Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 18 January 2006 - Strasbourg

11. Council Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0676/2005), with questions to the Council.

Before we begin Question Time, I would like first of all to make an announcement and secondly to inform you that, after it, Mr Winkler will be addressing you. In agreement with the Council, we are introducing a new system for Question Time as of today. Details of this system were given to all Members in a Notice to Members dated 9 December 2005. Question Time will now be divided into two parts. During the first part, the Minister responsible for General Affairs will deal with four high-priority questions, to be selected by the President. During the second part, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on this occasion, will deal with nine questions, specifically questions 5 to 14, which are all topics within his specific area of competence.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to have my first opportunity today to be here to take your questions. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about something that you have already mentioned. We in the Presidency are well aware that Question Time is an important democratic tool, because it enables MEPs to get answers from the Council to questions that are important for their political work.

We have therefore been reflecting, together with your House’s Bureau, on how we can make best and most effective use of Question Time as a tool. As Mrs Kaufmann has already said, this has resulted in some ideas for reforms that we would like to try out together for the first time today. This new type of Question Time aims to deal first with current topics of general interest and then to spend the rest of the time discussing a particular specialist field, in other words to raise questions to be answered in person by the President-in-Office responsible for that field. This, I believe, will help us to deal with the issues that interest you in a more targeted manner. We hope that this new procedure will provide your House with a better service and also contribute to more successful and better founded interinstitutional dialogue, to which the Austrian Presidency is particularly committed.

We are doing this even though Austria is a country with a relatively small government and therefore with relatively few ministers who are available for this new style of dialogue, but we want to make this effort in the common interest. It was also not particularly easy to convince the other members of the Council to agree to these changes, but we managed it. I hope, Madam President, that as many Members as possible will take us up on this offer, and that their presence will in future make Question Time a more lively occasion.

  President. We now come to Question Time.

Question No 1 by Liam Aylward (H-1119/05)

Subject: Climate change

Can the European Council make a statement as to the success or otherwise of the UN Convention on Climate Change which was held in Montreal in Canada the week commencing 5 December last?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, as Mr Aylward will be aware, the European Council recently welcomed the positive results of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which took place in Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. Under the Montreal Action Plan, future climate change discussions should now follow two parallel paths. Firstly, the parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol will launch negotiations on the legally binding emissions targets for the developed countries in the second commitment period. Secondly, all parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the United States and the largest developing countries, have agreed to enter global discussions regarding long-term coordinated measures in relation to climate change. All in all, the Kyoto Protocol has now achieved full functionality, and we believe that the path has been smoothed for progress within the United Nations framework.

  Liam Aylward (UEN). – May I begin by welcoming Minister Winkler on his first official occasion at Parliament, wishing him and his Government colleagues well during their term of Presidency, and thanking him for his comprehensive reply.

I welcome the outcome of the Montreal negotiations, which were relatively successful in the end. However, I would like to address a question to both the Council and the Commission, in relation to the decision which was made in Sydney on 12 January 2006 by the AP6 countries, namely, China, India, South Korea, Japan, the United States and Australia, when they decided that they represent 45% of the world’s population and account for almost half of the greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder, because they are going it alone and there is no mandatory mechanism whereby they must adhere to certain principles, how we will provide leadership in the Council and the Commission to deal with that.

  President. Mr Aylward, although I have been very indulgent towards you on account of your friendly welcome to the Presidency of the Council, I must remind all Members that they have only 30 seconds for supplementary questions. If we all overrun, we will unfortunately be able to deal with very few questions, so please be so kind as to stick to the time limit for supplementary questions.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, it is clear – and has also been demonstrated by the negotiations in Montreal – that the biggest producers of greenhouse gases are now getting more involved in the dialogue regarding a future climate protection mechanism, and it is important that nobody goes it alone.

The future mechanism may well entail structural changes, which should make it considerably easier for Europe to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the efforts made so far. There have also been some significant developments outside the international climate process, and various regions have established a number of initiatives.

The Gleneagles Action Plan, if I may bring that up on this occasion, places the emphasis of the EU's most important trading partners on technology transfer and on managing the effects of climate change, and involves a commitment to dialogue and technological cooperation with India, China and Russia.

It is in the interests of the European Union to work with all countries within and outside the international climate dialogue to ensure that our common goals of reducing emissions are not undermined by the actions of groups or States.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, industry reports show that the emissions trading system distorts the energy market and unnecessarily increases electricity prices, and has a negative impact on national climate strategies. Does the Council take the view that the EU Emissions Trading Directive is meeting its original goals, and do you believe that a carbon dioxide tax could provide funds for the European Union?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, the EU's emissions trading system is one of the cornerstones of the fight against climate change. It is the first international CO2 emissions trading system in the world, and covers around 12 000 plants, or getting on for half of all Europe's CO2 emissions. It helps the Member States to reach their emissions targets. No other system allows emissions to be reduced so cost-effectively.

The Council is well aware of the problems to which you alluded in implementing the EU emissions trading system during the pilot phase. This initial period provided some valuable experience, which should help us with the future development of the system. Building on these initial experiences, the directive already provides for a full review in 2006. This review will enable us to examine all the possible improvements and to implement them for the period post-2012.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, I would like to thank you for your very detailed comments on this subject. We are aware that this climate change agreement also entails costs for industry. Despite that, what do you see as our options for improving the competitiveness of European industry so that it can continue to be successful on the international market? Do we have any options? If so, what are they?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, the European Union has always endeavoured to achieve global cooperation on climate protection. The European Union and its representatives have also made this clear in every international forum as well as in the Council's conclusions. Our implementation of the Kyoto Protocol provides credible proof of our commitment and shows that climate protection is feasible and compatible with economic growth. In our opinion, economic interests and climate protection are not contradictory. For example, the EU's chosen option of an emissions trading system is the most cost-efficient way to reduce emissions. Furthermore, international studies have repeatedly shown that failure to act would result in much higher costs than funding climate protection measures right now. The sooner measures are taken to protect the climate, the lower the consequent costs will be for the economy. It therefore makes economic sense for the European Union to take climate protection measures on the grounds of energy efficiency – and your House frequently debates energy issues – that also create new jobs.

  President. Question No 2 has been withdrawn by the author.

Question No 3 by Ursula Stenzel (H-1165/05)

Subject: Coordination between organisations (EU, Council of Europe and OSCE) and human rights compliance in the fight against terrorism

Human rights questions are playing an ever greater role in an EU context, too, and proper coordination with other organisations in this area, in particular the Council of Europe, is therefore necessary in order to prevent duplication of effort. Compliance with human rights in the fight against terrorism, as repeatedly demanded by Parliament, is equally of major importance.

How, firstly, does Austria propose to strengthen cooperation during its presidency between the EU and the Council of Europe, but also the OSCE, and, secondly, what is Austria’s stance on the question of safeguarding human rights in connection with combating terrorism?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, let me say, in response to Mrs Stenzel's question on coordination between the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE and on human rights compliance in the fight against terrorism, that we have excellent relations with the Council of Europe, particularly in the field of justice and home affairs, and I would add that it was only today that I had my first opportunity to speak to its Committee of Ministers regarding the Austrian Presidency's priorities, and I made very particular reference there to the shared interests and cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union regarding respect for human rights.

I would like to take this opportunity to mention that we attach a great deal of importance to the meetings that every Presidency since 1997 has held with the troika of the Council of Europe. The agenda for the most recent meeting with the Council of Europe on 7 December 2005 particularly included the Council of Europe's guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism. With regard to foreign affairs, the Council's working party on the international aspects of terrorism is also in regular contact with the Council of Europe.

The Council working party on human rights is also closely following the international efforts being made in other arenas such as the OECD, the Council of Europe and the United Nations with regard to respecting human rights in the fight against terrorism. We want to ensure that the EU can play an active role in all these efforts. The Austrian Presidency is happy to confirm that it intends to continue with this form of cooperation with the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe summit in Warsaw in 2004 decided to conclude an agreement with the European Union, regulating every aspect of cooperation between the organisations in the aim of structuring, improving and intensifying that cooperation.

Under the UK Presidency, a draft was drawn up, which has already been sent to the Council of Europe and is now being examined by them according to their procedures. In this regard, the Austrian Presidency, in close cooperation with the Commission, will hold intensive talks with the Presidency of the Council of Europe, which, as you know, will be held by Romania for the next six months, so that this important document can be finalised in the next few months. When I spoke to the ministers' deputies today, I made a commitment to do everything possible on the European Union side, so that, if at all possible, this memorandum can be finalised before the end of the Romanian Presidency, in other words by the end of May this year.

With regard to the OSCE, the two organisations are in close contact both in situ and at institutional level, and these links will be strengthened further in future.

I would like to point out that, over the next few years, three EU Member States in succession, namely Belgium, Spain and Finland, will hold the chairmanship of the OSCE. Almost 50% of the OSCE participating States are now also Member States of the European Union, and their common positions and actions are generally shared by another 10 States.

In the decisive debates within the OSCE on improving its efficiency, particularly regarding the activities of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), which works to protect human rights, the European Union has in the past systematically and successfully argued that the organisation should be fully autonomous, so that it can continue to perform its important activities in promoting democracy and human rights in all OSCE participating states without discrimination or restrictions.

The Austrian Presidency will continue to pursue this policy, which is, of course, endorsed by all Member States.

  Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, many thanks for this very detailed answer to my question on coordination on human rights and the fight against terrorism. I have one supplementary question: what is the Presidency's position on the Council of Europe's investigations into suspicions of illegal CIA flights and secret detention centres?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, the Austrian Presidency supports – as Chancellor Schüssel made very clear in his comments today – the efforts undertaken by the Parliamentary Assembly and Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to shed light on this matter and to put the facts clearly on the table.

Any doubts as to the commitment of all Council of Europe Member States to the rule of law and human rights as defined in the European Convention on Human Rights must be dispelled. With the same end in view, we will also support the European Parliament’s investigations into this matter.

  David Martin (PSE). – My supplementary is on the exact point that Mrs Stenzel has just made: will the President-in-Office speak to each of the other 24 Member States, in his capacity as President-in-Office, to encourage them to cooperate fully with the European Parliament’s temporary committee of inquiry into CIA flights?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. We will certainly make this the subject of consultations among all members in the Council.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, I would like to raise a more general point, as it has become clear during today's debate that the issue of strengthening human rights in the framework of the EU as a whole is one of the Austrian Presidency's top priorities. The EU intends to develop the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, currently based in Vienna, into a Human Rights Agency. Do you consider there to be opportunities for coordination and useful services in the context of the problem being discussed here?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, we regard the establishment of a European Human Rights Agency as a major contribution to strengthening the hand of all the EU institutions. We are endeavouring, in dialogue with the European Parliament and also with the Council of Europe and other institutions, to make this Human Rights Agency an effective instrument with the ability of making a real contribution to discussions on the matters you have raised, namely the issue of defending human rights in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

This agency, which we hope will come into being during the Austrian Presidency, and which we envisage being able to start work on 1 January 2007, is not intended to compete with any other existing institutions. We have no desire to compete with the valuable and important institutions of the Council of Europe, the Court of Justice or the Commission Against Discrimination, or with other institutions. We want an efficient agency that will have the Monitoring Centre on Racism in Vienna as its core and foundation, but will have broader competencies and will thus increase the credibility of the European Union in the domain of human rights.

  President. Question No 4 by Diamanto Manolakou (H-1178/05)

Subject: Illegal abduction and arrest of Pakistanis living in Greece

Revelations concerning the illegal abduction, arrest, detention and interrogation of dozens of Pakistanis living in Greece, a few days after the bomb attacks in London, have become a political issue of the highest order. According to a BBC report, allegations made in addition to the complaints to the Greek authorities include interrogations in English lasting for days, psychological torture and disappearance. The entire affair is related to the operation of British intelligence services in Greece and the illegal transfer of prisoners through European airports.

Does the Council condemn the practice of abduction and the use of torture by intelligence services or any other investigative government agencies or forces operating under cover of a government mission and will it take the necessary measures to safeguard the national sovereignty and the independence of each country? Will it take initiatives to put an end to the growing number of cases of such practices, which give rise to suspicions of concerted action between several parties and countries in the context of anti-terrorist hysteria?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, on Mrs Manolakou's question on the abduction and arrest of Pakistanis living in Greece, I would like to say the following: the Council has always emphasised that the war against terrorism must be fought in complete compliance with the general principles of international law and with the provisions on human rights laid down in national and international legislation.

The Council would stress once again that it categorically condemns torture and other illegal practices, and it would underline the necessity of complying with the general legal principles at all times. However, the Council cannot and will not comment on the details mentioned by the honourable Member. These specific cases of what the question describes as abduction are currently being investigated by several international bodies, in particular by the Council of Europe. Until we have the results of these investigations, it would be premature to take a position.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), deputising for the author. – (EL) Madam President, the Minister has just said two contradictory things to us: on the one hand, he made a general pronouncement that the infringement of human rights is condemnable and, on the other hand, he said that he refuses to take a position on the specific events which have caused an outcry in Greece and which relate to action by the British secret services. This is not action by the CIA; it is action by a service in a Member State of the European Union. That is why we consider that the pronouncement about protecting human rights is hypocritical. What we want to point out is simply that all these incidents are the result of the application of the ‘anti-terrorist’ measures, the ultimate objective of which is not to combat so-called terrorism, but to terrorise the peoples as a whole.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, if the European Parliament wants to investigate these accusations, it does of course have the option of adopting a resolution to that effect. From our point of view, as I said, a whole array of international bodies are engaged in investigating these accusations, and I think we must wait to see what results they come up with.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the highly reliable BBC referred to the incidents which you too wish to learn about. The British parliament has set up a committee and is investigating the matter. The Hellenic parliament has also spent hours debating the matter.

Do you, as President-in-Office of the Council, intend to communicate with the authorities in these two Member States, so that they can tell the Council what happened?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, if the European Parliament wants to investigate these accusations, it does of course have the option of adopting a resolution to that effect. From our point of view, as I said, a whole array of international bodies are engaged in investigating these accusations, and I think we must wait to see what results they come up with.

  President. Question No 5 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-1110/05)

Subject: Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference

What measures does the Council intend to take to implement and give real face to the agreements adopted at the recent Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, in response to Mr Medina Ortega's question regarding the Barcelona Conference, I would like to say that, at the Euro-Mediterranean summit marking the 10th anniversary of the Barcelona Process, agreement was reached on a joint five-year work programme to reinforce the partnership and on a code of conduct for countering terrorism, which clearly shows our shared commitment to fighting all forms of terrorism.

The five-year work programme sets medium-term goals with regard to the political and security partnership, sustainable socio-economic development and reform, and education and socio-cultural exchanges. It also deals with issues related to migration, social integration, justice and security.

The Presidency thinks it is important for every Presidency to submit a report to the Council, setting out in detail its plans for implementing this work programme, and it calls on the Commission to keep the Council regularly informed on the progress with implementation.

The agreements reached in Barcelona will enable us to make progress in our regional cooperation with our partners in the Mediterranean region and at the same time to push the European neighbourhood policy forward by negotiating additional bilateral action plans.

A number of important results were achieved at the summit: a governance facility to support and strengthen political reform was approved, the liberalisation of trade in services and agricultural products was confirmed as a common goal, and there was a willingness to combat illegal immigration – including through the conclusion of readmission agreements – while the EU has agreed to make legal migration easier; in this connection a future ministerial meeting is expected to deal with all immigration-related issues. Other results included an increase in funds for education via a university scholarship programme and the promotion of gender equality.

Finally, the conclusion of a code of conduct on countering terrorism is a major political success and proves that, despite the sensitivities in the region, the partners in the process are willing to act together to combat this scourge that affects us all.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Thank you very much, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, for the information you have given us. I believe that it is quite complete and, above all, that it has focused to a great extent on the fight against terrorism, which is the immediate objective.

As you know, however, and as you have also mentioned, behind terrorism there is a more serious problem: the whole southern flank of the Mediterranean is suffering from great under-development and there is immense migratory pressure in the direction of the European Union. The figures I have seen in the financial perspectives approved recently by the Council talk of a total sum of EUR 800 million over a period of seven years. The European Parliament is currently being highly critical about this.

Does the President-in-Office of the Council believe that the figures included in the financial perspectives are sufficient to resolve these problems facing the southern flank of the Mediterranean?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, I would first of all like to confirm that the Council agrees that, in parallel with the measures we are taking to counter terrorism and illegal immigration, it is also important that we develop programmes – as the European Union has been doing for some time – to improve conditions in the countries of origin. We are committed to that, and it is also part of the agreement that the governments have reached on the financial perspectives.

We think that the funding is adequate. It is now up to the Commission to put forward concrete proposals on how to fund the individual programmes from these overall figures that have been agreed. Then the negotiations with the European Parliament must result in agreement on the financial perspectives.

  David Martin (PSE). – Madam President, when the Environment Ministers of the Mediterranean region met in November, they painted a very bleak picture of the management of water resources in the area and said that in years to come there are going to be significant water shortages. This is not just an environmental issue, but a security issue. If there is a dispute over water supply it can affect the stability of the region.

Will the Minister consider urging that this be put on the agenda of the next Euro-Mediterranean summit?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. I thank the honourable Member for his contribution and for his suggestions. We will take them to the Council and consult with other Council members to see whether we can or should take them to the next conference. Nonetheless, I thank you for these very interesting suggestions.

  President. As they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together:

Question No 6 by Bernd Posselt (H-1126/05)

Subject: Status of Kosovo

What steps is the Council planning to take to help bring about a definitive clarification of the question of the status of Kosovo before the end of 2006?

Question No 7 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-1152/05)

Subject: Settlement of the status of Kosovo

Talks on the future status of the region have begun with a meeting between Martti Ahtisaari, head of the UN team which will take part in the talks on the final status of Kosovo, and the President of Kosovo, Ibrahim Rugova.

Does the Council continue to share the view that implementation of the eight criteria laid down by the UN in respect of Kosovo must precede the final settlement of status? Will it raise with the Kosovan authorities the question of the existence of a Guantanamo-type prison at the American base of Camp Bondsteel?

Question No 8 by Othmar Karas (H-1177/05)

Subject: West Balkans / Kosovo

2006 is a crucially important year for the development of the West Balkans. One pending challenge is to resolve the future status of Kosovo. Regardless of the outcome of the status negotiations, Kosovo must be incorporated into a European vision. What tangible form should that European vision take?

What are Austria’s European Neighbourhood Policy plans, especially in connection with Ukraine?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, I will start with the questions by Mr Posselt, Mr Papadimoulis and Mr Karas on Kosovo. According to the Thessaloniki Declaration, which the EU and the western Balkan states issued at their summit in June 2003, the future of the western Balkans, including Kosovo, is within the European Union.

The Council's attitude to Kosovo is based on a set of principles that the European Council adopted at its meeting on 16 and 17 June 2005 as part of its declaration on Kosovo. Any solution for the status of Kosovo must be fully compatible with European values and norms, comply with international legal instruments and obligations and the United Nations Charter, and contribute to realising the European prospects of Kosovo and the region.

Any agreement on status must ensure that Kosovo does not return to the pre-March 1999 situation. The determination of the future status of Kosovo must be based on multi-ethnicity, and on full respect for human rights, including the right for all to return home.

The status must also offer, and this is very important, effective constitutional guarantees to ensure that minorities are protected, including mechanisms to ensure their participation in central government and local administrative structures. It should also include specific safeguards to protect the cultural heritage and religious sites and to promote effective mechanisms to combat organised crime, corruption and terrorism.

The status of Kosovo must also reinforce the security and stability of the region. Thus any solution which was unilateral or resulted from the use of force, as well as any changes to the current territory of Kosovo, would be unacceptable, and there will be no partition of Kosovo, nor any union of Kosovo with another country or with part of another country. The territorial integrity of neighbouring countries must be fully respected.

The Council is also of the opinion that further implementation of both current and future standards is of particular importance, especially with regard to the protection of minorities. In this connection, the Council has repeatedly emphasised that it values and supports the work of the UN's Special Representative for Kosovo, Mr Jessen-Petersen.

The Council is determined to work extensively to determine the status of Kosovo and to contribute to the related negotiation process led by the United Nations. To this end, in November 2005 the High Representative, Mr Solana, appointed Stefan Lehne as the EU's representative, to work closely with the UN's Special Envoy for the future status process for Kosovo, Mr Ahtisaari. The Council endorsed this appointment.

The EU's representative provides the UN Special Envoy with contributions for the negotiations and also helps the EU to prepare for its future role in Kosovo in the follow-up period to Resolution 1244. He also works closely with the Member States and the Commission. The European Commission will also be represented in Vienna, where the UN Special Envoy for the future status process for Kosovo has his headquarters.

Areas such as respect for human rights, minorities, cultural and religious sites, the rule of law and economic development will be of particular interest for the European Union. The UN Special Envoy has indicated his willingness to work closely with the EU on these and other issues.

At the same time, in connection with the restructuring of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission In Kosovo (UNMIK), the EU has held informal consultations with the UNMIK together with other international organisations and partners. The aim is to assess the options for a future international presence in Kosovo without pre-empting the outcome of the discussion on Kosovo's status. Against this background, Mr Solana and Commissioner Rehn presented their second report on how the EU can prepare for the coming challenges to the Council in December.

The new international formation for the follow-up period to Resolution 1244 will involve everybody and have a strong EU presence. The EU should play a vital role in the areas related to the rule of law, including a police mission, capacity building and in the economy. The body responsible for all issues regarding the international military presence in Kosovo led by the UN is KFOR.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, many thanks for your excellent response – I would not have expected anything else. This January, it is 100 years since the Moravian Compromise came into force, which was quite exemplary; the only problem was that it only applied in Moravia. We are now making the same mistake: we are seeking specific settlements and setting varying standards. While provisions regarding minorities are being carefully drawn up in Kosovo, there is nothing similar in the Preševo valley or in Vojvodina.

I would just like to ask you to develop uniform or comparable standards for the region objectively: it is the only way we will be able to reach a peace agreement.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Mr Posselt and I already know each other from elsewhere. I am, of course, very pleased to take on board your opinion and your suggestion. I also take the view – as I have already said once today – that human rights and minority rights are indivisible.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you spoke for six minutes, but you spoke in very general, very 'round' terms. I therefore ask you, is UN Resolution 1244 still an axis for the Council's policy?

What will happen, not only with the right to return, but also with the ability to return of the Serbs and Roma forced to leave Kosovo?

As you said that Kosovo's place is in Europe, do you intend to bring to the attention of the authorities the accusations about a Guantanamo-type prison at the US base in Kosovo?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, I can confirm that the Council continues and will continue to take the view that implementation of the eight criteria laid down by the UN in respect of Kosovo must precede the final settlement of status. The resolution is binding, it is applicable, and it is the axis on which the solution will be based. Discussions have now commenced on the status of Kosovo, and we will follow them attentively. According to the Thessaloniki Declaration, to which I have already referred, the future of Kosovo – and I would like to emphasise this again, because you mentioned the European Union's principles and values – is within the European Union, and that of course means that the EU's values must be accepted. With regard to your question about the camp, that is a question that cannot be answered by Kosovo.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, in my question I also referred to the European neighbourhood policy. I would just like to ask you about the Austrian Presidency's programme for strengthening the neighbourhood policy, particularly with regard to Ukraine. I would like to know whether the EU has provided sufficient resources to ensure that it can play an equivalent role in Kosovo during and after the status process.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, to start with the second part of the question, it is the case that the European Union is required to provide adequate resources, and it will indeed do so. The CFSP budget has recently been increased considerably for the current year. Since, however, the scope of our future activities is not yet certain – we cannot yet tell what sort of presence the European Union will have in Kosovo – it is currently not possible to say precisely what funds will be needed for this. It would also be possible to raise the gas budget rapidly during the budget year with the agreement of the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 39 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. If the duties assigned to the European Union make this necessary, it will happen.

With regard to the European neighbourhood policy, it has already, in its first year, made a valuable contribution to the EU’s committed involvement in its neighbourhood, and we also support the Commission's related proposals. The gradual, systematic and nevertheless individual introduction of EU standards and rules should and will be pursued. The neighbourhood policy's declared aim is and will continue to be to offer and enable a significant level of integration. This is achieved – as you mentioned – by means of European neighbourhood policy action plans, and both we and the Commission feel that those with Ukraine and Moldova have been a success. An initial review of the first year of the action plans for Ukraine and Moldova will be carried out in 2006, during the Austrian Presidency. As of next year, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) will also provide us with a new financial instrument enabling even more targeted support.

We also feel it is important to negotiate and conclude action plans as soon as possible with all states under the European neighbourhood policy. This includes in particular the three Caucasus republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and this, too, is a task that will fall on the Austrian Presidency. Political consultations with these three countries were launched just last December. In this context, the Commission declared firmly that negotiations on action plans with these three countries in particular should be pushed forward rapidly. The Austrian Presidency very much supports this.

With regard to Ukraine, we are very supportive of its connection to the European Union within the framework of the ENP. Now that Ukraine has met the technical criteria for market economy status, we assume that that status will soon be formally granted. In that connection, we consider it to be particularly important for Ukraine to join the WTO in the near future, as this would smooth the path for the creation of a free trade area with the European Union. A feasibility study on this is currently being finalised by the European Commission. We think that implementation of this proposal constitutes another important step in relations with Ukraine, and we will work hard to make further progress in this direction.

  President. Question No 9 by John Bowis (H-1149/05)

Subject: Persecution and harassment of Christians

There is growing evidence of persecution or harassment of Christians in a range of countries. How does the Council intend to raise such issues with the governments concerned?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, regarding Mr Bowis's question on the persecution and harassment of Christians, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is enshrined in international legislation on the protection of human rights. I would refer you in particular to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which applies worldwide and in which freedom of thought, conscience and religion is laid down as an individual right. This right, according to that article, includes freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one's choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.

This human right is extremely important to the European Union, and it therefore regularly holds discussions with third countries on this subject, most recently in New York, where the EU Member States successfully proposed, in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, a resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.

The Council has repeatedly condemned all forms of intolerance based on religion and also pays close attention to developments in the field of human rights. The Council uses the opportunities offered by its dialogue with third countries to make clear its concerns regarding intolerance towards religious and other minorities.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Does the Minister agree with me that there is an ever-increasing list of countries: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Nigeria, Vietnam, and China – the list goes on and on – where Christians are being persecuted and the Governments either connive at it, or take ineffective action to stop it? These are countries with which we do business. Will Austria now give a lead to the Council and the European Union to stand up for the religious rights of Christians in those countries with whom we deal, just as we rightly stand up for religious freedom and tolerance within the European Union?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. As I have said, the European Union raises the question regularly in all dialogues as well as in international fora, which is very important. We have raised it at the United Nations. We do not name and shame, but we are very clear when we speak to the countries concerned if we believe, or have reason to believe, that there is persecution or restriction of the right to religious freedom.

To give you an example: we very much emphasise the question of religious freedom in our human rights discussions with China, because we believe this to be an issue that must be raised in the context of our dialogue with China. The same is true in other areas. The adoption of a resolution, which was adopted by a large majority of members of the United Nations, is a step in the right direction. This will give us even more leverage in the future to raise this question in our relations with those countries. The fact that we do business with those countries does not prevent us from speaking out clearly when it comes to violations of human rights.

  President. I now have three supplementary questions before me. They are permitted under our new system. We are now in the second part of questions to the Council, so Mr Rübig has the floor first for his supplementary question.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, ladies and gentlemen, Christians in Turkey still have to deal with many difficulties. What does the Presidency propose to do to improve their situation?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, the European Union is monitoring the situation of the non-Muslim minorities extremely closely. According to the EU-Turkey Accession Partnership, it is vital to the success of the accession negotiations that the Turkish Government undertake further reforms with respect to freedom of religion, particularly regarding the training of clerics and granting legal personality to non-Muslim minorities, in order to come more into line with the standards within the European Union in these areas too. We will monitor this very closely in the process of the accession negotiations, but we will also support Turkey in implementing the necessary reforms.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Minister, raising these issues with the countries is all well and good, but surely we need an ethical policy that produces results. Is it not time to make a very direct link between trade with these countries and respect for human rights? When we liberalise trade with such countries who persecute Christians and others, should we not make it conditional upon them liberalising their human rights regime so that minorities within those countries have the rights that we take for granted?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. There are cases where we link certain things that the European Union does for those countries with respect for human rights. In some countries where there are violations of human rights certain sanctions are in force, for example in Myanmar/Burma. In other cases we also have to bear in mind that we need to support the people who live there. We must be very careful about applying sanctions, because very often it is the people and not the government who are hurt. We believe that each case should be considered individually. We believe in a frank, open and direct dialogue. If such a dialogue does not lead to the desired results, then we have to discuss in the Council other methods we might wish to pursue.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Thank you for having the courage to talk to China. I would just like to mention the position of the underground church and the detention of bishops and other religious figures, and also to echo Mr Rübig: have there been any new developments in Turkey regarding the law on religion?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Mr Posselt, I do not really think it took any courage to talk to China. Our dialogue with China – in which I have taken part myself – is very open and direct.

The issue you raised is, of course, being pursued not only in relation to China, but also to Turkey. We have raised our concerns on the matter in our discussions with Turkey and will obviously continue to insist in future that the legal and administrative measures being established by Turkey in this respect are in line with our expectations in this domain, which of course correspond to international standards.

  President. As the author is not present, Question No 10 lapses.

Question No 11 by Inger Segelström (H-1159/05)

Subject: Colombia

Sweden has been active in the democratisation process in Colombia. Yet we all know that problems persist with regard to democracy and that human rights violations are on the increase. One concrete example is the rapidly increasing production of palm oil. There is a rising tide of opinion against the expansion of large-scale oil plantations. It is a question of recognising the land rights of local and indigenous populations. Many EU countries use palm kernel meal as animal feed, and many of us use cosmetic products which contain palm oil. What will the Council do to ensure that EU Member States continue to support the democratisation process in Colombia and continue to seek a halt to human rights violations in Colombia?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, with regard to Mrs Segelström's question on Colombia, although it has been reported by several sources that violations of human rights in Colombia are decreasing, any violation of human rights is a cause for concern. The continuing internal armed conflict in Colombia is at the root of most of those violations, which are predominantly committed by illegal armed groups. The EU is therefore constantly appealing to the parties to the conflict to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, and it is also in regular contact with, in particular, the Colombian authorities and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota.

I would also add that the Colombian vice-president was in Austria just before Christmas – I spoke to him myself, and in particular we had some very intensive discussions on the issue of human rights.

In its conclusions of 3 October 2005 the Council reaffirmed its full support for the Colombian Government, in particular in its efforts to impose the rule of law throughout the country and in the fight against terrorism and the production of and trade in illegal drugs.

The Council also reaffirmed its long-held policy of supporting the Colombian Government in its search for a negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict, including direct talks with the illegal armed groups that are willing to engage in a negotiated peace process.

We therefore welcome the fact that there has recently been contact between the illegal armed groups and the Colombian authorities, and we call on all those involved to do everything in their power to reach a peaceful resolution and thus to put an end to the internal armed conflict, which has now lasted for more than a generation, as the primary cause of human rights violations.

  Inger Segelström (PSE). – (SV) Thank you, Secretary of State, for your answer. I am delighted that you have an established contact of that kind. I believe it is needed, because Colombia is in the process of becoming one of the world’s largest refugee disaster areas where, it is said, up to three million people have been displaced and forced to leave their homes. That is why I wonder whether what we are doing now in the EU is enough or whether there is more we can do to bring pressure to bear. The problems involving drugs and corruption are, as you say, also part of the picture, but so too are the changes going on that affect the land and the fact that people will want to exploit the palm-oil, which is so valuable.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, Mrs Segelström, you have asked a question to which there is really no answer. Are we in the European Union doing enough for the suffering in many countries? This is a question that cannot really be answered in abstract terms. We are doing our best. However, I would like to point to some concrete initiatives connected with the Council's conclusions of last October, to which I have already referred, although I would add that most of these initiatives fall within the competency of the Commission. For example, the Commission decided in December 2005 to provide EUR 1.5 million as part of the rapid reaction mechanism. It remains to be seen whether that is enough or whether we can still do more.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, ladies and gentlemen, what is your view on the proposal to hold a G24 conference to support the peace process during the first half of 2006?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, I cannot say at the moment whether such a conference will be held in the first half of 2006: it will depend on the troika of the G24 group – led by Mexico – reaching agreement with the Colombian government. Any such conference would certainly take place very close to the EU-Latin America summit in mid-May 2006 and to the presidential elections in Colombia at the end of May. The EU-Latin America summit, by the way, takes place exactly in the middle of the two stages of the election, and it is therefore not certain whether the Colombian President will be present at this conference in Vienna.

  President. As the author is not present, Question No 12 lapses.

Question No 13 by Athanasios Pafilis (H-1175/05)

Subject: Attempt to condemn communism

Despite an international outcry and expressions of intense disapproval, a draft which is distinctly anti-Communist in tone has once more been put to the vote in the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly following a change in title from 'condemnation of communist Ideology' to 'The Need for International Condemnation of Crimes committed by communist Regimes'.

What stance does the Council intend to adopt in response to these growing attempts to rewrite history and to justify the crimes committed in the name of fascism and imperialism? Will it seek to ensure the freedom of all political parties and an end to measures penalising the communist movement and banning communist parties?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, with regard to Mr Pafilis's question, I would refer to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. Although I am sure he is familiar with this document, I would nevertheless like to quote an extract from it: 'The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States'. These rights include freedom of expression, and it is not up to the Council of the European Union to interfere in the decision-making process of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. The question relates to the activities of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, on which I cannot comment.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, I could never have imagined that the Council would avoid answering directly on the question of the anti-communist memorandum. It is known in every country in Europe, thousands of people from all political areas have condemned it, it is a new fascist text which equates Nazism with communism, it is disrespectful to millions of communist victims who sacrificed their lives to conquer fascism, it criminalises the political action and ideology of communists and, precisely – as you referred to Article 6 – it infringes fundamental democratic rights. We demand that the Council take a position on this memorandum.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, I can only repeat what I have already said: the European Union cannot comment on the activities, discussions and decisions of a body of another international organisation.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Winkler, ladies and gentlemen, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly is located very close to us here, and it naturally has a much better overview of political circumstances. Do you think it would be possible for them, too, to initiate a debate on the European Constitutional Treaty, because the Treaty could, of course, also support the future stability of those countries?

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Madam President, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly can discuss any subject. It is up to the Assembly to decide for itself which topics it wants to discuss. However, it is of course also possible to put forward such proposals in discussions with national Members of the Parliamentary Assembly. The European Union itself and the Council itself certainly cannot make this proposal to the body of another institution.

  President. Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 6.55 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR TRAKATELLIS
Vice-President