groups of young people to take part in the Community acquis and will it take particular measures to improve their living conditions, education and vocational development so that they do not become victims of exploitation?

(EN)The rights of children have become an increasingly central concern of the Union's social inclusion process, the Open Method of Coordination on poverty and social exclusion (OMC). One of the core objectives underpinning the OMC stresses the importance of access to rights ("promoting access to resources, rights, goods and services") and the objectives specifically mention children ("to move towards the elimination of social exclusion among children and give them every opportunity for social integration").

Member States have given a high priority in their National Action Plans on poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion) to the issue of child poverty. Indeed, working towards the elimination of child poverty has emerged as one of the key policy priorities for the social inclusion process over the next years. This message was reinforced in the Presidency's Conclusions at the Spring European Council in March 2005 which identified child poverty as the area on which the European Union and the Member States should focus within the context of their social inclusion policies.

The importance of a rights based approach and the valuable framework provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been emphasised in the successive analyses of the NAPs/inclusion (2001-2003 and 2003-2005 for EU15 and 2004-2006 for EU10) undertaken by the Commission. This approach is the one to be followed by the Commission in preparing its future Communication on the rights of children, within the context of its work towards a “Pact for the Child” with a view to advance the promotion of children’s rights in internal and external EU policy.

Do adequate provisions and regulations exist in the EC regarding signposts showing the names of towns? I am referring in particular to what language should be used on road signs giving the names of towns in countries which border on each other.

(EN)To date there are no Community recommendations or rules on road signs indicating directions towards towns having different names in different languages.

Road signing is generally addressed in the “Convention on road signs and signals” of 8 November 1968 (the Vienna Convention). In particular, in Annex 1G, referring to ‘Direction, position or indication signs’, it is stated that, for signs reporting names of places, it is recommended to show place names in the language of the country, or subdivision thereof, where the localities referred to are situated.

However, further more recent works and reports for the harmonisation of road signing have been managed at European level. In the Final Report of Action START on “Standardisation of Typology on the Trans-European Road Network” issued by the Transport Infrastructure Committee of the Directorate General of Transport in 1994, it is recommended to mention the names of a town in two languages when significant differences in this name exist in two languages.

In addition, Article 14 of the above-mentioned Convention recommends that the inscription of words on direction, position or indication signs, in countries not using the Latin alphabet shall be both in the national language and in the form of a transliteration into the Latin alphabet reproducing as closely as possible the pronunciation in the national language. Moreover, a sign shall not bear inscriptions in more than two languages.

Will the Commission change its attitude towards Vojvodina - an attitude which violates Community principles? It clearly does so because the Commission and the Commissioner in person have said they know that the ethnic minorities living in Vojvodina, especially the Hungarians, are constantly exposed to physical violence and non-physical abuse merely on account of their not being Serbs. This being so, and in the light of other incidents which similarly indicate ethnic cleansing, the multiethnic character of Vojvodina, which has survived for 1000 years, and its traditional cultural diversity are manifestly in danger. Despite this, the Commission is prepared to open negotiations with Belgrade on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

Moreover, Interreg III/A does not recognise Vojvodina as a European region: indeed, adopting a similar line to Belgrade, it undermines the possibility that Vojvodina might regain its full and genuine autonomous status, of which Milosevic stripped it in 1989.

(EN)The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the multi-ethnic character of Vojvodina. It has been following with concern the ethnically motivated incidents that have occurred in Vojvodina. While not indicating an “ethnic cleansing”, these incidents are revealing symptoms of how the traditionally good inter-ethnic relations may be endangered by the difficult legacy of the Milosevic regime.

The attitude of the Commission towards the situation of the minorities in Vojvodina is strictly guided by the political criteria embedded in the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP) for the Western Balkans counties. In the Report issued last April on the preparedness of Serbia and Montenegro to negotiate a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU, the Commission analysed the progress made over the last years by Serbia and Montenegro in meeting in particular the SAP political criteria. In this context, the Commission has also looked into the situation of the minorities in Vojvodina, by taking into account the outcome of the Parliament fact-finding mission to Vojvodina of last January as well as the views expressed by the Council of Europe and the OSCE. The Commission underlined the belated and insufficient reactions of the authorities to the ethnically motivated incidents. It took note of the steps undertaken by the authorities to address this issue and stressed the need for further efforts.

The Commission has concluded that overall the political criteria are sufficiently met at this stage for opening SAA negotiations. It has, however, stressed the need for Serbia and Montenegro to continue its preparation by making further significant progress in a number of areas, including the protection of minorities. This approach was endorsed by the Council of Ministers on 25 April 2005.

The Commission is continuing to monitor the respect of minority rights in Vojvodina in the context of the Enhanced Permanent Dialogue with Serbia and Montenegro. At the last meeting held in Belgrade on 7 July 2005, the Commission urged the authorities to implement the recommendations issued by the Parliament after the fact-finding mission to Vojvodina. It expects the authorities to investigate thoroughly any ethnic incident and to promote effectively good inter-ethnic relations, notably by taking measures in the field of education, police and judicial reforms.

As regards the position of Vojvodina under Interreg III/A programme, the Commission would like to underline that this programme does not define the concept of “European Region”. Interreg III/A is meant to support cross-border regional co-operation on the internal and external borders of the European Union and, in the context of the New European Neighbourhood Policy, Vojvodina is eligible to this kind of support. Obviously, it is not for Interreg programme to deal with the restoration of the statue of autonomy that was taken away by Mr Milosevic. Nevertheless, the Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission follows closely the political and legal aspects of this issue, notably in the context of the revision of the Serbian Constitution.

The death from cancer of a third Greek serviceman previously assigned to Bosnia adds to the toll from other countries, once more highlighting the serious impact of the use of depleted uranium on the health of local citizens and the servicemen involved in the NATO campaigns in Yugoslavia and the Gulf and still serving there. The IEA Energy Information Centre has revealed in a survey submitted to the UN that the probability of contracting some form of cancer as a result of exposure to depleted uranium, even afterwards, is 50%!

Will the Commission issue a condemnation of the production and use of depleted uranium weapons and of all nuclear weapons in general? Will it take specific measures seeking to ban their production and use? Will it earmark funds for the treatment and rehabilitation of those affected and for the protection of public health and the environment in the afflicted areas?

(EN)The Commission is very much aware of the many issues raised by the use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. An Opinion of the Group of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty that was issued following the use of DU in the Balkan conflict, concluded that radiation doses from such activities would be generally very low. This opinion can be downloaded from the Commission’s web site⁽¹⁾.

To the Commission’s best knowledge no new aspects have evolved that would change the conclusions given in the Opinion of the Group of Experts concerning the implications caused by the use of DU ammunition.

The Euratom Treaty has vested the Commission with clear powers to ensure that Member States comply with the European legislation adopted under the Euratom Treaty. The Commission stays vigilant and assesses any possible situation that could imply an infringement by the Member States of European legislation laid down in order to protect the health of the population and workers (Basic Safety Standards). In doing this, it is bound by the terms of the Treaty itself.

The use of weapons in the battlefield in general, and of weapons using depleted uranium and nuclear weapons in particular, is not in the remit of the Commission.

With regard to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released in 2003 a (revised) report⁽²⁾ which is based on a study mission that took place in 2002. To the Commission’s knowledge this report is still valid with respect to its main findings and recommendations.