Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve

2005. november 16., Szerda - Strasbourg

18. Kérdések órája (a Tanácshoz intézett kérdések)

  Presidente. Segue-se na ordem do dia o período de perguntas ao Conselho (B6-0339/2005).

Pergunta nº 1 de Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0889/05)

Assunto: Previsão em matéria de reestruturações

Como analisa o Conselho o impacto dos acordos bilaterais e internacionais e dos compromissos assumidos pela União Europeia sobre a evolução do mercado europeu em matéria de transferências e reestruturações de empresas, em particular nas regiões insulares, rurais e remotas da UE?

Tem o Conselho uma previsão sobre as reestruturações de empresas e a evolução económica e laboral futura de cada sector do mercado e de cada tipo de posto de trabalho nessas regiões?

Através de que mecanismos assegura o desenvolvimento sustentável dessas regiões, a preservação do seu tecido social, a regular progressão dos trabalhadores e a programação da formação das novas gerações?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I am conscious that your direction to honourable Members also, no doubt, includes the Presidency, so I shall endeavour to keep my answers as brief as is appropriate, given the range of questions that we have been asked.

In response to Question 1, the assessment of the impact of international agreements in terms of companies relocating and restructuring is not within the Council’s competence. The Council does not have any forecasts for the restructuring of companies. The European Social Fund is the main financial tool through which the European Union supports Member States’ employment policies within the framework of the European employment strategy. Set up by the Treaty of Rome, it is the longest established Structural Fund.

The Structural Fund supports measures to improve employment opportunities and to develop human resources and integration into the labour market in order to promote a high level of employment, equality between men and women, sustainable development and economic and social cohesion.

Furthermore, the Council will be taking forward discussion of the Commission’s proposals for a globalisation adjustment fund, which could provide assistance for those affected by economic restructuring. Rural development also makes European Union funding available in parallel with national funding for developing rural areas. In 2007 to 2013, this money will focus on increasing the competitiveness of European agriculture, food and forestry, land management and the environment, and quality of life and diversification in rural areas. Thus the European Structural Fund and rural development funding provides the tools to help workers adjust to the situations referred to by the honourable Member.

  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω τον εκπρόσωπο του Συμβουλίου αν το Ταμείο των αναδιαρθρώσεων θα έχει συγκεκριμένους χρηματικούς πόρους και εάν η Βρετανική Προεδρία χρησιμοποίησε ήδη την ανοικτή μέθοδο συντονισμού ώστε να φέρει καινούριες προτάσεις για τη διαχείριση των αναδιαρθρώσεων.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I would start with the basic point, which is that, clearly, the level of funding is contingent upon the wider conversation about the future financing of the European Union. We have had a long and useful debate in the course of the afternoon which, while apparently directed towards the Hampton Court informal Heads of Government meeting, in reality strayed into the issue of future financing.

I would simply reiterate the points made by the Foreign Secretary when he was speaking here earlier this afternoon in saying that we are sincere in our endeavours in reaching a conclusion to those discussions on future financing in the course of the British Presidency. However, the specific details of specific programmes are obviously contingent on the resolution of that matter.

Pergunta nº 2 de Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0892/05)

Assunto: Impostos no domínio do tráfego aéreo de passageiros

Que impacto pode ter sobre o mercado interno a adopção de medidas nacionais divergentes sobre a fiscalidade no domínio do tráfego aéreo de passageiros e que disposições deveriam ser tomadas para a harmonização das referidas medidas?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Data concerning the effect on the international market of national measures to tax passenger air traffic are limited.

Were Member States to adopt national measures for the taxation of passenger air traffic that were not compatible with the internal market, measures could be proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee under Article 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. However, it remains the right of Member States to set tax rates according to their own national circumstances.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – Gracias, señor Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, por su contestación. La pregunta, sin embargo, versa sobre la incidencia que la introducción de cualquier tipo de fiscalidad sobre el tráfico aéreo de personas va a tener en el mercado interior. Usted es de una isla, yo también; esta medida, aunque no afectaría a los países que sólo tienen una estructura continental, sí afectaría, y muy negativamente, a las regiones insulares y, sobre todo, a aquellas que están muy alejadas del núcleo central de la Unión Europea. Por tanto, éste es un tema que probablemente merezca la consideración del Consejo, de acuerdo con la Comisión.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I would certainly not want the impression to be left in this Chamber that somehow by dint of geography Britain is isolated from the mainstream of the European Union. Indeed I hope many of our efforts in the course of the Presidency have challenged that impression.

As I suggested in my initial answer, there is provision within the Treaties for action to be taken when necessary by the Commission. Nonetheless it remains a matter for individual Member States to make decisions in relation to taxation, as I sought to declare. If the honourable Member is suggesting that further action needs to be taken either at Member State level or at European level, I am not convinced that would necessarily relate to issues of taxation as distinct from potential other public policy remedies for the problems that he claims to have identified.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE). – Grazzi Sur President. Naħseb inkunu żbaljati jekk nibqgħu nieħdu din il-kwistjoni strettament min-naħa ta' tassazzjoni, rridu nħarsu lejha mill-kwistjoni ta' moviment ħieles ta' persuni u ta' servizzi, tnejn mil-libertajiet essenzjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea. Ħa nagħti eżempju b'pajjiżi - b'Malta. Biex inti taqta' biljett bejn Malta u Brussell jiġik bejn wieħed u ieħor 104 Euros prezz tajjeb, it-tassazzjoni u s-'surcharges' fuqha jiġi 126 Euro, jiġifieri 121% tal-prezz, bejn Malta u Londra 200% tal-prezz huma t-taxxi u ċ-'charges' l-oħra. Irridu nħarsu lejha bis-serjetà, ma jistax ikun li l-ivjaġġar, speċjalment minn postijiet iżolati u remoti, jkun meqjus b'xi mod bħala lussu. Aħna ma nistgħux naqbdu l-karozza biex imorru 'main land Europe', x'naqbdu nagħmlu ngħumuha imbagħad?! Jiġifieri rridu nħarsu lejha verament mil-lat ta' libertà ta' moviment.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I would simply reiterate the caution that I emphasised earlier as to the legitimate remit of the Council in these matters. There is, as I said, provision for the Commission to take action in particular circumstances, and Mr Muscat is right to recognise that free movement of services is one element of the original Treaty of Rome.

However, to counterbalance the rather negative construction that he has placed on the present position in relation to air fares in one particular Member State, it is important to recognise that some of the measures taken at European Union level in recent years have resulted in very dramatic drops in the price of tickets that are being charged to European Union citizens to travel elsewhere within the European Union. Only this morning I had the opportunity to travel to Budapest where I was hearing directly about the seventeen daily flights now available between a number of regional airports in the United Kingdom and Hungary. That would have been inconceivable only a matter of years ago, and the European Union deserves credit in recognising the extent to which it has contributed towards the new opportunities that are afforded to many citizens to travel, which have now been enjoyed by many citizens in recent months and years.

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE). – Last month I tabled a question for this session of Question Time to the Council on a related subject, that of EU kerosene tax. In response to the question as to what the Council’s position on EU kerosene tax was, I was told that because it had not received a proposal from the Commission, the Council could not take position. I have here documentary evidence that the Commission has made proposals to the Council. The issue was last discussed in the Council by the Luxembourg Presidency, prior to the British Presidency, which British ministers would presumably have attended. Can the Council Presidency please tell me whether this is a case of incompetence, or is there a secret agenda to introduce a kerosene tax?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I can assure the honourable Member there is no secret agenda as far as I am concerned. On the other hand, if he would like to share with me the information he has waved before this House today I shall certainly look into the matter that he has addressed and I will make sure that a reply is forthcoming to him.

Pergunta nº 3 de Sarah Ludford (H-0895/05)

Assunto: Convenção do Conselho da Europa relativa ao tráfico de seres humanos

Por que motivo não assinaram todos os Estados-Membros da UE a Convenção do Conselho da Europa relativa à luta contra o tráfico de seres humanos, nos termos da qual as pessoas que constituem objecto de tráfico deverão ser tratadas em primeira instância como vítimas, e não como imigrantes ilegais?

Está o Reino Unido, na qualidade de país que exerce a Presidência, a dar um bom exemplo nesse domínio?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council is not in a position to give information on the state of individual Member States’ decision-making concerning the signature of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. The convention has to date been signed by five Member States of the European Union: Austria, Cyprus, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. No Member States have ratified the convention. It is noted that part of the convention is under EC competence and will therefore need to be signed and ratified by the EC.

The Council is currently considering an action plan on trafficking in human beings to develop a comprehensive and strategic European Union approach on this issue. The action plan will build on the conference held on 19 and 20 October, ‘Tackling human trafficking: Policy and best practice in Europe’, organised by the United Kingdom Presidency, the Commission and Sweden.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – That is rather inadequate. The Commission’s recent communication said that victim protection is the top priority, but Member States tend to lump trafficking together with illegal immigration and prefer to make victim protection conditional on being a witness. That is why they dislike the convention.

The advice that I and colleagues received from the police is that victims will cooperate with police voluntarily once they and their families are safe. Police are dismayed that the chances of a successful prosecution of traffickers are being undermined by a policy of deporting victims as illegal immigrants or making assistance conditional. Mr Blair said recently that you need powerful reasons to turn round and say ‘no’ to the police. Why are 17 EU Prime Ministers – and you are now telling me it is actually 20 Prime Ministers, including Tony Blair – saying ‘no’ to the police by refusing to sign up to this convention?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I would first like to repeat to the honourable Member the point that I made at the beginning that it is not for me, representing the Presidency in the course of today and in the course of this debate, to speak in terms of the decision-making of those 20 Prime Ministers that she identifies. I would however say that it rather ill befits her to suggest that there is a conflation between illegal immigration and human trafficking when the conference that I described on this important issue of human trafficking was entitled ‘Tackling human trafficking: policy and best practice in Europe’. This was a matter which, as I said, was taken forward by the British Presidency and therefore the allegation that she seems to be levelling that there is somehow a profound and perpetual confusion between illegal immigration and human trafficking seems, not least on the basis of the title of the conference, to be refuted by the evidence.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – Following on from that, I think the reason my colleague said what she did was because the UK Presidency seems to view this as a security and stability issue rather than a human rights issue.

Further to what the President-in-Office has said, could he try to make sure that the Council discussions on the EU action plan on trafficking is in the public domain, because we do not have any information about it at present. Could he also give reassurances that at least the minimum standards that are written into the EU Convention against trafficking are put into that EU action plan?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Let me assure the honourable lady that there is widespread support for the aims of the Convention on Action against Human Trafficking and that European Union Member States want to see concerted action to tackle at source what is undoubtedly an abhorrent trade, in order to protect and support the victims of which she has spoken and bring those responsible to justice.

I can assure the honourable lady that the United Kingdom, as Presidency of the European Union, has prioritised work on combating human trafficking, and the EU Action Plan for best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings has been the focus of our efforts. We have held not one but two conferences on the subject. That action plan will, I can assure her, address the whole cycle of human trafficking and specifically recognises the importance of a human rights and a victim-centred approach. So, I hope that, on the basis of the answer that I have been able to offer, some of her concerns over the approach that the British Presidency has taken on this important issue transpire to be misplaced.

Pergunta nº 4 de John Purvis (H-0897/05)

Assunto: Imposto especial de consumo sobre o tabaco e o álcool

A Comissão e o Parlamento Europeu são favoráveis à supressão das directrizes sobre as quantidades de tabaco e de álcool que os consumidores podem comprar noutro Estado-Membro e levar para casa para consumo pessoal. Que diligências efectuou a Presidência para convencer o Conselho a aceitar a supressão das referidas directrizes a fim de que os consumidores possam exercer plenamente os direitos garantidos pelo mercado único?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The proposed deletion of the indicative amounts for tobacco products and alcohol constitutes only one of the elements of the relevant Commission proposal amending the arrangements for products subject to excise duty. Indicative amounts are used as an important indicator of whether the quantity of excise goods carried across borders is for commercial reasons or for private consumption by non-taxable persons. They are not in themselves an obstacle to the rights of cross-border shoppers.

The Commission proposal has been discussed on several occasions in the relevant bodies since it was transmitted to the Council, with no indication that Member States would agree to abolish the minimum indicative levels. The Presidency therefore does not believe that further discussion of this issue would be productive.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – Would the President-in-Office not agree with me that a single market in the European Union, in which goods, people, services and capital can move as freely across European borders as they do within Member States, is a vital policy objective? Would he agree with me that we should prefer tax competition between Member States to harmonisation of tax rates across the EU? If he so agrees, can he see any justification for any limits or guidelines as to how much in the way of excisable products our citizens can take with them across our borders?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. It is refreshing to hear a point of view being put forward in this Chamber that differs so much from some of the allegations normally levelled against the British and the British Presidency.

The free movement of goods and services is, of course, reflected in the original treaties of the European Union, and one of the focuses of our work in the course of our Presidency has been the completion of the single market. We have sought to take forward, and continue to seek to take forward, work in relation to services. Indeed, countries who at times in the past have questioned our pro-European credentials have been some of those most critical of our efforts to continue to advance discussions in relation to the issue of services.

On the specific issue that the speaker raised in relation to cross-border shopping, let me simply say that the Presidency fully supports the rights of cross-border shoppers. At the same time, though, we are committed to tackling those who abuse freedoms that would otherwise be enjoyed by citizens right across the European Union. We are determined to tackle abuses of the freedoms within the single market by those who engage in illegal activities such as smuggling. Guide levels are therefore essential to assist customs authorities to distinguish between genuine cross-border shoppers and smugglers.

On the more general point with which he concluded his remarks, I think the rather robust case which was put by our Foreign Secretary in terms of the limits of harmonisation within the European Union earlier this afternoon is an eloquent testimony as to the British Government’s view on the appropriate balance between harmonisation and competition within the European Union.

  David Martin (PSE). – Would the President-in-Office agree that guidelines are precisely that – guidelines – and that if individuals can prove that what they are importing is for their own use then, even if they exceed the guidelines, they would not be outwith the law? Also, would he agree that the guidelines exist to ensure that the single market functions in this area and that, if we did not have the guidelines, the very objective that Mr Purvis wants might be undermined, because the guidelines are there to stop the abuses that the President-in-Office referred to?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I can assure the honourable Member that we take seriously the kind of abuse of which he speaks so eloquently. Speaking for a moment from the United Kingdom point of view rather than the Presidency point of view, it is the case that in the United Kingdom we have the highest guide levels of all the Member States of the European Union.

We, like every Member State, apply sanctions to those who bring in excise goods that are not for their own personal use with the intention – exactly the intention to which the honourable Member refers – of evading the duty that would otherwise be due. These sanctions, I believe, are proportionate to the nature of the offence. Therefore he is right in recognising that guidelines are exactly that.

Pergunta nº 5 de Elspeth Attwooll (H-0898/05)

Assunto: Noivas sem fronteiras

O Governo do Reino Unido pretende obrigar muitas mulheres britânicas a abandonar o Reino Unido para se reunirem aos maridos, aos quais foi recusada a autorização de residência. Afirmam-lhes que é seguro residir em países como o Iraque, Irão, Afeganistão, Congo e Burundi, que o Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros e da Commonwealth do Reino Unido e o Departamento de Estado norte-americano consideram perigosos para os visitantes ocidentais e/ou culpados de violação dos direitos fundamentais.

Como pode esta prática ser compatível com a Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem, nomeadamente o direito à vida familiar, a Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE e o artigo 6º do Tratado da União Europeia?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council has never debated this question and it is not within the sphere of its competence.

  Elspeth Attwooll (ALDE). – I must say that I find the lack of any legal justification in terms of European Community law and the European Convention on Human Rights somewhat distressing. There is little to reassure me about the welfare of my constituents.

The President-in-Office will be aware that, since February 2005, non-EU/EEA nationals have to obtain Home Office permission to get married in the United Kingdom. Its effect is that we are talking about a limited number of couples.

Would the President-in-Office be prepared at least to convey to his Home Office colleagues my request that an amnesty be granted to such couples, at least where it is recognised that there is a genuine and subsisting relationship, and that the requirement to travel to the country of origin in order to apply for spousal residence be waived?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I can assure the honourable Member that I have concerns for the welfare and interests of her constituents, not least because we share constituents, representing as I do the constitutents of Paisley and Renfrewshire South in Scotland.

I am respectful of her experience, not least in the field of constitutional law, but I would simply state what seems to me an obvious point, i.e. that my responsibilities today are not to explain or to articulate the position of the British Government in relation to this particular policy issue, but instead to outline the position of the European Union Presidency of which Britain holds the chair at the moment.

I would therefore be perfectly content if the honourable Member would wish to write to me on a bilateral basis on the specific points that she has raised in order that we could ensure that a reply be directed towards the Home Office in the United Kingdom. But I would hesitate to go further than that, given that it is not really the appropriate focus for our discussions in this Chamber this afternoon.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I note that in relation to the question on alcohol guidelines the Minister commented on UK practice, so I am sure he is prepared to do so on this subject: does this practice in the UK not jar with EU free movement rules in the developing concept of European citizenship?

If one of my constituents who has been caught by the new rule and whose marriage is accepted by the government moves to France, she would have the right to have her husband with her. So, the bizarre effect is that couples get greater protection of their right to family life in an EU country other than their own. There is a strong European dimension to this, so I believe it is apt to ask the UK Minister to answer as Presidency.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Well, Mr President, it was a valiant attempt in the supplementary to try and draw us into a discussion of Britain’s domestic policy, but I think the appropriate response, and one which is genuinely respectful to this Chamber, is to address ourselves to the points that have been raised in responding as the Presidency.

I have already made an offer to one of the Member’s parliamentary colleagues that if she wishes to write directly to me, I will facilitate the correspondence being passed on to the Home Office in the United Kingdom, but I think, not least given the constraints of time always upon us during Question Time, it is important that we focus on questions to the Council at this stage, rather than to continue what is an appropriate discussion within respective Member States.

Pergunta nº 6 de Frank Vanhecke (H-0900/05)

Assunto: Censura à Internet na China

Em 25 de Setembro de 2005, o Ministério da Informação chinês promulgou legislação relativa à difusão de informação na Internet. Esta última não pode incitar à comparência em reuniões ilegais, à pertença a associações ilegais e à participação em manifestações ilegais que perturbem a ordem social.

A nova legislação destina-se tanto aos sites como ao correio electrónico. Ela pretende impedir toda a difusão de informação (notícias, comentários, etc.) que não seja previamente verificada e filtrada pelo regime. Os portais da Internet têm a obrigação de recolher todas as notícias e comentários das fontes noticiosas oficiais. No que respeita ao correio electrónico, todos os particulares e os grupos privados têm de registar-se primeiro como "organização noticiosa" e só depois podem eles próprios divulgar notícias (ou análises destas).

Ainda antes da promulgação desta legislação, em 22 de Setembro de 2005, o Sr. Zheng Yichun foi condenado a sete anos de prisão por ter incitado na Internet a reformas políticas.

De que forma irá o Conselho abordar esta nova violação fundamental da liberdade de expressão pelo governo chinês? Neste contexto, irá o Conselho discutir também o caso do Sr. Zheng Yichun e exortar à sua libertação?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. In reply to Question 6, the Council shares the concerns of the honourable Member regarding restrictions on freedom of expression, including on the internet in China. The European Union has most recently expressed these concerns in the context of the EU-China human rights dialogue, which took place on 24 and 25 October 2005 in Beijing. The European Union has also repeatedly raised this issue in other bilateral meetings, including at the highest level.

With a view to China’s signature and the process of ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is of particular importance that freedom of expression be guaranteed in line with international standards. Article 19 of the ICCPR was therefore the subject of a recent legal seminar of European Union and Chinese academics and practitioners that took place in Beijing in June 2005 in the context of this dialogue. The joint recommendations that resulted from that seminar were handed over to the Chinese side during that last dialogue.

As part of the dialogue and in the context of the European Union guidelines on human rights defenders, the European Union has raised with the Chinese authorities a number of cases of individuals detained for peacefully expressing their opinions, asking for more details on their fate and pressing for their release.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – Voorzitter, ik dank vanzelfsprekend de Raad voor dit antwoord. Ik heb echter toch de indruk dat daar van de kant van de Chinese regering, dat daar op een aantal welwillende verklaringen na, eigenlijk concreet zeer weinig gebeurt. Ik heb de indruk dat van onze kant, van de kant van de Raad en van de Europese Unie, toch voor een stuk met twee maten wordt gemeten en twee gewichten wordt gewogen en dat met name China toch voor een flink stuk wordt ontzien omwille van de macht van het getal en omwille van de vanzelfsprekend zeer grote economische belangen in dit land.

Ik denk persoonlijk dat de Raad, wanneer het om zeer essentiële mensenrechten en zeer essentiële vrije meningsuiting gaat, toch een hardere, meer principiële en meer moedige politiek zou moeten voeren. Ik zou de Raad willen vragen om, indien dat mogelijk is, het concrete geval dat ik heb aangehaald, nogmaals te bestuderen en misschien ook in dit concrete geval met de Chinese autoriteiten contact op te nemen.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The supplementary question ranges more widely than simply the specific case and the concerns regarding censorship of the internet and questions as to whether there is an effective response to the European Union’s pleas and discussions with China in relation to human rights. There is a fundamental choice to be made as to whether isolating any one country with which we have disagreements on standards of human rights is the right way forward.

The European Union has taken a view historically that to have a structured dialogue and to have engagement is the best means of effecting the kind of change I am sure all Members of this Parliament would wish to see. The dialogue has, for example, encouraged China to become more involved in international human rights mechanisms, including the ratification in March 2001 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China received the European Union’s Special Representative on Education in 2003, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 2004 and we very much hope that China will receive the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture this year.

I can assure the honourable Member that the dialogue is both very open and very frank and, as I sought to reflect in my initial answer to his question, this is a dialogue that takes place not simply at official level but at the very highest levels of the contact that exists between the European Union and China.

Pergunta nº 7 de Richard James Ashworth (H-0901/05)

Assunto: Relatório anual do Tribunal de Contas

No decurso desta semana, o Tribunal de Contas Europeu deverá publicar o seu relatório anual sobre as actividades financeiras da União Europeia. Nos últimos dez anos, o Tribunal não conseguiu apresentar uma declaração de fiabilidade satisfatória, o que consideramos inaceitável.

Que medidas tomou a Presidência do Reino Unido para rectificar esta situação? Pode o Conselho garantir-me que, no próximo ano, podemos esperar uma declaração de fiabilidade positiva para as actividades financeiras da UE?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council shares the concerns expressed by the honourable Member regarding the fact that for the past 11 years the European Court of Auditors has been unable to give, in its annual reports, a statement indicating that there was a reasonable assurance as to the legality and regularity of most of the underlying transactions. However, for the 2004 accounts the Court was able to give assurance on the legality and regularity of underlying transactions for pre-accession assistance as well as on own-resources and administration. For the first time, the Court has been able to conclude that the Integrated Administration and Control System – IACS – has reduced the risk of error for most agricultural expenditure to an acceptable level.

I can assure the House that the Council has consistently attached great importance to this issue and has regularly expressed its concern about the level of errors in transactions underlying payments and weaknesses in the control system.

As Members of the House will know, the Council has examined the recent Commission communication on a roadmap to an integrated internal control framework, which is part of the process towards a positive statement of assurance. The UK Presidency and the Commission established a panel of experts which helped prepare a draft Council conclusion on this issue. The Council adopted conclusions on 8 November 2005, confirming that achieving a positive statement of assurance is the European Union’s objective and listing a series of recommendations for action by the Commission and by Member States. The Council considers those conclusions to be an important step towards a positive statement of assurance and will continue to support the Commission’s efforts to contribute actively to improving the financial management of the European Union at all levels, but the decision lies ultimately in the hands of the Court of Auditors.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), deputising for the author. – I accept that in your reply you acknowledge that there have been some improvements, but I hope that the Presidency will also accept that we have had lots of recommendations for action before but been a little bit short on action.

Very briefly, the information note from the European Court of Auditors says on page 7 that the adaptations and validations necessary to ensure the full implementation of the new accounting framework have been delayed. Why, and for how long? On page 8 it concludes that CAP expenditure was still materially affected by errors. Why? It adds that on internal policies the risk of errors will persist unless the legal framework is changed. Will it be changed and when?

We should all accept that these problems are not the fault of the Presidency. But will the Presidency accept that it has a responsibility to press for actions on these recommendations and could it perhaps write to me on the specific points that I have just raised?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I can assure the honourable Member that these are matters that we take extremely seriously. Indeed in the remarks that were made by my ministerial colleague the Foreign Secretary in this House this afternoon, he made clear that ‘failure to sign off accounts for the eleventh successive year, which is very poor, affects the climate of debate in all our countries’. So at every level of the British Government and in the course of our Presidency, we have recognised the need to take forward work on this issue. That is why we have been working with the Commission to improve financial management and control of the budget.

In January 2005, the Commission introduced a new accounting system, which should offer the Court of Auditors better information as the basis for giving a positive opinion on the presentation of accounts. The new system, I understand, will be used to produce the accounts for 2005. The Presidency also secured Member States’ agreement at the 8 November ECOFIN Council on a package of further proposals for improvements in financial management and control, known as I described in my earlier answer as the roadmap, which the Commission has put forward.

So I can assure the honourable Member that this is not simply a matter of concern to the British Presidency, but one which, in the course of that ECOFIN meeting and in support of the renewed efforts of the Commission, we have been determined to take forward. He is generous in acknowledging the fact that this problem, because it is a real problem for the European Union, long predates the British Presidency. I hope that in the course of the six months of the British Presidency, we will have been able to play our part in resolving what has been a long-standing issue, which has brought no credit to the European Union and on which I hope a way forward can be found in the months and years to come.

  David Martin (PSE). – Would the President-in-Office accept that there are few, if any, individuals in Brussels stuffing their pockets with money? Would he also accept that most of the complaints that the Court of Auditors brings forward concern systems and procedures, and not fraud in its narrow sense, and that if fraud does occur it is generally in donor countries or, indeed, sometimes in the Member States of the European Union?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The honourable Member is of course right to acknowledge that although the European Court of Auditors’ report concerns the European Union accounts, 80% of the spending under that is in fact implemented by Member States through agriculture and structural funds. However, we must be take care not to simply deploy that argument in case we are perceived to be complacent in the face of the challenge we face. I would simply reiterate the point the Foreign Secretary made earlier, which is that, in the hands of those who are hostile towards the very idea of the European Union, the failure to sign off the accounts for the eleventh year is ammunition which we should certainly endeavour not to provide in the years ahead.

It is certainly true that action needs to be taken at Member State level rather than simply at the bureaucratic level within Brussels, but that should not in any way provide an excuse for the action that other Members have called for not being taken both in Brussels and at Member State level.

All of us with an interest in building and sustaining support for the European Union and its efforts amongst European citizens have a strong vested interest in seeing this long-standing problem being resolved. That will involve action at the Member State level, but it will also involve the kind of important work that we took forward at Ecofin and which, I am glad to say, has the support of the European Commission.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – I wish to follow Mr Martin’s observation to the Presidency-in-Office, because the President-in-Office used the expression ‘has brought no credit to the European Union’, as if somehow the European Union is a different institution from our national institutions. I simply should like to emphasise the fact that the reason the Court of Auditors has found it difficult to sign off the accounts is not because of corruption in the European Union – as distinct from the Member States – but because the Member States do not assist the European Union to give the sort of valid accountancy that the Court of Auditors and EU institutions require.

I wish to ask the President-in-Office to give the public confidence that, of course, we must be scrupulous; but it is not somebody else’s fault: it is our Member States’ fault.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. With the greatest respect to the honourable Member, I disagree that the best way to tackle this problem that has existed for 11 years is somehow to get into an apportionment of responsibility which suggests that one is better than the other, or vice versa.

The challenge, surely, is to recognise that there is a shared problem. It would simply be disingenuous if I were to suggest that this does not present a very considerable reputational risk to the European Union, not least in the way that this failure to secure a statement of assurance for the eleventh year running has been presented in newspapers in a number of countries across the European Union, rather than get into a ‘who is right, who is wrong’ argument.

The challenge is to find solutions that reflect the respective responsibilities of the Commission, the bureaucracy in Brussels and the Member States, but it is not an adequate response to the fact that, for 11 years, a statement of assurance has not been forthcoming simply to say that this is a matter for Member States and therefore there is no shared responsibility to find a way forward. There is a shared responsibility on all of us who wish to see statements of assurance being forthcoming in the future to take the very kind of practical steps that the Commission’s proposals represented and that, I am glad to say, we advanced during the British Presidency at the recent Ecofin meeting.

Pergunta nº 8 de Richard Corbett (H-0903/05)

Assunto: Comitologia

Poderá o Conselho informar de que modo está a proceder, após ter retomado a apreciação da proposta de revisão da Decisão de 1999 relativa à comitologia?

Está o Conselho de acordo em que a proposta revista da Comissão, apresentada em 2004, poderia, com apenas algumas alterações, oferecer uma base aceitável para uma solução duradoura da controvérsia sobre comitologia?

Está o Conselho disposto a encarar a alteração da referida proposta, de modo a excluir a possibilidade de a Comissão manter inalterada uma medida de aplicação que tenha sido rejeitada pelo Conselho ou pelo Parlamento?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I welcome the question from the honourable Member who I know has a long-running interest in the issue of comitology. He will know that discussions of the Commission’s amended proposals resumed once more only in September so I hope that he will understand that it is too early at this stage for me to give a definitive answer to his question on behalf of the Council.

The working group considering the Commission’s revised comitology proposal has met three times so far and will meet twice more under the British Presidency. I understand, however, that discussions are going well.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – May I just thank the Presidency for its answer and urge it to persevere. If we manage to find a solution to this issue which has beleaguered the Union for many years, we will be making a notable contribution to our endeavours to regulate better. So much now comes to three readings each in Parliament and Council that really ought to be delegated to the executive. But we will not delegate unless we have the guarantee that we can, if necessary, call things back, in the same way that the Council can. Equality between Parliament and Council is the key to this. If there is better opportunity for scrutiny, we will in turn be willing to delegate much more readily.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I pay due tribute to both the experience and expertise of the honourable Member on this matter. I find myself in concurrence with his view, both as to the importance of this issue and to the fact that we need to persevere. I can assure him that, from a Presidency point of view, we are persevering on this important point and will continue to do so.

Finally, I just wish to reiterate that, notwithstanding the fact that these discussions only resumed in September, I am glad to say that real progress has been made in the discussions that have already taken place. I am optimistic that further substantial progress can be made in the two remaining meetings during the British Presidency.

Pergunta nº 9 de Sajjad Karim (H-0905/05)

Assunto: Inconsistência nas abordagens dos ministros relativamente ao equilíbrio entre segurança e direitos humanos

Num período de apenas duas semanas, recebemos mensagens contraditórias de dois ministros do Governo do Reino Unido, actual detentor da Presidência do Conselho. No seu prefácio ao Relatório Anual 2005 da UE relativo aos Direitos Humanos, publicado em 3 de Outubro, Jack Straw, ministro britânico dos Negócios Estrangeiros, citou Kofi Annan: "Não teremos desenvolvimento sem segurança, não teremos segurança sem desenvolvimento e não teremos nenhum dos dois sem respeito pelos direitos humanos". Além disso, Jack Straw declarou que "é fundamental que continuemos não apenas a reafirmar estes valores, mas a insistir na sua validade". Todavia, em 26 de Setembro, o ministro do Interior do Reino Unido, Charles Clarke, foi citado no New Statesman, sendo-lhe atribuída a opinião de que "a ter de escolher entre segurança e a Convenção dos Direitos do Homem, [...] a primeira responsabilidade é a segurança nacional". Pode o Conselho conciliar estas declarações aparentemente contraditórias? Se tal não for possível, qual das duas representa mais aproximadamente o ponto de vista do Conselho: a ter de escolher entre segurança e direitos humanos, qual seria a sua prioridade?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. All governments face the challenge of dealing with the current unprecedented threat of global terrorism. However, there is no choice to be made between security and human rights. Without security there are no human rights, and without human rights there is no security.

Following the attacks in London on 7 July this year, the Council held an extraordinary meeting on 13 July. At this meeting the Council adopted a declaration on the European Union response to those terrible bombings. In the declaration the Council made it clear that, and I quote directly: ‘the attacks are an affront to universal values on which the European Union is based. Central to those values is a commitment to democratic and open institutions and societies governed by the rule of law within which people of all faiths and backgrounds can live, work and prosper together. The terrorists who reject that commitment and seek to use violence to impose their ideas will be defeated’. They added thereafter that the European Union was strengthening, and again I quote directly: ‘its commitment to combating terrorism and upholding the fundamental principles of freedom, security and justice’.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – Thank you for your response. I accept that this is a matter in which there ought to be more choice and it is an issue of striking the right balance.

What I would like to know is: in what way does the detention of persons without charge, the refusal to provide meaningful information for the reasons for detention and the removal of a lawyer’s right to take meaningful instructions in such matters either reaffirm these values or assert their validity?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I would suggest respectfully that the honourable Member is trying to tempt me into discussions as to the approaches or suggested approaches of one Member State or another, when my responsibility today is to speak on behalf of the Council. I can assure him that from a Presidency point of view the statement that I shared with Parliament and which was agreed by Council Members on 13 July is a strong basis on which, as a united front, we can confront the threat of international terrorism. Let us be very clear: the terrorists want to deny us not just life, through their vicious and unprecedented attacks on us, but also our way of life. That is why I think the statement made by the Council on 13 July is such a strong reflection of pan-European sentiments as to how we should deal with these challenges.

Pergunta nº 10 de Hélène Goudin (H-0908/05)

Assunto: Orçamentos de defesa dos Estados-Membros da UE

Em 14 de Outubro de 2005, a imprensa sueca noticiou que o Ministro da Defesa britânico, John Reid, se pronunciara publicamente no sentido de que os Estados-Membros da UE devem aumentar as verbas atribuídas aos respectivos sectores da defesa. De acordo com a mesma imprensa, o Ministro da Defesa declarou que um nível razoável para os orçamentos de defesa dos Estados-Membros corresponde a cerca de 2,5% do PNB, o que equivale ao montante afectado pelo Reino Unido. No ano transacto, as despesas da Suécia com a defesa ascenderam a 1,7% do PNB deste país.

Será a opinião geral da Presidência do Conselho que os Estados-Membros da UE devem diligenciar no sentido de atribuírem à defesa verbas equivalentes à do Reino Unido? Considera a Presidência do Conselho que os Estados-Membros da UE que, como a Suécia, gastam menos de 2% do PNB com a defesa, devem aumentar os montantes atribuídos este sector? Considera a Presidência do Conselho que esta questão constitui, antes de mais, uma questão comum a toda a UE ou que compete aos Estados-Membros decidir do nível de PNB mais adequado para o orçamento da defesa?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. The Council has not discussed the level of Member States’ defence budgets as this is a national responsibility.

As regards defence capabilities, ways are being sought to improve them by increasing levels of research spending, as well as research collaboration, tackling capability gaps and training. For this reason, and following up on the discussion at the informal Heads of Government meeting in Hampton Court, the Presidency has asked the High Representative, in association where appropriate with the Presidency, the future Presidency and the European Commission, to take forward work in this particular area. Working with the Presidency, the High Representative will present a summary of his initial orientations ahead of the December European Council.

Pergunta nº 11 de Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0912/05)

Assunto: Acordo sobre as perspectivas financeiras para 2007/2013

Uma das principais prioridades da Presidência, tal como foram apresentadas ao Parlamento Europeu a 23 de Junho de 2005, é fazer progressos na questão do financiamento da UE e das perspectivas financeiras para 2007/2013. Tendo em conta que um acordo de última hora dificultará a programação atempada e a correcta aplicação dos programas plurianuais da comunidade, pode o Conselho informar em que fase se encontram as conversações sobre este tema específico. Que iniciativas tenciona tomar para que se chegue a um acordo antes do final da Presidência britânica?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, the Presidency is fully aware of the importance of reaching an agreement on the new financial perspective by the end of the year and will do everything it can to facilitate this. This has been something of a recurring theme of the discussions in the Chamber this afternoon. To this end, the Council undertook a series of bilateral consultations with Member States during the summer and discussions on this issue resumed in the Council on 7 November. They will continue, of course, at the General Affairs Council on Monday, 21 November. The Presidency will continue to work towards an agreement, but until such time as it might be ready to submit to the Council an overall compromise proposal, it cannot comment on what such a proposal might or might not contain.

  Δημήτριος Παπαδημούλης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σκοπεύετε να κοινοποιήσετε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, πριν από τη σύνοδο κορυφής του Δεκεμβρίου, το συμβιβαστικό κείμενο που ετοιμάζει η Προεδρία;

Με δεδομένο ότι το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο πρωτοστάτησε τον Ιούνιο στην αποτροπή μιας συμφωνίας, έχει ειλικρινή διάθεση η Προεδρία να μετακινηθεί προκειμένου να επιτευχθεί μία συμφωνία των εικοσιπέντε;

Αναλογίζεσθε στο Συμβούλιο ότι η Βρετανική Προεδρία κινδυνεύει να αποδειχθεί μία από τις πιο αναποτελεσματικές και αποτυχημένες στην ιστορία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης;

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. My colleague the Foreign Secretary indicated that this was the 47th appearance of a British Minister in the course of the Presidency before this Parliament. I can assure the honourable Member that I will be back in my customary place in the course of the further plenary sessions of this Parliament. Our Prime Minister has committed himself to coming back to speak to Parliament. Whatever other criticisms or scepticism may be directed toward the British Presidency, a lack of discussion with the European Parliament is perhaps not one of the most forceful.

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa puheenjohtajavaltion edustaja, käytän tilaisuutta hyväkseni, koska olen laatinut oman kysymyksen samasta asiasta, kysymyksen numero 17, johon ei ehkä ehditä vastaamaan tämän kyselytunnin aikana. Kysyn, onko mahdollista, että tähän kompromissiesitykseen sisältyy myös maatalouden yhteisrahoitusmenettely, jotta päästään sopimukseen Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan ja sen erityisen jäsenmaksualennuksen poistamisesta?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I admire the opportunism of the honourable Member in seizing the chance of a supplementary to raise the issue he was going to bring up in Question 17. I would simply, perhaps disappointingly, reiterate to him my earlier response to the effect that it really would not be appropriate, given the delicacy and importance of the issues that are being discussed and that will be taken forward in the course of our Presidency, to try and draw out a particular element of the potential package around which we hope to secure consensus in December.

Pergunta nº 12 de Nils Lundgren (H-0916/05)

Assunto: A segurança jurídica na UE

Desde 1998 que o cidadão sueco Lech Sierpinski está sujeito a uma proibição de viajar na Polónia, o que o impede de deixar este país. Como cidadão estrangeiro na Polónia, nos últimos sete anos Lech Sierpinski não tem gozado de direitos fundamentais, como o acesso ao sistema de saúde e a uma autorização de trabalho, não podendo já continuar a financiar as despesas de advogado.

Todos os Estados-Membros da UE devem preencher os critérios de Copenhaga e assinaram a Convenção Europeia que, entre outros, estabelece o direito a uma protecção jurídica efectiva e a um processo judicial justo.

Conquanto ciente da dificuldade de comentar casos específicos, gostaria de perguntar se a Presidência do Conselho considera que será possível diligenciar, a nível do Conselho, no sentido de pressionar um Estado-Membro da UE que, como no caso vertente, não satisfaz requisitos razoáveis em matéria de garantias de segurança jurídica?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I can be brief in answer to this question. The Council has never debated this question and it is not within its sphere of competence.

Pergunta nº 13 de Chris Davies (H-0917/05)

Assunto: Transparência e abertura

Que progressos foram feitos em relação ao problema da transparência e da abertura do Conselho, desde que o Presidente do Conselho em exercício respondeu à minha questão H-0567/05⁽¹⁾ sobre esta matéria?

Pergunta nº 14 de Timothy Kirkhope (H-0957/05)

Assunto: Transparência no Conselho

Na sequência da campanha lançada por personalidades políticas britânicas no Parlamento Europeu, que progressos foram feitos pela Presidência para procurar convencer o Conselho a tornar públicas as suas reuniões em nome da transparência, da abertura e da responsabilidade?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, following the ongoing debate on transparency and openness in the Council and the exchange of views between the United Kingdom Presidency and Members of the European Parliament on this issue, a first discussion took place in COREPER, the Permanent Representatives´’ committee, on 19 October. The Presidency is currently exploring, together with the incoming Austrian and Finnish Presidencies, a series of possible measures aimed at further increasing legislative transparency in the Council.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – I thank the President-in-Office. Let me say what an enormous relief it is to have a few minutes of not debating REACH in endless groups around this Parliament – a few minutes only, I fear. I see that Mr Kirkhope is not here, but I am conscious that he raised this issue in an earlier debate.

I should like to personally thank the President-in-Office for his efforts in this matter. I recognise that he is doing what he can to promote the agenda. I have here a copy of a letter from Mr Rasmussen, the Prime Minister of Denmark, stating that he supports a change in the rules of procedure. I suspect that similar letters could be obtained from Estonia and Sweden to start off with. We already know the British position. That is four votes and you need only another nine. I know the Council prefers to do things by consensus but in order to achieve something of real substance – a real change – should the Presidency not push this to a vote at the next General Affairs Council and name and shame Member States that do not support this position?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am intrigued by the advice being offered by the honourable Member. A strategy of not seeking consensus and naming and shaming is a curious line of argument to advance but I think it indicates the seriousness of the strength of feeling among many honourable Members of this House on this important issue.

The position of the British Government on this matter has been stated by none other than our Prime Minister, but he is right in recognising that the United Kingdom, although acting as Presidency, is not the sole actor on this stage. I fear I will disappoint the honourable Member by pointing out that, because the agenda for Monday is so heavily charged, as not only defence ministers but also development ministers will be involved, we will not discuss transparency next week.

An options paper will be issued in the coming days and it will be discussed by the Antici Group before a discussion in COREPER II. COREPER I will also feed into that process so I am grateful for the generous words of the honourable Member. I can assure him it is a matter on which we are making continued efforts but we are convinced that the way forward is not to address it on 21 November at the forthcoming General Affairs Council, but to seek to make what will be important progress in these other fora which I have described.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President-in-Office, you were intrigued by the questioner. I am intrigued by your answer in pretending that the British Government stands in favour of more transparency.

I have in my hand the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee report published on 24 October. It contains an answer setting out the British Government’s position in response to the proposition that there should be meetings of the Council held in public. It says: ‘the Government believes that it would not be possible for the European Council to reach agreement on difficult issues which cannot be resolved by the Council of Ministers if it is obliged to work in the full glare of publicity’. So, what is the real stance of the British Government? Are you in favour of transparency, or are you in favour of avoiding working in the full glare of publicity, as this answer suggests?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I will answer the honourable Member by saying that, not least as befits the country holding the Presidency of the European Union, the answer will be provided in terms of the Presidency's proposals, because what matters is not the view of one country but the view of the Member States.

When we issue proposals in the coming days, setting out to partners the possible options for increasing transparency in the Council, I can assure the honourable Member, who has spoken with eloquence in terms of the importance he attaches to this issue, that we will be discussing this paper with the incoming Presidencies and also with the Council Secretariat. These options will be taken forward in COREPER, as I said previously, on the basis of the options paper at the Antici meeting later this month. That, I believe, is the constructive way forward to ensure that we get the outcome which so many here seek.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Is the Presidency aware of the long history of this issue in that this Parliament has pressed for the Council to meet in public when acting as a legislature ever since it was first elected in 1979? Indeed, the British Presidency in 1976, when represented in the Energy Council by one Tony Benn, took the initiative of saying that Council should meet in public when acting on legislation.

Would he recognise that we have made a lot of progress together in our gradually evolving Constitution, in that the Council now at least publishes the results of all its votes on legislation and grants the public a right of access to documents, but that it would be worth going one last extra step and actually meeting and voting in public when adopting legislation?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I defer to the honourable Member in terms of the detail of his historical understanding of this issue, reinforcing the longstanding interest that the Benn family has taken in this matter. It might be of interest to the honourable Member to be aware that this is a matter in which I have been in discussion with Tony Benn’s son, because he is now one of the United Kingdom’s representatives on the Council of Development Ministers and therefore has a direct interest in the position that we take in that and other Councils. I am glad to say that his observations reflect quite the weight of history that lies behind the important discussions that we are taking forward with Member States at the moment.

In answer to the earlier question, I would simply reiterate the point that our own Prime Minister made when he addressed the European Parliament early in the course of the British Presidency: it is that impulse that has driven us to take forward the discussions at COREPER and that we now anticipate we will take forward in the days ahead.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President-in-Office, I apologise to you and the Presidency itself for being late. I spoke with Mr Hilary Benn on Sunday about this very matter when we were at Remembrance Day in Leeds.

I should like to ask the President-in-Office what the position is regarding what I was told by Mr Blair – and indeed what I was told today by Mr Straw – concerning how we go forward with this issue of openness and transparency in terms of the Council. I was told by Mr Blair that it would be fine to go ahead as long as it was within the rules. I was told by Mr Straw this afternoon that two options were being considered. I would like to know whether those options are within the rules or whether we are looking at a change in the rules.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. I am grateful to the honourable Member for reinforcing the contemporary nature of these discussions amongst British politicians. I cannot claim to have spoken to Hilary Benn in quite as recent days as he has, but I can assure you that, when I meet him at Cabinet tomorrow morning, I will search out what he told you at the Remembrance Service in Leeds on Sunday.

In relation to the point he makes, however, he will have to wait just a little while longer because, before he re-entered the Chamber this afternoon, I was sharing with other colleagues the process that we are taking forward now: as he knows, there was a discussion at Coreper earlier in the course of the British Presidency. It will not be discussed on 21 November at the General Affairs Council. We have instead decided to set out an options paper which will be issued in the coming days of our Presidency and will then be discussed at the Antici before discussion at COREPER II. COREPER I will also feed into this process. If it would be of help to the honourable Member, I shall certainly ensure that he receives a copy of the options paper when it is issued.

Pergunta nº 15 de Jonas Sjöstedt (H-0920/05)

Assunto: O acordo de pesca com Marrocos e o apoio do Conselho à ONU

Em resposta a uma anterior pergunta (H-0692/05⁽²⁾) relativa à conclusão de um acordo de pesca entre a UE e Marrocos que inclui os territórios ocupados do Sahara Ocidental, o Conselho declara que “apoia o processo da ONU”.

Em 11 de Outubro, a quarta comissão da Assembleia-Geral da ONU aprovou uma resolução relativa ao direito dos territórios não autónomos aos recursos naturais próprios. A resolução foi apoiada por 137 dos membros presentes, dos quais 22 países são inclusivamente membros da UE. A França e o Reino Unido abstiveram-se e a Dinamarca não esteve presente.

Tendo em conta a anterior referência do Conselho ao seu apoio ao processo da ONU e a resolução, apoiada pela maioria dos Estados-Membros da UE aquando da votação em 11 de Outubro na ONU, poder-se-ia concluir que o acordo de pesca negociado entre a UE e Marrocos não incluirá os territórios do Sahara Ocidental. Pode o Conselho confirmar que os portos e as águas do Sahara Ocidental não serão abrangidos pelo acordo de pesca?

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Mr President, I should like to refer the honourable Member to the Council’s reply to his question H-0692/05 of 28 September.

In my reply, I stated that Article 2 of the Fisheries Agreement initialled on 28 July 2005 indicates that it applies ‘to the Moroccan fisheries zone under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco’. This delimitation of the geographical scope of the agreement is identical to the delimitation in the previous agreement that expired in 1999 and does not in any way prejudice the issue of the status of Western Sahara. The initialled agreement is now in the ratification process, which is expected to lead to its formal conclusion in the first quarter of 2006.

  Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – Jag vill tacka rådet för svaret. Problemet med svaret är att det innebär att EU har slutit ett fiskeavtal som betyder att EU kommer att fiska i Västsaharas vatten. Det är ett land som olagligt ockuperas av Marocko. Ingen av EU:s medlemsstater erkänner Marockos suveränitet över Västsahara. Det hjälper inte hur elegant man formulerar detta. Faktum är att ni har slutit eller är på väg att sluta ett avtal som indirekt godtar Marockos överhöghet över Västsahara genom att avtalet omfattar förhandlingar om det ockuperade landets naturresurser. Jag tycker att detta är djupt inkonsekvent och omoraliskt. Jag undrar därför om det inte finns en brist på samstämmighet i rådets politik på detta område.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Let me assure the honourable Member that the political status of Western Sahara is being dealt with within the framework of the United Nations. The Council is offering the UN its full support in finding a satisfactory resolution to the question of Western Sahara, and hopes that a resolution of the situation will be forthcoming.

As I stated earlier, the fisheries agreement does not in any way prejudice the issue of the status of Western Sahara. As with the previous longstanding agreement, the new EU-Morocco fisheries agreement applies to ‘the Moroccan fisheries zone under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco’. The fisheries agreement does not in any way prejudice that issue of the status of Western Sahara, as the honourable Member suggests.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Herr Ratspräsident! Ich finde, man kann Marokko nicht einfach, wie der Kollege das getan hat, als Besatzungsmacht bezeichnen. Ich möchte Sie fragen, ob das Westsahara-Problem nicht vielmehr eine koloniale Hinterlassenschaft von uns Europäern ist, und ob wir nicht Verständnis für beide Seiten haben sollten – für die Marokkaner und andere Gruppierungen –, um hier eine echte Kompromisslösung herbeizuführen, die auch die Interessen Marokkos berücksichtigt.

  Douglas Alexander, President-in-Office of the Council. Let me assure the honourable Member that we are looking for a genuine solution but we recognise that this genuine solution – the political status of the Western Sahara – is being dealt with in the framework of the United Nations. The United Nations enjoys the Council’s full support in seeking to find that genuine and satisfactory solution to the question of the Western Sahara. We certainly hope that a resolution of this situation will be forthcoming.

  Presidente. Às perguntas nºs 16 a 36 serão dadas respostas por escrito⁽³⁾.

(1) Resposta oral de 7.9.2005.

(2) Resposta escrita de 13.10.2005.

(3) Ver Anexo "Período de perguntas"