Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 16 February 2006 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR BORRELL FONTELLES
President

(The sitting was opened at 10.05 a.m.)

  Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to make a point of order under Rule 166 of the Rules of Procedure. I refer to a letter dated 8 November 2005 – written to you by myself and by the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and signed by the coordinators of all the political groups – concerning the blocking of a report I had written. We have had no reply from your office and I would ask you whether it is normal procedure for you, as President of Parliament, not to reply to Members of this House?

(Applause)

  President. We take due note of your comment, although it is not a point of order. The services are preparing a response with regard to a conflict of competences between the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Until that conflict is resolved, it will be difficult for me to inform you of the result.

2. Agenda: see Minutes

3. Documents received: see Minutes

4. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

5. Written declarations (Rule 116): see Minutes

6. Voting time

  President. We shall proceed to the vote.

(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

6.1. Services (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, I just want to inform you that, in accordance with Rules 165 and 171 of the Rules of Procedure, my group asks that a request to suspend the sitting for five to ten minutes be put to the vote at the end of voting time.

  Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, my group is obviously in favour of any measure allowing Members to give an informed opinion. This is a question of transparency and responsibility, even though, as myself and my group believe, the outcome of the final vote is clearly dependent on the direction in which the debates have gone. I believe that it is only right that the other Members who remain hesitant should be able to consult each other so as to give an informed opinion.

I am therefore in favour of the suspension before the final vote.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, while I would consider using the same argument as Mr Wurtz, I come to the opposite conclusion. It is precisely because we have grappled with this in great depth over past weeks and, despite the many amendments, have, under Mrs Gebhardt’s guidance, gained a very good overview of it, that we are against it. We should vote at once.

(Applause from the left)

(Parliament rejected the request of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance)

- Following the vote on Amendments 233/403:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I really must ask the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats the serious question as to whether or not they will stand by the compromise that they reached with us, part of which was that we would vote against this motion. I find it unacceptable that we should negotiate for weeks on end and then people do not do what they agreed to do.

(Applause and uproar)

  Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, to respond to the rapporteur's point, I want to make it absolutely clear that our discussions on the package – which is entirely intact – were about the inclusion of private health, and this group has had a free vote on it. You will notice that there has been no signal on it whatsoever from the front bench of this group. That was what we said to the Socialists yesterday. This was a free vote on whether to include private healthcare within the scope of the directive, not healthcare overall. Many people other than members of this group clearly felt that was the case, but that does not alter in any way our commitment to the overall package that we have before us.

(Applause from the PPE-DE Group)

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, pursuant to Rule 171, it might perhaps be advisable for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and its partner, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, to request a suspension of the sitting in order to come to an agreement.

- On the vote on Amendment 233:

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, on the basis of Rule 66, I would like to know what eventually became of the vote on Amendment 233, since, according to what I heard, you came to the wrong conclusion.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, my apologies, but, while Amendment 380 to Article 72 is missing from my documents, Amendment 297 is not. It has to do with the removal of the reference to labour law. Article 72 was about something completely different.

  President. We have received information from the Secretariat of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the basis of which the vote has been prepared and which states that the approval of Amendment 72 implies that Amendment 297 lapses. Naturally, if the rapporteur is not in agreement, we shall go along with her.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I think it makes sense to do as the rapporteur suggests; after all, it may be that a committee secretariat has made a mistake. We see it as very important that we should vote on Amendment 297, and I ask that we now do so.

  President. We shall proceed according to the rapporteur’s wishes. We shall vote on Amendment 297 by roll-call.

- Before the vote on Amendment 357:

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order. We have voted on Amendment 233 and approved it, with the consequence that the directive applies to private health care but not to the public variety. We are now, again, voting on public health care, but I do not see this as workable. There is now a problem with the relationship between the amendments, and I think there must be some defect in the way the voting lists are put together and the sequence in which the amendments are arranged.

  President. We are not aware of any inconsistency in the voting order, but the rapporteur can tell us whether she agrees with you.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, the Bureau has done a perfectly good job of putting the list together, and I can see no errors in the voting order.

- Before the vote on Amendment 293:

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, in the fourth revised version of Amendment 293, the terms ‘social policy’ and ‘consumer protection’ have been deleted from paragraph 3, which enables Member States to impose conditions on the provision of services.

The deletion of these terms is not an innocent act and it sends out a clear political signal that we do not endorse. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 150(5) of the Rules of Procedure, we call for these deleted terms to be reinserted in the text.

  President. We are not really talking about an amendment being withdrawn. The rule that the honourable Member has referred to is not therefore applicable.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, before a revised amendment is tabled, the previous amendment must first be withdrawn. This procedure has been followed, and a revised amendment has been tabled. For this reason, I call for the previous amendment to be retabled in accordance with Rule 150(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, before we and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats embarked on this revision, we got the Legal Services to examine very carefully whether this was in conformity with the House’s Rules of Procedure. The relevant departments of this House assured us that it was, and so it was in this form that we introduced it. The point I want to make to Mrs Frassoni is that this was considered carefully beforehand. It would appear to be the case that we can go down this road, and so we should now proceed to the vote.

(Vigorous applause)

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, Mrs Gebhardt may be discovering things about the Legal Services in this House, but it would appear to my Group that Mrs Frassoni's point is absolutely justified under the rules of our House, and my Group supports her request that this amendment be voted.

(Applause)

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, it is about time you assumed your authority as President of the sitting. We are in the middle of voting, and this is not the time to reopen the debate.

(Applause)

I will take the liberty of pointing out to Mrs Frassoni that consumer protection and social protection feature in several places in the text on which we are voting. So let us vote in favour of the compromise as it stands.

(Applause)

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a problem of political debate but, rather, one of procedure. The Presidency wants to be sure that we are proceeding in accordance with our Rules of Procedure and the appropriate legal interpretations. Having consulted the services, I must inform you that we believe that Mrs Gebhardt’s interpretation is correct. We shall therefore maintain the voting order as planned.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, what Mrs Gebhardt said has nothing to do with what I requested.

Although there are a great many doubts in our group about the legitimacy of tabling a revised amendment after the deadline has elapsed, we are nevertheless prepared to accept it. I am by no means questioning the fact that it was possible for Mrs Gebhardt to table the revised amendment. Nevertheless, on behalf of my group, I am letting it be known that I wish to retable the previous amendment, in full compliance with the Rules of Procedure.

Mr President, if you wish to interpret the Rules of Procedure on the basis of what the majority – namely Mrs Gebhardt – said, then you are free to do so. That does not take away from the fact that, under the Rules of Procedure, I am perfectly within my rights to call for the amendment to be put to the vote in the form in which I retabled it. I should, however, like to point out that we are not questioning the fact that Mrs Gebhardt was right to table a revised amendment.

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, in order to try and be helpful in this rather difficult situation ...

(Mixed reactions)

Why all the scepticism? I am here to help! I am quoting Rule 168(2). I would suggest that, as this is degenerating into an absolute farce, pursuant to Rule 168(2) we move immediately to a vote. I propose that we refer this report back to the committee so that it can come back to Parliament and we can vote on it sensibly, because that is not happening now.

(Mixed reactions)

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would ask that we consider the Rules of Procedure in their entirety. The House has heard two different viewpoints put forward, one – surely an acceptable one – by Mrs Frassoni, and the other by Mrs Gebhardt. Our Rules of Procedure are unambiguous, and Mrs Frassoni, as a member of the Conference of Presidents, has applied them. In cases of doubt such as this one, it is the President who decides how to proceed. You have consulted the services; they gave you a recommendation, you accepted it, and so I ask that we now do what you have announced and proceed with the vote.

(Applause)

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, I support Mrs Frassoni’s legal interpretation. Your reply referred to the first remark, regarding which I would beseech the architects of the compromise not to allow political principles to prevail over the procedural principles of this Parliament, because that would not be at all desirable.

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Rule 150(5) permits no such distinction. It follows that there is no dispute about two possible options, as there is only one possible course of action. Mrs Gebhardt is right to point out that you have the right to alter one of your own amendments, and the information supplied by the services is correct in that respect. Irrespective of your own intentions – and it is not the majority that is right but the law that is right – it is open to us to take over in our own name an amendment already submitted. That is what Rule 150(5) says. That has nothing to do with your actions.

On behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, I announce that we will take over your original amendment, so that it is back in play and the House has to vote on it. That is the way the rules have always been applied in this House.

(Vigorous applause)

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I quoted Rule 168(2), where I proposed that we move to a vote to refer this back to the committee. The rule, which appears clear to me, states: ‘Such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately.’

However, perhaps things have got a little worse since my last comments. Therefore, I shall now quote your Rules – and, as you said yourself, we must be scrupulous about the Rules of this fine establishment. Rule 170(4) states: ‘Before or during a vote, a political group or at least thirty-seven Members may move that the vote be adjourned. Such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately.’ It does not matter whether you are against the EU or for the EU, surely all of you in this Chamber can see that this is now a farce! Mr President, could we please have a vote to adjourn this vote?

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

(Parliament rejected the proposed postponement of the vote)

- Before the vote on Amendments 307/219:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, we agreed with the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that Amendments 307 and 219, which deal with consumer protection, should not be included among the recitals, but should be additions to Article 3. I therefore ask that this be borne in mind when they are incorporated – on the assumption, that is, that the vote goes in their favour.

  Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I am nonetheless surprised at these allusions to behind-the-scene discussions when we are voting on such an important directive. I propose that you ask that this does not happen again.

(Applause)

  President. The Presidency has no knowledge of the agreements amongst the political groups. It only takes account of the observations of the rapporteur contributing to the correct carrying out of the vote. Any others are unacceptable.

- Before the vote on the proposed amended directive:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, before we proceed to the final vote, I would like to reiterate my thanks to all concerned for the very good outcome we have achieved. We have turned the directive on its head by giving it the social dimension that the citizens of our Member States need, and for that reason, my recommendation to my group is that they vote to adopt this report.

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

6.2. Strategic guidelines for rural development (2007-2013) (vote)

6.3. Millenium Development Goals (vote)

6.4. Right to freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 13:

  Mario Mauro (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, on behalf of my group too, I call for the term ‘denounces’ in paragraph 13 to be replaced with the term ‘condemns’, in view of the fact that the latter term is already used in paragraph 6 to judge violent acts committed against embassies. That is all the more reason why, in my opinion, the term ‘condemns’ should be used to judge violent acts committed against persons.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, further to Mr Mauro’s suggestion and Mr Cohn-Bendit’s amendment, I propose that we should indeed opt for the word ‘condemns’ at that point and use the second part, as proposed by the Verts/ALE Group, as a paragraph 13a. I, too, would support it were it to be that. The consequence of that would be that we would have a two-part vote, which might well be a compromise solution to which the House could agree.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, I should like to inform you that we accept this request and that we want to submit another one, which again relates to paragraph 13. The English text talks about ‘religious fanatics’ in the plural form. We call for the singular form to be used instead, because Father Santoro was in fact killed by only one religious fanatic.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendments)

6.5. Outlook for Bosnia-Herzegovina (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 8:

  Doris Pack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, paragraph 8 begins with the word ‘warns’, and I would prefer that to be replaced by ‘calls on’ which is more suitable to this document.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

- Before the vote on paragraph 11:

  Doris Pack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, in paragraph 11, I would like to see the words ‘full implementation of all the conditions’ replaced by ‘significant progress in implementing the conditions’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

6.6. Belarus (vote)

6.7. Risk and crisis management in agriculture (vote)

6.8. EU forestry strategy (vote)

  President. That concludes the vote.

7. Explanations of vote

- Report: Gebhardt (A6-0409/2005)

  Marta Vincenzi (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, I should like to stress the positive character of the common position reached by Parliament, which is giving Europeans back that sign of political unity and trust that they need.

I will highlight the positive impact that Article 31, in its amended version, will have on the very important area of tourist services. It is a question, in fact, of paving the way for large, balanced flows of incoming tourists, by carefully following a path that identifies the way in which to harmonise the huge numbers of tourists in the various countries. I therefore call on the Commission to thoroughly revise and relaunch a directive that many Member States have so far failed to comply with – Directive 320 of 1992 – so that the policy of high-quality services is fully realised and, with that, the objective of sustainable European tourism.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, if, for the first time ever, I think it is a useful exercise to justify my vote, it is both because this report is important – perhaps the most important one of the parliamentary term – and because my vote is at odds with the position adopted by the majority of my group.

In actual fact, I have no difficulty in acknowledging the improvements made – and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt – to Mr Bolkestein’s initial proposal. Nor do I have any difficulty in admitting that I have been left unsatisfied as a result of the uncertainties linked to Article 16. Although I voted in favour of the compromise amendments on this report, I cannot endorse it and I chose in the end to reject it because it symbolises a serious historic break with the principles that have, up to now, enabled European integration to be taken forward. Solidarity and regulations are giving way to competition among the countries and the peoples of Europe. I deplore this state of affairs.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) It was a new directive in favour of which our Parliament just voted this morning. Its scope has been narrowed, the country of origin principle has finally been deleted and labour law has been kept: we have transformed the spirit and the letter of the draft submitted to us, and I am pleased at this outcome.

The only European institution able to bring about this deep and inspired change is our Parliament. This is undoubtedly because we listened to our fellow citizens and to their anxieties and fears; and it is undoubtedly because we endeavour above all to champion a European model of common values and because we will always prefer upwards harmonisation to downwards dumping. We have done some good work, and the Commission and the Council will really have at last to take account of the strong political signal that we are sending today and that expresses our desire to complete the internal market, while preserving our social model. For our part, we will make sure that they do so.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it is beyond doubt that the version of the services directive that we have just voted to adopt is a good deal better than the original one; as I see it, the unacceptable country-of-origin principle may not have been done away with, but it has certainly been considerably undermined.

There is still, nonetheless, a great deal that is unclear in the document we have adopted today. At the moment, nobody knows precisely what the implications of much of it are.

For example, I am as yet far from convinced that this text cannot result in social dumping, and am particularly unhappy about the potential for monitoring compliance with it. The many abuses – committed not least by the institutions – in the implementation of ordinary European budgets cause us to be at least sceptical about the efficiency of monitoring at European level.

I have therefore abstained from voting, for, although this may well be a step in the right direction, and even a very considerable one, there are still too many unclear points that absolutely must be removed at second reading stage. I can only hope that I will have no difficulty in voting for it then.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it is of course a good thing that this House has, today, been able to amend the original text of the services directive, although it has to be said that many of the hundreds of amendments were not necessary. The original version of the directive may well have put social dumping on an institutional footing, but the present version, too, permits a form of the same thing, along with all sorts of other abuses and does not entrench the country-of-origin principle in an unambiguous form of words.

Does it not speak volumes that the request by the Union for a Europe of the Nations Group for the establishment of a monitoring centre to ensure that the directive does not open the door to social dumping, was rejected? By abstaining, we are sending a political message that my party, the Vlaams Belang, will, just as it did last month in the debate on the liberalisation of port services, resist at all costs any attempt to undermine the principle that one’s own country comes first.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The reason why I abstained during the voting on the Evelyn Gebhardt report on the Services Directive was that Amendment 250, presented by MEPs from the new Member States in the PPE-DE Group and considered to be a key point for new member countries, had not been adopted.

This amendment was to change the Directive by adding Article 35a as a replacement for Articles 24 and 25 on the posting of workers, which were removed from the Commission’s proposal during voting in the IMCO committee. The amendment would have simplified the procedures for posting workers, as the Posting of Workers Directive does not provide for any administrative cooperation between the country of origin and the country of destination.

I am pleased that the Directive was approved during the first reading in the European Parliament. But on the other hand, I am saddened that MEPs from the new member countries again failed to gain enough support.

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, my vote against the Gebhardt report is no reflection on the extraordinary work done by the rapporteur. I truly believe that, faced with an atrocious text, Mrs Gebhardt performed some amazing feats. Despite all her efforts, however, she was unable to contain a liberal upsurge that threatens our entire social structure. With one compromise after another, this abstruse text has become unreadable. Yet, what remains clear to anyone willing to open their eyes is the way in which the Commission has abandoned a desire for harmonisation in favour of a case-by-case regulation of what can or cannot be done on behalf of the general interest.

Without a directive on services of general interest and services of general economic interest, this text leaves grey areas that will open the floodgates to countless legal appeals. Europe is becoming yet slightly further removed from the citizen.

  Francisco Assis, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Paulo Casaca, Fausto Correia, Edite Estrela, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Elisa Ferreira, Ana Maria Gomes, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Jamila Madeira and Manuel António dos Santos (PSE), in writing. (PT) The previous Bolkestein Directive has been radically recast, and this represents a clear step forward on the road to achieving an internal market in services.

We voted in favour of the revamped proposal, because we feel that it guarantees balanced progress towards achieving a European internal market for services. We also feel that the exclusion of services of general interest, lotteries and essential health services gives the Directive a better balance.

In its current form, the directive will be good for the Portuguese economy, particularly because the country of origin principle will no longer apply, the opening up of the European services market will create many jobs, and this text will finally put an end to what is known as ‘social dumping’.

The directive will lead to a reduction in the inexcusable red tape that exists in various Member States, and the provision of services will be subject to the rules of the country in which the service is provided. The exclusion of temporary work and the lack of interference with the directive on the posting of workers will also help to guarantee balance and social cohesion.

All of these factors led us to vote in favour.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour, at first reading, of the proposal for a directive on services in the internal market as rewritten by the European Parliament on the basis of the compromise negotiated between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. I should like to pay tribute to the considerable work done by Mr Harbour, who - along with my friend, Mr Toubon - followed the matter on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. There was an increasingly urgent need to legislate so as not to leave it to the Court of Justice’s magistrates to ‘lay down the law’ on the fourth fundamental freedom of the Union as it relates to services.

The compromise makes it possible to outline a framework supporting the competitiveness and development of service activities, which represent 70% of GDP and great potential in terms of growth and job creation, while combating the risks of social dumping. Mr Chirac, the President of the French Republic, was right to oppose the first text presented in January 2004 by the Prodi Commission, and the European Parliament did its job as co-legislator properly. This is a victory for responsible democracy and a major step towards the construction of a social market economy.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), in writing. – (FR) After more than a year of debates in committee and within European public opinion, the European Parliament gave its verdict today on the Services Directive.

Remaining faithful to my beliefs and to the commitment made to the many citizens who questioned me about this directive, I voted, in the first instance, in favour of rejecting the directive, as did the entire French delegation of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. This rejection was not upheld (153 to 486 votes).

The French members of the PSE had three basic requirements: that SGEIs be excluded from the scope of the directive, that the rule of the country of destination principle be explicitly referred to and that a framework directive on public services be referred to.

I therefore supported all of the amendments aimed at narrowing the scope of the text and at clearly excluding from it public services and the sectors crucial to our social model, notably education, culture, health care and so on. These amendments were also rejected.

As the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament does not meet my requirements where preserving our European social model is concerned, I voted against the text in the final vote.

I also note that the support for the amendment aimed at rejecting the amended text was broader (215 votes) than the outcome of the first vote on the withdrawal of the text led us to predict.

  Emma Bonino (ALDE), in writing. (IT) I voted against the compromise reached on the Bolkestein Directive.

I voted ‘No’ for completely different reasons to those of Members from the left of this Chamber, as theirs was an ideological ‘No’ vote, which was ultimately a ‘No’ to Europe.

Commissioner Prodi’s proposal was not the product of Dr Strangelove, but of the Treaty and the guidelines that emerged from the Lisbon European Council.

What has been left intact?

Free movement does not apply to services of general interest, so they are excluded for a start. The same goes for financial services, which is a pity. Legal services are not in there; medical and health care services are not in there, nor are audiovisual services, for pity’s sake; taxation services are not even mentioned, nor are professional services – solicitors, lawyers and other professionals ought to take offence; and ‘national’ roulette balls must even be used when gambling. Lastly, transport services have also been excluded, although free movement for undertakers has been retained, which is perhaps symbolic.

As for the much-reviled country-of-origin clause, the text excludes both its principle and its innovative strength, which in fact applies to so many other economic sectors.

Corporative interests, the fears of Polish plumbers and the hypocrisy of those who say that, anyway, there is still the illegal work being done by immigrants have all triumphed today, but Europe has lost.

  Udo Bullmann, Matthias Groote, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Jo Leinen, Willi Piecyk and Mechtild Rothe (PSE), in writing. (DE) The Bolkestein directive aimed at social dumping and deregulation. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has succeeded in turning this directive into its precise opposite.

The country-of-origin principle has been dropped, to be replaced by indiscriminate market access. The labour laws of the place where the services are performed are to apply.

The directive on the posting of workers continues to apply without restriction and it will be necessary to amend it.

Derogations are in place for temporary work and contracting. We call on the Council to desist from standing in the way of European legislation.

The directive does not apply to services of general interest, and only in part to those of general economic interest. We call for a European framework directive with separate provisions applicable to this essential sector.

As the legislative process continues, a number of aspects will need attention.

For example, the fundamental freedoms of workers, as defined in the EU’s ‘Monti clause’, will need to take precedence over the rules of business life.

The rights of codecision and codetermination, being founded upon the law, must not be undermined.

Due regard shall consistently be had to the legitimate interests of the common good, as defined by Article 4.7a in conformity with the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

Legally founded obligations in the interests of workers from a given country and from elsewhere (mandatory contributions to trade associations, holiday funds, etc.) must apply to those performing services both at home and across frontiers.

Nothing must be done that might provide an opening for quasi-self-employment. Rules on the award of public contracts that stipulate quality standards must remain in full force.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We Conservatives believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights must always be respected, irrespective of the issue or legislation concerned. We are well disposed towards the Constitutional Treaty, which would have made this Charter legally binding on all EU citizens. We do not believe that only those parts of this Charter relating to labour law should be referred to in the Services Directive and have therefore abstained from voting on those issues in relation to which the Charter is mentioned.

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. I voted to radically amend – rather than reject – the proposed services directive. We have sought, and I think largely obtained in this first reading, a balance. We want to remove the bureaucratic obstacles to the free circulation of services in our European market, but we do not want to create a situation that will undermine our social services, our labour standards, our health and safety provision or other essential features of protection. We want protection but not protectionism. The amended text achieves a balance that was absent in the original draft.

  Dorette Corbey (PSE), in writing. (NL) Article 16(1)(b) and (c) makes national legislation subject to tests as to its necessity and proportionality, which I regard as an unacceptable interference in national sovereignty. If I am right in my interpretation of the text, this creates legal uncertainty and hampers national authorities in their work. It is of course a good thing that legislation on such subjects as the environment should be proportionate, but that is always a matter of political judgment. It is not desirable that national policy-makers should have the EU and the European Court of Justice peering over their shoulders. I can, though, support this compromise with the exception of paragraphs (1b) and (1c).

  Mia De Vits (PSE), in writing. (NL) I voted against the draft directive on services and would cite three reasons for having done so.

1) This House may well have made improvements to the Commission draft, but I do not regard them as sufficient. It is wrong that it should still apply to a number of public service sectors, to what are termed services of general economic interest. This directive really should not apply to such operations as, for example, the collection of household waste and the supply of water. Moreover, framework legislation is needed to put the right to public service provision on a secure footing.

2) Certain points in the directive can be interpreted in more than one way. The public currently take a sceptical view of Europe and so legal uncertainty in legislation is the least we need.

3) What we need is a social and trustworthy Europe with the same harmonised ground rules across the whole of internal market, and this directive is no way to create one.

I am nevertheless pleased to see that such sensitive sectors as port services, employment agencies, care of the elderly, the health sector and childcare have been excluded from the directive’s scope and that, moreover, each country’s social achievements remain intact, thus making social dumping impossible. I have voted in favour of the amendments to that effect, as also of all those amendments that improved the text and made it clearer.

  Antoine Duquesne (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the Services Directive constitutes a significant step forward for the European Union. Despite everything, it was possible to retain the bulk of the initial draft, and the text adopted will promote the success of the Lisbon Strategy, as shown by the most recent studies by the European Commission.

This directive will promote activity in the services sector, which is an extremely important source of jobs. The directive will be a crucial asset, particularly for the Belgian economy, which is very much geared towards services.

The amendments tabled by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection made it possible to respond to the public’s main concerns by specifying the scope of the directive and to put an end to a long-running disinformation campaign. The first proposal for a compromise presented by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament made the proposal for a directive completely meaningless. Fortunately, the final compromise – even if it has not been received enthusiastically – constitutes a first step, which is better than nothing at all, and tackles the main concerns of those in favour of the directive.

It now falls to the Council to confirm and improve the final compromise reached by Parliament.

  Lena Ek (ALDE), in writing. (SV) Today, the European Parliament is saying what it has to say about how we are to create free movement of services within the EU - one of the four freedoms on which our common European cooperation is based. In an evermore globalised world economy with constantly increased competition, the European economy needs to make the most of those areas in which we are competitive. The services sector is one such area. The compromises on which the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have agreed have unfortunately opened up new opportunities for making further protectionism legal and in such a way as will obstruct the trade in services between neighbouring countries and will deal a particularly hard blow to the newest Member States. In spite of everything, I have chosen to vote today in favour of the watered-down proposal, since it may be a first step towards what I hope will be a freedom of movement for services – which are already exposed to competition – that is worthy of our common European internal market.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We are disappointed that our proposal to reject the Bolkestein Directive was not adopted. This Directive lies at the heart of the so-called Lisbon Strategy and is the linchpin of neoliberalism in the area of services. Its purpose is to serve the interests of the large economic and financial groups in the EU, as demonstrated by the stance of representative organisations of these groups, such as the employers’ association UNICE.

Whilst it is true that the struggle of the workers and the people have forced some concessions and rewordings, which we have supported when they have been positive, the appalling agreement between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in Parliament has thwarted the expectations of those who trusted that Parliament would be able to reject a proposal as damaging to the workers and the people of the Member States as this one.

We accordingly voted against the proposal as a whole, and many of the specific points to which we are opposed, in particular in the following areas:

- the liberalisation of most services, including sensitive public sectors and services, such as water, social housing, energy, postal services, research, education and training, cultural services and security services; our proposals aimed at the removal thereof from the scope of the directive were rejected;

- the fact that the contractual arrangements of the workers, especially freelance workers, have become more precarious;

- the exacerbation of the difficulties in protecting the rights of consumers, the end-users of public services and the environment.

  Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of the text put to the vote was to allow the creation of a genuine internal market in services. At the same time, its aim was to rectify a draft directive, the philosophy of which, being based on competition between the social and fiscal laws of the Member States, would have tragic consequences via the levelling down of the various social models.

While the first of these objectives was fulfilled, the same cannot be said for the second. Admittedly, Parliament helped substantially to modify the line of the initial text by deleting the country of origin principle, by excluding SGIs from the scope of the directive and by protecting labour law.

The fact remains that there are still a large number of grey areas. Social services and the economic component of public services (SGEIs) are still under the direct threat of unacceptable social dumping. The legal vacuum associated with the deletion of the COP presages, furthermore, a new situation, in which it is the judges of the European Court of Justice who will have the power to lay down social laws, with no guarantee of the outcome or democratic control.

Although I welcome the progress made on this matter, I am quite unable, for these extremely important reasons, to support the final text submitted to Parliament.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Services Directive as adopted today is still unacceptable because it is nothing other than a poorly disguised copy of the original directive.

The great majority of the activities of craftsmen remain subject to competition at a time when, in my country, this sector employs the most people and creates the most jobs. Even though the overly explicit references to the country of origin principle have disappeared, there are still areas in which this scandalous principle will apply in full or in part. The uncertainties, the grey areas and the inconsistencies that remain will give the Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to apply its own interpretation to the directive. Well, the Court has always ruled in favour of those who considered that certain standards – particularly social ones – constituted an intolerable obstacle to competition. The Commission will have an excuse for pushing harmonisation downwards in areas lying outside its powers, such as social protection and labour law.

So, amended or not, I reject the Bolkestein Directive. I reject the absurd principles that underpin it; I reject social and legal dumping and the free competition that is praised to the skies but responsible for unemployment; I reject the planned relocations; and I reject this Eurocracy that refuses to take into account what the nations think, so that it can continue imposing unwanted policies on them.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List shares the view that the internal market for services is not complete. We welcome the Services Directive and believe that, irrespective of the country they come from, services companies should not be discriminated against in any EU country.

The core issue in the debate on the Services Directive is that of whether the directive should be guided by the country of origin principle (Article 16). The June List values both the internal market and national self-determination. The fundamental question is thus as follows: does the country of origin principle entail such decisive advantages that we are prepared to renounce national sovereignty? Our answer to that question is no.

The country of origin principle relates to significant, but strictly limited, areas such as construction, installation work and consultancy services. We welcome competition within these areas, but believe that it must take place on conditions that are fair to all parties. We believe that Swedish rules must apply on Swedish territory. We thus support what is known as the host country principle.

We are also of the view that national monopolies on services should be respected. Precisely what shape is to be taken by these services should be decided following broad discussion in the respective Member States.

It follows from the aforesaid position that we have chosen to support the compromise put forward by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the amended proposal. I hope that the vote on the Services Directive will shatter the mistaken belief put about that the European Commission has the last say on everything.

A text will not apply as it stands just because the European Commission proposed it. As a result of political arrangements dictated by circumstances to do with voting, the people of France were made to think that that was the case. The so-called ‘Bolkestein’ Directive is a symbol of popular manipulation. The European Parliament has shown today that the power to legislate belongs to the representatives of the citizens.

The European Commission proposal was not sound. We therefore amended it with a view to striking a balance between the economic benefits of liberalising services, on the one hand, and the absolute necessity of preventing all social dumping, on the other.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The majority in Parliament has adopted the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, which sought to retain essential aspects of the proposed directive on the liberalisation of services, rather than to reject it, as we had been proposing.

As a result of the resounding condemnation of the worst aspects of this proposal and the workers’ campaign to have the directive rejected, the majority in Parliament has excluded some areas from its scope, putting a decision on them back to a later date and, in a feat of legal sleight of hand, has concealed the regulation applying the law on the country of origin of the service provider.

Nevertheless, although the ambitious plans of the large economic and financial groups have not all been realised, competition has been stepped up in a number of service sectors, including public services. This will have a damaging impact on workers’ rights and on the services provided to the people. In the same way, the sovereignty of individual countries is being cut back even further, strengthening the role of the Court of Justice.

The directive on the liberalisation of services has not yet been adopted. The Council, on which the Portuguese Government has a seat, needs to assume its responsibilities. As far as we are concerned, we shall continue to fight for the rejection of the proposed directive, which, if adopted, will undermine the interests of the workers and of the country.

  Jacky Henin (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Everything comes down to two figures: today, in the Union, services represent 70% of added value but they only amount to 20% of the exchanges carried out within the Community.

Therefore, given the impossibility of relocating the majority of service companies, the abysmal wages are relocated instead and, to this end, the Bolkestein Directive was invented. Its aim: to reduce wages to the bare minimum, to level down social protections, to limit consumer rights and to dismantle public services. This is not even ultraliberalism any more; this is outright liberalism.

Far from settling the problem of the country of origin principle and far from protecting public services from the merciless law of the market, the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament does nothing other than place the Commission and the Court of Justice in the role of final arbiter. Given the ultraliberal stance of the Commission and the Court of Justice, allowing them to assume such a role is like putting foxes in charge of a henhouse.

To accept the Services Directive would amount to signing the death warrant, in Europe, of employee and consumer protection and of public services.

The nations of Europe do not need a directive that takes the social and fiscal policy choices they made on a democratic basis and pits them against one another.

(The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. The compromise package agreed by the Socialist and Conservative Groups creates an unclear result. For example, the two large groups refused to back an outright exemption of social services from the directive's scope, despite the deep concerns of many working in the social care sector. They did however exempt social services "such as social housing, childcare and family services". This non-exhaustive list of certain social services creates legal uncertainty and it is impossible to judge what social services will be affected by the directive outwith the fields of housing, childcare and family services.

The compromise failed to ensure outright exemptions of such key sectors as education, water and culture. The compromise threatens consumer rights by not permitting Member States to impose requirements based on consumer protection.

For these reasons I voted against the amended report.

  Karin Jöns (PSE), in writing. (DE) The Commission proposal for a services directive aimed at social dumping and deregulation. I am glad that my Group has succeeded in turning this directive into its precise opposite.

The country-of-origin principle has been dropped, to be replaced by market access without discrimination. The labour laws of the place where the services are performed are to apply. It is also significant that the directive on the posting of workers continues to apply without restriction and that there is a derogation for temporary work through agencies. It is now for the Council to desist from further blocking European legislation on this subject.

Although I am glad that the directive no longer applies to services of general interest, I do find it regrettable that services of general economic interest are still subject to it to some degree. We urgently need a European framework directive to lay down rules in this important area.

As the legislative process continues, a number of aspects will need attention.

The fundamental freedoms of workers, as defined in the EU’s ‘Monti clause’, will need to take precedence over the rules of business life. The rights of codecision and codetermination, being founded upon the law, must not be undermined.

Due regard shall consistently be had to the legitimate interests of the common good, as defined by Article 4.7a in conformity with the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

Legally founded obligations in the interests of workers from a given country and from elsewhere (mandatory contributions to trade associations, holiday funds, etc.) must apply equally to those performing services both at home and across frontiers.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues are long-standing and strong supporters of measures to complete the Single Market in the European Union. The liberalisation of services in the internal market is a major step towards this end and offers the successful British services industry many new opportunities to flourish in the future.

Although we have voted for the final package today, we are disappointed that an opportunity has been missed to agree a truly liberalising Directive. We therefore call on the Council and the British Prime Minister to take steps to reinforce the Directive without delay.

To have voted against this imperfect package and contribute to its failure would have given succour to those on the left in Europe who are ideologically opposed to liberalisation, free markets and economic reform. The European economy is urgently in need of liberalisation and we will continue to argue for this when Parliament considers this matter further at second reading.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted against this report as I do not believe the final result offers the necessary clarity in a number of areas. It is not clear that we have removed the so-called country-of-origin principle: in fact, it is not clear what the applicable law will be for a company wanting to offer cross-border services on a temporary basis. It is also not clear where the dividing line is for services offered as a public service but by a private provider or sub-contractor. I welcome the removal of patient mobility from the directive - it should never have been included. In fact, the Commission's all-embracing proposal has been ill-considered and poorly thought through. I look forward to major amendments in their next proposal.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) Ever since the Lisbon European Council in March 2000, at which France was represented by Mr Chirac and Mr Jospin and which has since been eclipsed by the work of the ‘Internal Market’ Council and by the Berger and Harbour parliamentary reports - both of which were adopted with the full backing of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - the European liberals, conservatives and socialists have been the ones truly pushing for the so-called Bolkestein Directive.

As far as this affair is concerned, the Lisbon European Council was merely the wholesale reflection of a political class ideologically set on having the internal market in services implemented as quickly as possible.

When the people of the Netherlands and France suddenly took a stand to protect their social entitlements by rejecting the draft European Constitution, they thankfully stopped the time bomb constituted by the untrammelled liberalisation of services.

The Left, which embroiled itself in the mess of liberal Europeanism, is now drowning in a sea of pathetic confusion and internal contradictions.

The amended version of the Services Directive proposed to us only modifies the form of the text, without touching its content. This directive, whether amended or not, is bad, because the proposed strategy on the internal market is fundamentally harmful.

It is therefore on the basis of national and social considerations that we reject the Gebhardt report.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The vote on the European Constitution, held on 29 May 2005, really triggered things off politically and socially.

The real plan B was in fact the withdrawal of the Bolkestein Directive because, if it had not been for the ‘No’ vote in the referenda in France and the Netherlands, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the UMP and the UDF – which are all in favour of the European Constitution and of increased competition in Europe – would not have shown such determination to denounce the country of origin principle and the attacks on commercial and non-commercial public services.

The only aim of this political and media stage show is to make people forget about the u-turns performed by the PSE which, together with Mr Jospin, helped liberalise the Post Office, EDF and France Télécom. In this affair, we believe that the liberals and the classical or post-Marxists and internationalists are as bad as each other; they are all responsible and they are all guilty. Only the national structure that we champion can protect us from the Bolkestein Directive, from Mittal Steel or from the hostile takeover bids of multinationals or of US pension funds.

Europe is being torn apart over the Services Directive while it waits for the general agreement on trade in services at the WTO to get everyone to come to an agreement in the name of free competition and of the unimpeachable market.

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Services Directive - or notorious Bolkestein Directive – is a device for creating unemployment. The French referendum on the European Constitution had enabled the people of France to learn all about the directive’s ultraliberal and job-destroying philosophy. Despite a few cosmetic changes, its content today remains unchanged.

The concept of the country of origin has been erased, but that does not mean that the concept of the freedom to provide services has disappeared. This whole matter is nothing other than a huge farce designed to push through what the liberals, the conservatives and the Left – all as zealously pro-European as each other – have been cleverly concocting with their respective national governments for nearly two years. Whether it is a question of the Bolkestein Directive, the Services Directive or the Gebhardt report, all of these texts that form the subject of controversies and of compromises extracted in extremis by the political groups of the European Parliament are the same and should be forcefully rejected.

We are resolutely opposed to this ultraliberal and anti-national vision of the internal market in services, the only aim of which is ultimately to destroy our craft industry and our small French businesses under the guise of ‘free and undistorted competition’.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this text which, despite being something of an improvement on Mr Bolkestein’s draft, seriously threatens our social model.

The country of origin principle is only formally, and not actually, abandoned because the text’s legal vacuum reintroduces it through the back door – (with the de facto application of the Rome Convention and of the proximity principle) – and leaves it to the Court of Justice to deal with any arbitrations that legislators should really take on, applying the host country principle. Services of general economic interest remain within the scope of the directive, a state of affairs that threatens public services, which have already been severely damaged in Europe. The votes confirmed an ultraliberal bias.

The Member States are deprived of the resources needed to regulate certain professions and effectively to control the application of the directives such as the one relating to the posting of workers, which is a fragile barrier against social dumping.

The European Union needs an alternative draft that includes the upwards harmonisation of social, environmental and consumer protection rules and that excludes public services, which require a protective framework directive.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I have told anyone who is willing to listen that I am in favour of a compromise, but I am not prepared to be taken for a fool.

I am in favour of the country of origin principle. The negotiators from my group promised me that the revised wording stipulating that the Member States must respect the service providers’ right to provide a service in a Member State other than the one in which they are established is identical to this principle. If such is the case, then I am in a position to vote in favour of the compromise. The negotiators from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are, however, proclaiming loud and long that they have succeeded in killing off this principle, which they wrongly consider to be responsible for all economic and social ills.

The disappearance of the country of origin principle from Article 16 would lead to a state of legal uncertainty for the service provider, who would have to play it by ear under the control of the Court of Justice.

Moreover, the safeguard clauses in paragraph 3 go beyond the case law and give the impression that one can demand the application of the law of the country of destination on the basis of a simple ‘need’, without any tests carried out in terms of proportionality and non-discrimination. The resulting uncertainty about these crucial provisions leads me to reject certain parts of the compromise text relating to Article 16.

(The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Cecilia Malmström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) The services sector is important, and I should like to have seen a bigger step forward in this important market. Unfortunately, today’s vote is only a modest step, and that is something I regret. An unholy alliance between Conservatives and Social Democrats paves the way for protectionist zones and legal disputes and will restrict the market for services. These are developments that would cause European employees and consumers to lose out. I regret the fact that we are sending out a signal to the new Member States that there is still an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. It was with considerable hesitation that I voted in favour of the proposal, which is nonetheless a small step forward for the services market.

  Toine Manders (ALDE), in writing. (NL) The directive, in the form in which this House has adopted it, obliges the Member States to eliminate all kinds of obstacles that continue to hamper the free movement of services. It is because this represents progress particularly for SMEs that I have voted for the compromise.

The retention of the country-of-origin principle means that this does not disappear from the Treaty, unless we deny the continued existence of the internal market. I am confident that the Commission and the Council will respond to this by coming up with a better proposal.

Preferring as I would to see the market in services liberalised still further, I am disappointed by the stance taken by the Socialists and the Christian Democrats: the Liberals alone have, from the very outset, sent out a clear message to the effect that they support the free operation of the market in Europe and that they seek further liberalisation of the internal market. Both the Socialists and the Christian Democrats have sold the pass in order to keep in with the trade unions at the expense of consumers. Such protectionism puts our children’s future at risk.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) For 50 years, the freedom to provide cross-border services has featured among the four fundamental freedoms of the common market. That is what the Court of Justice confirmed by recognising a COP, a country of origin principle. For the blind among us, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, signed in Marrakech in April 1994, laid down, throughout the world, a ‘fourth mode’ of service provision, in the form of a cross-border provision of services, that is to say of a temporary switch to the social dumping conditions of the country of origin.

It is this old principle that the leaders of Europe are now pretending to discover, whereas this COP has been devastating European economies for decades. Seeking to maintain the French-influenced European social model, with its pensions, its health protection, its free schools, its post offices, its trains and its hospitals, demands that we not only oppose workers being paid the lowest possible wages, as practised in the most socially backward countries, but that we also oppose the idea of a market without customs protection, which is the real cause of social dumping. The rule of the COP is only one symptom of this social dumping. The starting point – the first rogue cell – of this social cancer is the idea of the single market, without the protection of customs duties. The country of origin rule is nothing other than a secondary cancer.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I am pleased with the outcome of this historic vote on the Internal Market in Services. It demonstrates the European Parliament's ability to handle complex legislation and make vital improvements that take into account the concerns of people in our community: here ensuring that workers and consumers' rights are not undermined by ambitious and forward-thinking legislation.

In voting for the amended Services Directive I supported measures that strike the balance of opening the single market whilst securing workers' social rights and safeguarding our vital public services.

Opening up the market in services is not merely about boosting big businesses but also about creating jobs and spreading potential economic benefits to consumers and producers of around EUR 30 billion. This legislation will give small and medium-sized businesses the chance to provide cross border services, enabling them finally to take advantage of the unique regional integration that a Union of 25 states offers without having to enter into costly legal wrangling in the Courts.

Faced with the challenges of thriving markets in services in third countries, such as is the case in India and China, Europe needed to grasp this opportunity to improve its competitive edge in a dynamic and growing sector.

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), in writing. As Chair of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, I welcome today's historic vote to open up the market in services across Europe. This is the final piece in the jigsaw of establishing the internal market. For too long, small and medium-sized enterprises have been prevented by ludicrous red tape from doing business in other EU Member States. With more than 53 cases before the European Court of Justice, where businesses are arguing for their right under the Treaty to provide services across Europe, it is time for us to set down rules for the operation of the service market. Parliament has listened to people's concerns and fears and ensured that the freedom to provide services is not the freedom to undermine citizens' employment terms and conditions and their rights as consumers. We want to end protectionism but protect working people and consumers. We were happy to vote for and support a compromise which delivered this critical balance of interests for citizens across the EU.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) The former Commissioner Bolkestein’s conviction was that good laws and good collective wage agreements of the kind that are to be found in many EU Member States would be in permanent competition with the poor regulatory arrangements that prevail in others. Existing differences would be made into a factor in competition, the intention being that the worst would always win. This extremely neo-liberal approach was intended to wreck all that the labour movement had fought for and achieved over the course of a century.

The fact that the directive in its original form will not see the light of day is thanks to the mass action on the part of trade unionists and other organisations. Instead, there will be a vague compromise between the two biggest groups in this Parliament. In order that this House should not come to any unambiguous decisions, a great deal is to be immediately put in the hands of the Court of Justice, which may well promptly opt in favour of the highly-controversial country-of-origin principle. Those of us here who are members of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands have had no hand in this compromise. Although we vote to reject it outright, we will, until such time as the directive enters fully into effect, support all proposed amendments that the trade union movement regards as improvements. In the meantime, the struggle goes on; we, together with the trade union movement, will resist all attempts by the bosses at making it possible for people to be employed for lower wages.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. Labour MEPs voted in favour of the amended Services Directive to end protectionism but to ensure protection of workers and jobs.

The deal now on the table was exhaustively discussed to create an ideal outcome for workers and business in the UK.

The UK's markets are already liberalised for other EU countries. We must ensure that business, including London business in my constituency, can compete fairly in the rest of the UK.

Labour MEPs have worked hard to ensure that UK trade union concerns over terms and conditions have been seriously and faithfully taken up.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) We still aim to overthrow the services directive. Today saw the adoption by this House, by 395 votes to 215, of a ‘compromise’, cobbled together by social democrats and conservatives, which can be described as more than disreputable. The social democrats had already made enough disgraceful concessions to the conservatives, but, just before the end, they made another one, the consequence of which was that the directive would continue to apply to ‘social policy’ and ‘consumer protection’, just as the freedom to provide services already did to ‘services of general economic interest’. This is quite utterly unacceptable.

The text as adopted has ended up being not merely a licence for social dumping in Europe, but also a slap in the face for trade unionists, for campaigners for social justice, and for all those who, over recent days, weeks and months, have taken to the streets to express their opposition to the Bolkestein directive. The conduct of the German Social Democrats has been particularly shameful, in that they – unlike their French counterparts – were unswervingly loyal to the Bolkestein directive and sent their own natural supporters as lambs to the slaughter.

Only now, though, is the fight against the European social dumping directive getting underway. Over the coming months, we will be mobilising still more opposition to the plans that the Commission, the governments and the anti-social Great Coalition have for Europe.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The decision to allow service providers the freedom to offer their services in any other Member State, without extraordinary obstacles being put in their way, protects the interests of consumers, of workers, of service providers and of Europe as a whole.

The services market has the greatest potential for growth and development in the European economy, and our aim is to promote reforms that stimulate the economy, and to protect the rights of workers, consumers and the business community, in particular small and medium-sized businesses, which traditionally stand to lose out most from administrative, political and economic obstacles.

I endorse this report because I am in favour of true freedom to set up and provide services in the EU. If it is possible to procure goods and services freely in another Member State, there is no justification for preventing the service provider from moving, provided that they comply with a number of principles, principally of a public and social nature, which remain safeguarded in the adopted version.

In spite of the compromise – necessary in a political group with the responsibilities of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – the outcome is a well-balanced one and, more importantly, a clear sign that Parliament wants an economy that is more conducive to job creation, more effective, fairer and more competitive.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has undoubtedly marked the history of European parliamentary democracy today with its vote on the so-called Bolkestein Directive.

By reconciling the irreconcilable - the position of France and of Poland, that of the ETUC and of Unice and that of the progressive socialists and of the non-dogmatic liberals - this vote represents a step forward towards a citizens’ Europe. It is a step forward towards a European Union that refuses to compromise when it comes to social dumping, but that does not, for all that, forget about eliminating the protectionist barriers to the freedom to provide services and to freedom of establishment.

Yes, our Parliament has come out of this vote with increased stature. Not only has it totally fulfilled its role as legislator by, for instance, doing away with the country of origin principle, but it has also been able to avoid the trap set by a coalition of Eurosceptics and overcautious ‘No’ men who, suffering from a bout of memory loss, seem to have forgotten that, on 1 June 2004, we were celebrating European reconciliation.

By putting particular emphasis on a policy of friendly cooperation with our friends from the ten new Member States, we have done nothing short of bringing down a new Berlin wall – in our heads this time, and long may it last!

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The proposal for a directive on the liberalisation of services gives tangible form to an idea that is almost 50 years old, given that one of the European Union’s earliest priorities was that the freedom of services should be a core element of the European project.

The solution that has been adopted is a victory for European democracy and resolves an impasse that until recently was thought to be insurmountable. Without this agreement, we would be in a situation in which nobody would dare touch this issue in years to come, which would have an adverse affect on economic growth and job creation.

The removal of a number of administrative and bureaucratic obstacles hampering the free movement of persons and services has in itself made the adoption of this directive worthwhile.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be the main beneficiaries of this, as they will no longer face the frustrations that they encountered when attempting to operate in a neighbouring country. Previously, they needed to have residency, an office or a subsidiary in the destination country, to have previously registered with some administrative authority, or to prove that they had a command of the language of the country. With this directive, those days are over.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) Anyone who has closely followed the debate on the Services Directive will be surprised to find that the compromise between conservatives and social democrats has been interpreted in different ways. A group to the Right defends the compromise because it ‘does not affect the country of origin principle’, while the Left considers it to be a ‘definite departure from that self-same country of origin principle’.

We therefore have two views on opposite ends of the spectrum. What is more, this compromise does not make it clear to what extent Member States can impose hard and fast criteria on the provision of certain services on their territory so as to avoid social dumping.

Moreover, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have scrapped the reference to social policy and consumer protection.

Whilst Parliament has managed to remove a whole range of services from the scope of the directive, it still applies to a large extent to services of general economic interest.

Since the rehashed Bolkestein Directive contains, in any case, many legal ambiguities, it will once again result in many lawsuits for the European Court of Justice. In no way does the revised document offer the transparency and legal certainty that are needed.

We Greens saw it as crucial that services of general economic interest be excluded from the final document and the country of origin principle deleted from it. Since our requests have not been accommodated, I have ultimately voted against.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the directive on services in the internal market, known as the Bolkenstein directive.

We condemn the disgraceful agreement achieved between the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and supported by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who voted in favour of the abortive directive on the 'liberalisation of services' at the demand of the UNICE.

The amendments proposed and voted for by the European People's Party, Socialist Group and Liberals strengthened the reactionary character of the directive, given that:

a) they extend the unaccountability of the monopolies in the service sector to choosing as their headquarters countries with an 'attractive business environment' – tax relief, low service standards, cheap, disenfranchised labour, no collective agreements and so forth – so as to maximise their profitability;

b) they strike a heavy blow at public/social services (education, water and waste management, storage of dangerous materials, postal services, cultural services, social welfare services and so forth) which are being privatised and coming under the full control of the monopolies;

c) they jeopardise the fundamental employment and social rights of the working class – collective agreements, insurance and pension rights, the sacred right to strike won by the working class through hard class struggle;

d) they hand the purchase of services over to monopoly capital, with disastrous consequences for small businesses and self-employed people, while leaving the quality and price of services to the voracious appetites of capital for excessive profits.

  Diana Wallis (ALDE), in writing. I voted against the inclusion of a new recital 13b in the services directive because stating that the consumer will always benefit from the protection granted to him by the consumer legislation in his Member State is misleading and a misrepresentation of the actual legal position.

  Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) Today, the European Parliament has voted on one of the most important legislative matters we have ever dealt with – the Services Directive. The Services Directive is designed to remove the obstacles to two of the freedoms that have formed part of the EC Treaty since 1958: freedom of establishment for suppliers of services, and freedom of movement for services. The potential for the trade in services is huge, and Sweden is one of those countries that has most to gain from an efficient market for services.

The debate on the Services Directive has been wide-ranging. Swedish and European trade unions point out that the directive contributes to ‘social dumping’. That is not the case, because the directive does not deal with issues relating to labour law. The labour law aspects have, moreover, been clarified by Parliament’s decision.

I want to see a constructive Services Directive that clears away administrative rules and other barriers to trade. I also want the scope of the directive to be as broad as possible. I therefore voted in favour of areas such as private health care, temporary agencies and services of general economic interest being covered by the directive.

Today's decision by Parliament is based partly on a broad compromise. Compromises are seldom perfect but are often necessary if the objective in question is to be achieved. I hope that the EU Member States are successful in taking a decision on the issue later this year so that we might make progress on this very important issue.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE), in writing. (LV) I voted against the amendments to the Services Directive which sought to back away from introducing the country of origin principle. At the same time I support the amendments stressing the need not to allow a reduction in service quality, ensuring that consumer interests do not suffer and safety and health considerations are borne in mind. I believe that backing away from the country of origin principle will significantly affect the free movement of services in the EU, restricting the opportunities of businesses from the new Member States to compete freely on the EU market in the services sector. To put forward unjustified requirements for a services provider established in one EU Member State and to create unequal circumstances is not compatible with the principles of the EU internal market and cannot be permitted.

The citizens of Latvia and also of the other new Member States believe that closing off the services sector in the older EU Member States, in practice, to our businesses and workers amounts to deception and reneging on promises which the EU gave to the new Member States in the accession process. The people of Latvia have paid too high a price for accession to the European Union. By fully opening its internal market to producers from the West, Latvia has destroyed its industry and agriculture.

I believe that we must achieve agreement on a directive based on solidarity between the older and newer EU Member States and the principle of equal rights.

- Report: McGuinness (A6-0023/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mrs McGuinness, on the proposal for a Council decision on Community strategic guidelines for Rural Development (Programming period 2007-2013). In the framework of the common agricultural policy reform, rural development will become of paramount importance for 90% of the European Union’s territory and for 50% of its population. These guidelines are good on the whole, and I am pleased that the European Parliament should be gradually recognising that mountain areas require preferential assistance.

We will need to be very vigilant with regard to the resources - and, more specifically, the financial resources - that will be implemented. I regret that greater emphasis was not given to the need to ensure that the rural territories have an equal chance in the current economic and social competition, for example through the introduction of a policy of large-scale works linked to infrastructure, such as motorways, high-speed rail transport, the airline network and access to ports, as well as through the development of new information and communication technologies. The European Union must guarantee equal opportunities for citizens and businesses wherever they may be on European territory.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We voted in favour of this report, given that we are broadly in favour of its thrust, although we are opposed to one or two of the points it makes.

That being said, the principle objective of the report is to address problems in the rural world. The report says that, owing to their disadvantaged status, special attention must be paid to rural areas, and highlights the large diversity of situations and specific characteristics in each Member State.

Special prominence needs to be given both to remote, mountainous and disadvantaged rural areas suffering from depopulation and decline, and to peri-urban areas under increasing pressure from urban centres. I also wish to highlight the inclusion of proposals aimed at supporting local initiatives, such as farmers’ markets and local food-quality procurement schemes, and the need for effective support for young farmers to improve transfer between generations.

Special treatment must be given to the outermost regions, where farms are small, isolated, often exposed to severe climate conditions and limited in their range of produce.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Community’s strategic guidelines for rural development will form the basis of future national rural development programmes, harmonising the objectives and measures to be implemented under the scope of this important European sector.

It is extremely important to set out the strategies clearly and thoroughly, with a view to boosting the development of Europe’s rural areas, improving the living conditions for people in those areas and enhancing the rural environment.

I warmly welcome both the Commission’s proposal, which offers a broad range of objectives and measures, and the McGuinness report, which fine-tunes the strategic guidelines in a number of specific areas, such as the protection of rural cultural heritage and the rural landscape.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Following discussion, in accordance with the conciliation procedure, of the Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has produced many commendable proposals. The European Parliament is trying, however, continually to exercise more control over the Member States’ agricultural and regional policies. That is something towards which we are unsympathetic.

We do not believe that the Member States can be bound by extensive target-setting documents where rural development is concerned. We have great confidence that the national or regional parliaments in the Member States can cope constructively and successfully with this issue.

We have therefore voted against those amendments that the European Parliament wishes to table to the Council’s document in relation to Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Strategic Community guidelines are to be adopted for the next financial period 2007-2013, within the scope of the new regulation on rural development. I wish to stress the importance of rural development, especially as rural areas make up 90% of EU territory and 50% of the EU population live in those areas.

The purpose of these strategic guidelines is to define the areas in which EU funding can create the most value added at EU level, to translate the main EU priorities into rural development, to ensure consistency in programming with other EU policies, and to support the implementation of the new CAP and the necessary restructuring in the old and new Member States.

Like the rapporteur, I support this proposal for a Council decision, as it addresses the need to provide the Member States with clearer guidance on the implementation of the regulation. Nonetheless, special priority should also be attached to modernising the farming and forestry sectors, and to encouraging young farmers and their families not to leave rural areas.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) Is it possible to have rural development without country people? Will there be any villages and landscapes in the wine-growing South of France if our vines are uprooted, if our cooperative and private wine cellars are made to shut down and if the winegrowers’ farmhouses are replaced by housing estates?

Will the rural development of the south west and of the Périgord, Cévennes and Causses regions come about through the disappearance of farmers, shepherds and flocks of sheep, with only senior citizens from Great Britain, the Netherlands and northern Europe to replace them?

Rural development in the second pillar is just a smoke screen. It is the fancy name used to describe the disappearance of our agricultural production to the benefit of producers from Brazil, Australia or the South Pacific, with the consolation prize of modest jobs as landscape gardeners for the surviving members of France’s and Europe’s farming communities.

Rural development is just as hypocritical a concept as ‘multifunctional agriculture’. It is a pain reliever, a palliative remedy applied to women and men from the countryside, who are knowingly and disgracefully sacrificed to the all-important ‘global deal’. In the South Pacific, the focus is on agriculture; in Europe, the focus is on the illusory services market.

Having stupidly ‘sold out’ its farmers, Europe goes and invents a pharisaic ‘rural development’ policy in the human and economic desert that Brussels has created in our countryside.

- New financial mechanisms in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals (RC-B6-0119/2006)

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The EU has a unique responsibility and opportunity where this matter is concerned. It alone can satisfy the two conditions for putting these new mechanisms in place: critical size and political will. The text submitted to us does not, I am afraid, live up to this expectation.

Admittedly, this resolution supports in principle the new sources of development funding by emphasising the need for these funds to supplement traditional public aid, and not to replace it. This position of Parliament is, however, very half-hearted.

The support is reluctantly expressed, and the central concept in this debate - a ‘global tax’ to fund development - is passed over in silence. The various projects on the table today, relating for example to taxation on financial transactions, CO2 emissions and arms sales, are not mentioned. No reference whatsoever is made to ‘Global Public Goods’, which these mechanisms should fund as a priority.

Given that it is a first step in the right direction, I will vote in favour of this draft resolution. I do, however, want to see it encourage swifter and more far-reaching action aimed at practically implementing these new tools at European level.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I welcome this debate and resolution looking at innovative ways of raising finance to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, whether it be through a levy on air transport or through a Tobin-type tax on currency transactions. I have supported and campaigned for the latter for almost a decade now and welcome the fact that both France and Belgium have passed the relevant legislation, while it is under consideration in Italy, where last year I gave evidence to the Italian Senate's Finance and Foreign Affairs Committee on the subject.

Whatever the route used to raise funds they must be ring-fenced to help those living in deep poverty, the 1.2 billion living on less than EUR 1 a day, to obtain basic housing and education, water and health care.

I particularly welcome paragraph 7, which will help boost the work of the Stamp Out Poverty campaign run by David Hillman and the Tobin Tax Network.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Combating poverty is one of the big challenges that all countries have to engage with. The June List believes, however, that the work needs to be funded from individual countries’ national budgets. Neither international aid nor other commendable projects must under any circumstances lead to national taxation law being replaced by EU taxation law. We are therefore voting against the resolution.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although this motion for a resolution includes points on which we would raise serious questions, we support the most positive aspects of the resolution.

That being said, the Millennium Goals – to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, to achieve universal primary education, to promote gender equality and empower women, to reduce child mortality, to improve maternal health, to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, to ensure environmental sustainability and to develop a global partnership for development – will stand little chance of being achieved merely by implementing limited, window-dressing measures.

These urgent and worthwhile goals will only be achieved if there is a sea-change in the policies currently pursued by the main capitalist powers and by the international fora dominated by those powers, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. What is needed is an end to capitalist competition, the liberalisation of trade, privatisations, the reduction in workers’ rights and salaries, the stranglehold on national policies by the large economic and financial groups and the concentration of wealth among the few, at the cost of the exploitation and oppression of the people.

In order for these goals to be achieved, there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system – that is, capitalism – which foments exploitation, inequality, poverty, violence and oppression.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I was a signatory to this motion, which I believe sets out a workable EU mechanism to achieve international development goals within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. Achieving those goals has been important to many of my London constituents.

- Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs (RC-B6-0136/2006)

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I wanted to refer to the resolution on freedom of speech. I was unable to support the resolution because those who initially offended the feelings of others acted in an arrogant fashion. When they were threatened with a boycott of their goods, they began to apologise and thus behaved in a cowardly manner. The text does not denounce either the arrogance or the cowardice and that is precisely the reason why I was not able to support the resolution.

(Applause)

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (IND/DEM). – (IT) Mr President, I did not vote for this resolution because I consider it to be extremely weak.

I should like, in particular, to stress that the reactions to the cartoons, whether or not they were offensive – that is something for the courts to decide – did not come from just the dregs of society, as they did in France, when the disturbances took place in its suburbs.

In this case there have been official reactions, such as the withdrawal of ambassadors and the official boycott of Danish products, which are European products. As the author, Oriana Fallaci, has already stressed on many occasions, this demonstrates that there is no such thing as a tolerant Islam, because a tolerant Islam would have laughed at the cartoons and would have ignored them. It would certainly not have reacted in this manner.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I believe that one needs to restrict freedom of expression on only the rarest of occasions. Of course, it must be illegal to shout 'fire' in a cinema or to directly provoke racial hatred. I find it difficult to understand, on that basis, how Nick Griffin, the leader of the neo-fascist British Nationalist Party, was acquitted of promoting racial hatred earlier this month after his comments on both Islam and the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Yet I am not sure I see the Danish cartoons that were published falling into that category. They were certainly offensive to many, but that does not mean they meet the same test as promoting racial hatred. Certainly, when I see opposition to their publication coming from the fundamentalist Christian right in Europe, I start to worry that the laws of blasphemy are being dusted off again across Europe. The correct position would have been not to forbid publication, but to condemn the content of many of them.

As for Mr Frattini's 'code of conduct' for journalists, it deserved the decision it received. Yet if we are going to protect people's deep-rooted beliefs from ridicule, attack or insult, maybe some of Britain's yellow tabloid press can start to respect my anti-racism, my hatred of homophobia, my socialism and my commitment to Europe.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We are deeply alarmed at the stance adopted by the majority in Parliament as regards the increased international tension. Their stance glosses over the deeply provocative atmosphere surrounding the publication of the cartoons, of which the dangerous developments are ample evidence.

It is disgraceful to seek to justify the USA’s increasing interventionism in the Middle East by concocting an atmosphere of a clash of civilisations. Similarly alarming is the fact that the major powers in the EU are moving closer to the ambitions of the USA in the region. It should not be forgotten that the initiative to block a negotiated solution under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran came from Germany, France and the United Kingdom, an objective long supported by the USA.

Unlike what some would have you believe, it is the USA and its allies, especially Israel, that have threatened peace and perpetrated war, aggression and occupation. They are the ones that occupy Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, and have countless bases and thousands of troops stationed in the region. It is therefore crucial to take action to reverse the current cycle of incitement to violence, to promote détente in international relations and to protect peace.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE), in writing. (NL) Due to the subtle distinction that has been drawn, I was ultimately unable to give my endorsement to the proposal. I consider the edifying words in some paragraphs to be totally misplaced. The impression is once again being created that the free expression of opinion and freedom of the press are negotiable. I cannot, and indeed will not, put my name to that. To me, the free expression of opinion is an absolute right, and, in this connection, I would like to quote Voltaire, who said: ‘I may despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.

In European liberal society, the freedom of religion goes hand in hand with the freedom to criticise a religion, and certainly those things that flow from it. The Islamic world may well protest, but this message should be hammered home to it in no uncertain terms. After all, if we run away from the wolf, we will end up being eaten by a bear.

Through their schizophrenic and extremely guarded attitude, the EU and its Member States are bowing to the opinions of radical Muslims with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. Never must threats and fear lead us to sell out our freedoms. History has taught us that problems do not so much arise through too many freedoms, but rather through their being restricted.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted for this resolution as in many respects it provides a balanced response to the ill-considered action of the Danish newspaper in commissioning cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed for publication, knowing this would be considered an offensive act. It recognises that the reaction was largely orchestrated by political forces seeking to create hatred of some western governments and also acknowledges that the vast majority of Muslims reacted not with violence but with dignity and outrage at the violence, which they feel does not reflect the values of their faith. However, I note that once again Parliament has failed to criticise one of our own Member States, which has been criticised by the Council of Europe for raising the temperature on immigration. This has created a climate which raises tensions. Parliament must be consistent in its own approach to failures within its borders and not just outside them.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I am disappointed that this resolution on an important controversy is unclear, ambiguous and does not properly address the context of the 'cartoon' controversy. Freedom of expression should be balanced by the responsible use of this power. It is of concern to many, including my London constituents to whom I have been replying individually.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The endeavour by the Commission, the Council and the political groups which support EU policy to present themselves as upholders of 'freedom of the press and respect for religious beliefs' is an insult to the peoples. In reality they are trying to hide political responsibilities and the objectives served by publication of the cartoons of Mohammed and the publicity which they were given by the European urban newspapers.

This is no coincidence. Republication is linked to the elections in Palestine and the step-up in imperialist aggression in Iran, Syria and the area as a whole. All those doing their utmost for the 'freedom of the press' deliberately overlook the fact that Mohammed and Islam are identified with terrorism in the cartoons, in order to prepare public opinion to accept new wars and imperialist interventions against countries with a Muslim population. They therefore rightly provoked the strong reaction and mass demonstrations by people who have paid and are paying for the imperialist interventions and wars by the USA and EU with rivers of blood.

The real conflict is between imperialism and the peoples, between the exploiter and the exploited who, irrespective of religion, colour and sex, must unite to fight and overturn the imperialist system as a whole.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The core value of the society in which we are proud to live is freedom. We see ourselves primarily as free and, by definition, responsible.

The crux of the matter regarding the recent events was not the exercise of freedom of expression, but the unacceptable reaction by those who claimed to have been offended. Although all indignation is legitimate, not all ways of expressing that indignation are. Our first priority is to speak out against these abuses and against the attacks on EU Member States. We condemn violence and wish to express our solidarity with Denmark and with the other Member States.

Furthermore, we are well aware that these events have been carefully orchestrated, and that they have had a huge impact on relations between the West and the Muslim world. Regardless of our freedoms, especially freedom of expression, any manifestation or promotion of hate, racism and xenophobia should be roundly condemned. All freedom should be exercised with responsibility, at this or any time.

We must not give any ground on our right to be free, but we will also not go seeking conflict. On the contrary, we shall avoid conflict because we know that peace and security in the world largely depend on our sense of responsibility.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This is what we are reduced to: a maximum of 200 words because the group chairmen decided in a restricted meeting that our debate on the freedom of expression was to be deprived of that very freedom.

Allowing only one speaker per group is a real denial of democracy, just when this cartoon controversy is in the world news and is putting part of the world to fire and sword.

Has it been said often enough that the cartoon that sparked things off was depicting nothing other than what the terrorists do: perpetrate their acts in the name of Allah? This is not a cartoon depicting Islam; this is a cartoon depicting fanaticism.

Has enough been done to denounce the way in which a cartoonist, a newspaper, a nation and a government have been lumped together?

The freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which underpin our values, are being held to ransom. Yes, I want to tighten the links between our cultures, but I do not accept any bargaining whatsoever where our values are concerned. Human rights come before the law of Allah, or of any other God.

If any serious mistakes, abuses or incitements to hatred have occurred, then it is up to the courts to judge them, but I reject censorship. I give no one permission to extinguish the Enlightenment philosophies that I claim as my own.

  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN), in writing. (PL)The crisis caused by the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed and the extreme reactions of Islamic fanatics has revealed not only the extent of the cultural divide between Western civilisation and the Islamic world, where the principle of collective responsibility is applied and no respect is shown for religious freedom, but also a serious crisis of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy has proved unable to impose the rule of law on the Muslim communities in Europe or any respect for religious freedom on Muslim states. Instead, by making freedom of speech an absolute, it has managed to cause affront to the religious sensibilities of Muslims. Freedom without responsibility inevitably leads to conflict, however.

Respect for national and religious sensibilities provides the basis for respecting the people who express them, irrespective of whether we agree with these views or not. These sensibilities must not, therefore, be offended by blasphemous representations of the cross, of Mohammed or of the victims of the Holocaust. Mr Cohn-Bendit is not right in claiming that religions become ‘de-religionised’ in the public sphere. Religion will always be different from political debate, unless, of course, it stops being a religion and becomes an ideology. A cartoon depicting Mr Cohn-Bendit is not the same as a cartoon depicting Mohammed.

We simply cannot compel other actors in the public arena to divest themselves of their religious sensitivity. Any attempt to do so will have the same consequences as the publication of the Mohammed cartoons. This is why I voted against paragraph 5 of the resolution and why I abstain from voting on the resolution as a whole, as paragraph 5 was accepted.

  Gary Titley (PSE), in writing. The EPLP has abstained on paragraph 5 and the final vote on this joint motion for a resolution because we believe that this is a confused, repetitious motion which lacks clarity.

We believe firmly in the right to freedom of expression balanced by the right of journalists and others to use this power responsibly. The motion fails to balance clearly these competing aims and to convey accurately the context in which the current controversy has emerged.

The EPLP is in contact with those across the UK who have expressed concerns to us.

- Bosnia-Herzegovina (RC-B6-0095/2006)

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Bosnia and Herzegovina is the country which experienced the most sustained effort from those who wished to destroy multi-ethnic coexistence in the Balkans, and to provoke conflict between people along religious lines. I wish to stress that this does not, in any way, involve relations between countries but, rather, relations between people belonging to the Muslim or Catholic faiths. The Jewish community was forced to flee the country at the start of the conflict and never became involved in it. A further peculiarity is that when the country came into being, most of the orthodox community lived in rural areas, whereas most Muslims lived in the cities. We ought to bear this in mind when we draw up EU aid programmes.

I therefore welcome Article 16 of the Resolution, calling for more attention to be paid to the special needs of rural areas. It is also high time to call on the Hague Tribunal to start pursuing those war criminals that were motivated by reasons other than religious belief. In the terminology used here, we are talking about the Serbs. We must admit that even this Parliament has sometimes failed to reach a just conclusion. For example, some passages of the Resolution before us, regarding the tenth anniversary of the events in Srebrenice hold only one side culpable of mass murder, in contrast with the established facts.

I am pleased that dictatorial methods that have been used by the current administrators in the country are now consigned to the past. This is another positive report attempting to support economic development, not least through the agreement of the Western Balkan states on the return of refugees and on compensation for damage to property. We accordingly supported it in the vote, with the proviso that the Resolution should be partly reworked.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) How does one interpret the rejection by the majority in Parliament of amendments tabled by our group, which stressed ‘the right of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to decide the future of their own country’ and called for ‘the removal at the earliest opportunity of all foreign troops’ from the country?

Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently a protectorate occupied by some 7 000 NATO/EU troops. It is under the control of a UN/EU High Representative with excessive, anti-democratic powers, whom Parliament ‘calls on’ to exercise those powers with ‘restraint’.

Against this backdrop, Parliament, in a disgraceful act of meddling and disrespect for the sovereign will of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, urges the Council and the Commission to become involved in the current process of constitutional reform and to open negotiations aimed at integrating the country into the EU. To this end, a list of specifications has been presented, which calls for, inter alia, ‘reform and reduction of the strict system of wage setting, especially in the public sector’, the process of privatisation to be speeded up, reform and liberalisation of the energy sector and restructuring and liberalisation of the rail sector’, to which we are opposed.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) In Bosnia and Herzegovina, people have experience of different types of rule. The era of Turkish rule was to the benefit of the Muslims in the centre and North-West who regard themselves as the real Bosnians; the Roman-Catholics in the South-West, who call themselves Croats, did well for themselves under Austrian rule; and the Yugoslavian era benefited the Orthodox in the North and East, who describe themselves as Serbs. Bosnia was disbanded as an administrative unit in the 1920s and re-established after the Second World War as a mixed area in the centre of the federal state that was intended to help integrate the different peoples within Yugoslavia, of which it was itself a miniature version. That proved a complete washout. During the 1992-1995 war, each of those groups made unilateral attempts to impose their own wishes. Dayton was a panacea intended to provide peace and reconciliation, and, whilst it is an inefficient and costly structure, it was born from the need for conciliation between widely diverse aspirations, and so, despite all its flaws, it should not simply be discarded, but should instead be used to build a federal structure in which all can live sustainably in peace with one another. The people must be able to choose freely rather than being told what to do by Europe.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The ΕU is jointly responsible for the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the ΝΑΤΟ wars and the drastic situation of its peoples. Following the Dayton agreement, the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina experienced occupation by NATO, which was recently replaced by 7 000 Euro-army troops.

ΝΑΤΟ decided which political parties will operate and the ΝΑΤΟ administrator removed the country's elected president. In 11 years, unemployment reached 40%, while 50% of the people live below the poverty line, 50% have no medical or pharmaceutical care and 18% have no electricity. Over 600 000 refugees, mainly of Serb origin, have not returned home. Corruption, organised crime and the black market are flourishing. This 'democracy' was introduced by the imperialists. They converted the Balkan countries to protectorates which are now preparing to be annexed to the ΕU.

The motion for a resolution by the political groups which support the imperialist policy of the ΕU constitutes crass coercion of the peoples of the country to accept constitutional changes dictated by imperialism and to comply with its suggestions in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in October, with the threat of cutting off the crumbs from the Stabilisation and Association Agreement being negotiated.

The Communist Party of Greece considers that the peoples of the Balkans must fight directly, together with the peoples of the ΕU, for the occupying forces to leave.

- Situation in Belarus (RC-B6-0109/2006)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) One might ask why Belarus is the country with the highest number of Parliament resolutions condemning its behaviour. Some might say in reply that it is due to the human rights situation.

Even if one accepts that view, however, one might also ask why Parliament does not adopt, with the same eagerness, resolutions on countries with situations that might be considered as serious, if not more so. Would that be because Belarus has until now refused to bow to the unacceptable demands and interference of the United States and the major EU powers?

Would that be because, unlike most countries in the region, it has blocked and reversed privatisations in key sectors of the economy, invested in agriculture and domestic production, improved the living conditions of its people – the only country in the former Soviet bloc, indeed, to have restored its 1990 GDP?

Would it be because Belarus is committed to setting up a union of equal states with Russia, a country with which it has a collective defence agreement?

Would it be, lastly, because this is a case of double standards, working in favour of the strategic interests and economic ambitions of the United States and its allies in Europe?

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The sixth unacceptable and insulting motion for a resolution in succession within eighteen months forms part of the rabid attempts by the ΕU to overturn the Lukashenko government elected by the people of Belarus, which refuses to bow down to imperialist barbarity. It hypocritically presents as the repression of democratic rights the efforts of the Belarus Government to limit foreign imperialist intervention to overturn it through massive funding of political agents and the media.

The position on the failure to meet 'international standards' which, in the EU's estimate have nonetheless been met in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are under occupation, is an insult. With political impertinence it talks of 'registered candidates' when everyone knows that the candidate of the 'united opposition' was elected in the presence of the American ambassador and other ambassadors from EU countries.

It is calling on the authorities of Belarus to safeguard 'equal conditions' for all the political powers at a time when all the political parties are free, while in the 'democratic' Baltic Member States of the ΕU communist parties are banned and 40% of the people have no nationality or civil rights. In other words, the burglar is trying to convince everyone that the householder was to blame for the robbery.

We are voting against the motion for a resolution and we express our solidarity with the people of Belarus in its efforts to repel imperialist intervention and choose its own way forward.

- Report: Kindermann (A6-0015/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the very interesting report, drafted by my fellow Member, Mr Kindermann, on the implementation of a European Union forestry strategy.

Currently, the issue of how forests and wood relate to the processes of environmentally friendly wealth creation and social progress is very inadequately covered in European public policies. It is time for the European Union significantly to support the projects based on the forest-wood sector in relevant geographical areas. The link between a forestry strategy and rural development must be established and, while we are on the subject, I regret that mountain areas should not have been singled out for attention. Equally, and this in the context of the Lisbon Strategy, the Union must take a greater interest in supporting research programmes linked to the use of wood, for example in the construction and energy sectors.

Finally, a study, as a precursor to action, should be conducted on the transportation of wood, which is a heavy product, so as to provide some coherence between forests, areas of consumption and road, rail and maritime transport infrastructure.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I welcome Mr Kindermann's report on the implementation of the EU's forestry strategy because, although forestry is not actually dealt with in the Treaties, there is a need for an EU action plan for sustainable forest management that provides a coherent framework for the implementation of forest-related actions and serves to coordinate Community actions and the forestry policies of the Member States, which is drawn up in close coordination with the Member States and the various stakeholders concerned.

As someone who lives in one of the last important remaining oak forests in England, I am acutely aware of the need for sustainable forest management. Forests have a multi-functional role. In the Forest of Dean, the forest provides a beautiful environment and a natural habitat, opportunities for recreation and tourism, potential for work and industrial realities, as well as a home for people to live in. And yet, in the majority of cases, the multi-functional role, measured against the potential it offers, is not reflected in the economy of the areas concerned or in the income of their inhabitants. Rural development policy is the main instrument for implementing the forestry strategy at Community level and I support this.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We are of the view that the EU should not develop a common forestry policy. This policy area constitutes a very important national issue. We should have liked the European Parliament to have stated that the objective was for forestry policy to remain an area for national decision-making. We met with a certain amount of sympathy for this view in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety during the discussion of this report. Unfortunately, however, the majority of the European Parliament has, in accordance with its usual obsession with doing everything on an abnormally large scale, prepared a report which, for example, will cause the sector-specific Community policy and the Lisbon Strategy to have an impact on forestry and which recommends that an ‘objective report [be] drawn up to examine the scope for creating a separate legal basis for forests’ in the EU’s Treaties.

We decisively reject such shifts in the political statements made by the European Parliament. It should be explained once and for all that forestry policy is an area in which decisions are to be taken purely and simply on a national basis. We cannot vote in favour of a report that has a more or less hidden agenda to introduce a forestry policy at EU level that is to be conducted with appropriations from the EU budget.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) It is about time we had a forestry strategy, particularly in a France which, in the 21st century, was able to create one of Europe’s most beautiful forests, in the Landes region, and which has since been unable to manage its forest commercially.

When we see our forests destroyed by fire in Portugal, France and Spain and when we depend on Indonesia and Brazil for our industrial wood or our paper fibres, while all the time bemoaning deforestation and its associated climatic and biological disasters, we are reminded just how necessary the global political reaction is. What is required is a willingness to create a major wood sector in Europe and, more specifically, in France. To do this, preferred investments, trained and non-disadvantaged professionals, a long-term political vision and an intelligent approach to taxation are required.

  President. That concludes the explanations of vote.

8. Corrections to votes: see Minutes

9. Statistics on foreign affiliates (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the report (A6-0332/2005) by Enrico Letta, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on the structure and activity of foreign affiliates (COM(2005)0088 C6-0084/2005 2005/0016(COD)).

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like firstly to thank the rapporteur, Mr Letta, and all of the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the excellent work they have done on the proposed Regulation on this type of statistic.

I would like, in particular, to emphasise the fact that, in its work, Parliament has stressed the need to make the data provided for in this Regulation available as soon as possible. There is no need for me to remind you that our most direct competitors, the United States and Japan, have had detailed information about their companies’ external investments for more than twenty years, and this puts their governments and economic actors at a considerable advantage compared to Europe when it comes to drawing up their strategies and commercial policies.

The Commission therefore considers it very desirable for Parliament and the Council to reach an agreement on this proposal for a Regulation at first reading, so that the collection of this type of data can begin this very year. I believe that both institutions are very close to an agreement, and we hope that it is reached as soon as possible.

As I have said, the Regulation responds to a vacuum in the Community statistics that puts us at a disadvantage. At the moment, we only have the data that certain Member States collect on a voluntary basis, either within the context of structural economic statistics or the compilation of its balance of payments statistics. It is not possible to calculate aggregates for the European Union of twenty-five, however, given the diversity of the methods used and the type of information compiled.

There is no need to point out the importance of completing the internal market and the importance for all of us of the Lisbon Strategy and its objectives of increasing growth and employment and of making the European Union an attractive area for investments and one that favours entrepreneurial activity. Furthermore, this is a year in which the importance of defending European interests in multilateral commercial negotiations is particularly obvious.

The data that this Regulation is intended to obtain is extremely useful in all of these respects. At the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about a type of statistic that is essential to increasing the dynamism, vitality and competitiveness of European companies and economic actors.

In this regard, the Commission believes that the amendments that the honourable Members have presented and discussed and that are aimed at speeding up the implementation of the compilation of this data provide an excellent basis for reaching a compromise at first reading.

Nevertheless, for the same reason, the Commission does not agree that it is necessary to maintain the amendments relating to Parliament’s role in implementing the Regulation, since, given its very technical nature, this kind of amendment would provide relatively little added value, while almost certainly preventing an agreement with the Council at first reading; I am referring, of course, to Amendments 1, 2 and 9, which are aimed at extending the procedures of the so-called Lamfalussy process, in relation to the legislation on financial services, to the field of the compilation of statistical data.

The honourable Members, and in particular the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which is also responsible for the negotiation of the directives on financial services, are in a privileged position to appreciate the differences between the two sectors. There is no need to remind you of the different levels of implementation of the legislation on financial services and the reasons, very different to those in relation to the case we are discussing today, why the Commission considered it appropriate, on some of these levels, for Parliament to have a greater capacity for scrutiny than that laid down in the current rules on comitology.

Nevertheless, before I finish, I would like to stress two factors to the honourable Members, in the hope that you will reconsider your position on these three amendments: 1, 2 and 9.

Firstly, account must be taken of the existing agreement amongst the institutions to set the definitive parameters for the compilation of data, once the results of the pilot studies are known, by means of the codecision procedure. In this way, Parliament will have full capacity, together with the Council, to play its role as legislator in the essential aspects of the implementation of this Regulation.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the current Austrian Presidency has expressed its political will to reach a satisfactory agreement with Parliament on the review of the rules on comitology. As you are well aware, a compromise in this field that will reflect more fairly Parliament’s legitimate aspirations to play its role as legislator fully is within sight.

Under these circumstances, Mr President, while repeating, of course, that the Commission is willing to keep Parliament fully informed at all times of the work of the different committees, I hope that this Parliament’s vote will facilitate an agreement on this Regulation at first reading.

  Enrico Letta (ALDE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the Commission and Commissioner Almunia for his speech and for the valuable work done by the two institutions during the preparatory phase leading up to this debate.

Beyond its seemingly technical character, this directive is very important, and our aim in drafting it is to regulate two types of data on foreign affiliates, namely inward statistics, which relate to all the businesses and sectors that are under foreign control, and outward statistics, which relate to foreign enterprises that are controlled by a company located in the European Union.

As Commissioner Almunia said, the Commission proposes to establish a mandatory reference framework for the compilation of Community statistics on the structure and activity of foreign affiliates.

The Commission proposal includes two different modules for collecting inward and outward data. The module for inward FATS is based on the Structural Business Statistics Regulation, while the one for outward FATS is the same as that used for foreign direct investment in the Regulation for Balance of Payments Statistics. Whereas the provisions for inward FATS would be for the most part mandatory, the provisions for outward FATS include a voluntary experimental phase based on pilot studies aimed at assessing the feasibility and costs of collecting data.

The critical element for this directive is the fact that, as Commissioner Almunia just pointed out, the United States and Japan have already had this kind of information available to them for over 20 years, in even greater detail than what is provided for in the directive.

The Commission proposal includes pilot studies and comitology procedures with long transition periods. That is liable to leave European political officials without adequate data for a long time yet, while their US and Japanese counterparts can now already access better information on the economic strategies and trends of their own enterprises and transnational companies, including in the area of outward FATS.

For all these reasons, we believe that the Commission proposal must be supported, but with a few requirements taken into consideration. Firstly, the provisions of this regulation must not represent an excessive bureaucratic and financial burden for the companies involved. Secondly, it must not take too long to implement the regulation and therefore to make the data available, so that the policy makers in Europe can be on an equal footing with their US and Japanese counterparts as quickly as possible.

The comitology procedure, which has been widely debated within our committee as an alternative to the legislative procedure for the implementation of outward FATS, must be assessed very carefully and in the knowledge that every effort will be needed to fulfil the objective of making uniform data available in the short term.

Lastly, the European Central Bank and other institutions that are particularly in need of adequate statistical information should be involved in the development of common standards.

Our preparatory talks before today’s debate saw a divergence open up between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. We have always tried to reach a compromise that would lead as quickly as possible to the directive being approved at first reading. However, our impression that the Council did not want this text to be approved at first reading prompts us to regard the discussions held in committee on the subject of comitology as an issue that Parliament must bear in mind, particularly when the amendments on comitology are put to the vote.

For all these reasons, we believe that it is useful and important to recommend that this Chamber vote in favour of the directive. This is an important vote because it will succeed in making our European international trade system focus more carefully on data relating to competitiveness. From the start, our aim has been to have this directive approved at first reading. Beyond its seemingly technical character, this directive has a highly important content that prompts me to suggest to this Chamber that it vote in favour of it as soon as possible.

  John Purvis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Letta for his cooperation in preparing our position on this report.

My group is committed to two main points. Firstly, the collection of these statistics is urgent and needs to be as complete as possible, as soon as possible. It is difficult to see how one can conduct meaningful trade negotiations without them. This means that the mandatory collection of statistics on both inward and outward FATS is the best solution. It is amazing to me that apparently some Member States are just not willing to consider providing them. The Council has introduced a derogation for Member States which have not yet tested this process to deal with just those situations in Article 6, point D. Is this not enough?

Both inward and outward FATS should therefore be collected on a mandatory basis and mandatory pilot studies should be set up for imports and exports. If not, just a few years on Member States that have not volunteered to do pilot studies will claim that it is still not necessary and will still refuse to collect the data.

My group’s second issue is comitology, which is raising its head yet again. If Parliament’s position on this means that we will have to go to a second reading, so be it. My group will stick with its position on comitology until the Council shows itself to be serious about giving the European Parliament reasonable expectations in this area. Even now, a reassuring statement by the Council might still be enough for us to reconsider our position.

My group will therefore vote in favour of the text that was adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

  Manuel António dos Santos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Letta on his excellent work culminating in the report before us. I should also like to thank Mr Almunia for the very precise clarifications that he contributed to this debate, which will certainly help us to reach a solution in time for the vote taking place not in this part-session but in the next.

Much has already been said about the nature and origin of this debate. Its origins lie in the proposal for a regulation on Community statistics and the structure and activity of foreign affiliates. It has been said here – and reiterated by Mr Purvis – that these statistics provide vital help to national and Community policy-makers to formulate appropriate policy and to help businesses assess ongoing developments in a business world affected by economic globalisation.

Although voluntary data collection on the structure and activity of foreign affiliates – that is, inward statistics – takes place in virtually all Member States, proving that a concerted procedure is possible, the same cannot be said of outward statistics, which only occurs in a small number of Member States.

This information is only really useful if it is available promptly and consistently and if data collection is harmonised, hence the need to establish a common framework at the earliest opportunity.

I agree with Mr Almunia on the importance of reaching a solution at first reading, although I also agree with Mr Purvis that it would not be a disaster if such an agreement is not obtained at first reading.

Although there is a great deal of common ground, as all speakers have said, arising from the pressing and timely nature of the directive itself, there are aspects that we would normally see as upholding the comitology principle rather than the codecision procedure, but which in practice form part of what ought to be Parliament’s role as regards all such procedures, in particular those of a financial nature.

This is what must be guaranteed. I was somewhat comforted by Mr Almunia’s remarks about the changes pending to the comitology process in order to take into account the importance of Parliament’s role in decision-making and monitoring these processes. It strikes me, however, that it is not entirely guaranteed. I would therefore reiterate that if it is not necessary to reach agreement at first reading, I do not think that is particularly serious given that the most important thing is that we find a sound, properly thought through, common platform from which to implement the regulation in question effectively.

The need to introduce improvements has also been mentioned, and my group accepts this completely. In this regard, there will not be any difficulties with either the Council or the Commission, as regards the pilot studies or periods of regulation and the deadlines to be observed for obtaining this kind of information.

To my mind, anything that helps to make the pilot projects mandatory, to remove from the pilot projects mandatory conclusions and to reduce periods allowed for derogations and the deadlines for establishing definitive data is of vital importance.

We accordingly endorse the rapporteur’s proposals, the significance of which lies in the fact that they specifically address those areas.

My group is amply prepared to make full use of the time remaining before the final vote for us to reach an agreement, in the context of bilateral contacts, enabling this report to be adopted at first reading. I repeat, however, that I do not believe that failure to do so will lead to insurmountable obstacles.

We also hope that the Council, which at times during this process has struck us as being too insular, will begin to show some openness, along the lines of the openness that came through from the accommodating and significant words of Mr Almunia.

I should like to close by once again congratulating the rapporteur. The debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was most interesting. Given that the report was adopted unanimously, I feel sure that we will find an appropriate solution to the problem, in conjunction with the Council and the Commission.

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I simply wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Letta, and Mr Purvis and Mr dos Santos, once again for their speeches and the willingness they have shown to cooperate in order to achieve what I believe we all want to see, which is a negotiation that leads to the prompt approval of this Regulation for reasons on which we all agree: that it is important for the European institutions, in multilateral trade negotiations or any other kind of strategy, to have the data that is not available to us at present but which our competitors have been using for some time.

With regard to the comitology problems, which we have all mentioned, I would like to reiterate what I said in my first speech: we hope that the work of the Austrian Presidency will allow us, during this six month period, to find a solution which suits and satisfies all of us. I would therefore like to say once again that the Commission is willing to take account of the difficulties being faced at present until that final agreement is reached, but I would also ask that these problems not interfere with the prompt approval of this Regulation, at first reading if possible.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place during the next part-session.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.00 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

10. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

11. Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

12. Strategic review of the IMF (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0022/2006) by Mr Hamon, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the strategic review of the International Monetary Fund (2005/2121(INI).

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I consider the report being debated today in Parliament, drawn up by the rapporteur, Mr Hamon, and discussed by the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, to be very timely, since the International Monetary Fund is in the midst of debating its strategic review on the basis of the document presented by its Executive Director.

As you know, the Commission does not have any direct or formal presence in the International Monetary Fund, and nor does the European Union. It is the Member States that are represented. But we must bear in mind that the Member States represented in the European Union and this House account for more than 30% of the shareholders in the International Monetary Fund.

This contribution to the debate therefore seems to me to be extremely useful, in terms of how to ensure greater economic and financial stability in the global economy, with the development of the least developed countries and the eradication of poverty included within this notion of stability.

In order to achieve these objectives, there is no doubt that the assistance of the institutions with the capacity for global action, such as the International Monetary Fund, is needed.

The first thing that strikes us when we analyse the role of the Monetary Fund in the world economy at the beginning of the 21st century is that the objectives set for it when it was created in 1944 are still relevant today.

Nevertheless, while the objectives of promoting international monetary stability — those of facilitating the expansion of international trade, promoting exchange stability and lessening the degree of disequilibrium in balances of payments — are still entirely appropriate, the economic context within which the Fund is operating today is radically different to the context of sixty years ago.

This fact is recognised by the Fund in its strategic review, of course, in which it states that the challenge of globalisation is central to the work entrusted to that institution. The Fund’s new approach is therefore to look at its essential tasks of monitoring and lending within the context of globalisation.

To this end, the Fund takes account of both the risks and the opportunities. For example, in its strategic document, it acknowledges that the free movement of capital allows for a more efficient allocation of resources, but at the same time it also points out that it leads to greater volatility and greater risk of extreme reactions by the markets in the event of crisis. It also notes the impetus provided by the emerging economies, which are making a great contribution to the high levels of growth in the world economy, but also notes that the power of these emerging economies is making it more difficult for the poorest countries to jump on the bandwagon of world trade and world growth.

The Commission shares the view of globalisation expressed by the Fund in its strategic document; we communicate our views to the International Monetary Fund during the fluid and frequent contacts that we hold with that institution. In particular, as you know, we cooperate with the Monetary Fund in defining our policies and adopting our decisions on the macrofinancial assistance that the European Community gives to countries of the Western Balkans or some of the States that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Macrofinancial assistance, based on the resources of the Community budget, is always linked to a series of conditions that are complementary to the Fund’s interventions in those same countries.

In the field of development aid and the eradication of poverty, the Monetary Fund, together with the World Bank and the European Union, are undoubtedly the main world players and, in this case, there is also close and productive cooperation between the different institutions.

All of these aspects are taken up in one way or another in the report that we are debating today, and the Commission is very happy to express its agreement with the positions expressed by the rapporteur and supported by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

The report also stresses the need to distribute the quotas and voting rights within the Fund’s governing institutions in a manner that reflects the relative weight of the different economies of the member countries in a more balanced manner. This will give the least-developed countries and, in particular, the African countries, a greater voice, since their current quota of representation and capital in the Fund is very low.

As the Monetary Fund points out in its documents, carrying out this reform of the distribution of quotas and voting rights is the responsibility of the shareholder countries and requires significant political will. It has to be appreciated that to increase some people’s quotas at the expense of others may benefit everybody in the medium and long term because it will allow the Fund to carry out its duties more effectively and fulfil the objectives set for it.

My final point, Mr President, relates to the external representation of the eurozone and of the European Union in economic and monetary matters. I would like to thank the rapporteur and all of the honourable Members who have included this point in the report that we are debating today, though I would like to point out — as I believe I said in this same Chamber last year — that the Commission would prefer a clearer and more direct formulation of the objective of a more appropriate external representation of the eurozone and of the European Union as a whole, such as that proposed in Amendment 5, presented by Mr Purvis, for example.

Together with the Presidency of the Eurogroup, the Commission has begun reflecting on how to move towards this more effective external representation of the eurozone and, eventually, of the European Union. Through will and realism, we are trying gradually to draw up a consistent approach that will enable us to make progress towards better coordination amongst the members of the eurozone when it comes to expressing a position in international financial institutions. In the short term, the intention is to identify items in the programmes of these institutions with regard to which the Member States can achieve a coordinated position, such as in the field of budgetary monitoring, for example. In the long term, the objective is still to achieve a single representation for the eurozone in the Fund, which will allow it to exert an influence equivalent to the economic weight of the Monetary Union. To this end, the strong political support of the Member States will undoubtedly be required.

The Commission believes that Parliament can and must make a significant contribution to giving form to this aspiration, expressing its opinion in this regard as clearly as possible.

I shall end, Mr President, by saying that the Commission is prepared to study how Parliament can participate in the formulation of the positions that the representatives of the eurozone and of the European Union are required to express in international financial bodies and institutions. This issue must be examined. It is not easy to find a way, but, in any event, I can assure all of the honourable Members that the Commission and myself are fully prepared to go further into this issue whenever you see fit.

  Benoît Hamon (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I thank Commissioner Almunia for the favourable welcome he has given my report, which is also the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

Allow me to emphasise a fact that is important enough to be worth pointing out: the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted unanimously in favour of this report. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Committee on Development and the Committee on International Trade, and in particular that of their draftsmen, Mr Wijkman and Mr Bourlanges, who have greatly contributed to improving this report that comes at a time when the International Monetary Fund is reflecting on its strategy and on how to assess the development of its mission, the impact of its policies and the way in which it works.

I would like to return to the spirit in which the shadow rapporteurs and the entire committee worked to ensure that our Parliament's report makes a useful contribution to the strategic revision of the International Monetary Fund whilst taking account of the major challenges facing the fund: first the issue of its governance, then the issue of its economic doctrine and of the impact of its choices on the Millennium Goals, and finally, more generally, the way in which, through its role of monitoring and crisis prevention, it now continues to guarantee global macroeconomic and financial stability.

On the issue of governance, let me remind you that the Member States are currently divided into nine constituencies, which means that the European Union, if we can talk about the European Union in this context, has no unified representation. It is thus through these nine fragmented constituencies that the European Union expresses its opinion. It can also be seen - and this point is stressed in the report - that there is little or no coordination between the Member States within the International Monetary Fund. That is why this report advocates, firstly, strengthening coordination between the European seats and, secondly, step-by-step progress towards representation for the European Union as a whole within the International Monetary Fund with, of course, the prospect of a single seat, passing in the meantime via a single seat for the Eurozone.

As it stands, the report does not exactly refer to the issue of the single seat, but sets the objective of ensuring that the European Union is represented and votes as a single block within the International Monetary Fund, which seems to me to be an absolutely vital step. Why is it vital? Because it would give the European Union the blocking minority that it does not currently have, in other words 15% of the voting rights within the International Monetary Fund. The United States are currently the only ones to have a blocking minority, and we know what impact it can have on the major political and strategic choices that the International Monetary Fund has been able to make. That is a very important key element.

I would add that these changes in the European Union's representation may also make it possible to resolve the issue of the distribution of voting rights and thus of the influence of the emerging economies and developing countries within the governing body of the International Monetary Fund. We feel that the representation of the emerging economies should be in better proportion to their economic weight. It is also necessary for the countries with the biggest populations but the smallest economies, in other words the developing countries, to have much greater voting rights than they currently do, for the simple reason that they are the 'beneficiaries' of the International Monetary Fund's policies. That is why the report advocates increasing the number of basic votes: in any event, this is one of the possibilities to explore in the immediate future.

The second point we are emphasising relates to the issue of the legitimacy of the International Monetary Fund's interventions, particularly when the scope of those interventions is becoming ever wider. We favour improving the transparency of the International Monetary Fund and the way it works. I am thinking in particular of the recruitment of experts and of the need to diversify their profiles, so that they can more easily adapt their recommendations to the diversity of the situations they encounter.

The final point, which is just as tricky, relates to the way in which we can assess the structural adjustment policies and the International Monetary Fund's recommendations over a number of years. Today, the Fund is much criticised for the implementation of some of its recommendations, for its macroeconomic doctrine and for its rather too strict application of the Washington consensus. That is what led us to call on it to demonstrate greater flexibility and to find the best way of ensuring that the local authorities and countries concerned establish poverty-reduction strategies. This seems to us to be a very important step.

We have also suggested that some of the Fund's interventions have not been infallible if you look at the results obtained, the social costs of the structural adjustment plans, or the spread, or even reappearance, of crises. We have emphasised these points to encourage the Fund to alter some of its choices as part of its strategic review.

I would add, and I would like to stress this point, that we must not end up, in terms of world governance, with a kind of implicit hierarchy of standards that tries to place the Fund's recommendations at the pinnacle under the pretext that they affect not only macroeconomic stability and growth policies, but also labour market policies, the funding of social programmes, education and health. We must not end up with this hierarchy of standards placing the Fund's recommendations above all other international organisations, sometimes to the point of producing out-and-out contradictions between the Fund's recommendations and those of the international agreements of the International Labour Organisation or the World Health Organisation.

To conclude, we hope that the European Parliament feels more involved, particularly with the prospect of a single representation for the European Union, in the responsibility of the EU's administrators within the International Monetary Fund. We hope that, just as the Fund maintains regular relations with the US Congress, it will maintain regular relations with the European Parliament and that it will be equally accountable and responsible to the representatives of the European people.

  Jean-Louis Bourlanges (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. – (FR) Mr President, the Committee on International Trade has issued an opinion that very closely matches Mr Hamon's excellent report, and I think that they really do contain very convergent opinions and very similar concerns.

We have three main concerns. First of all, like the rapporteur, we aspire to better coordination of all development policies. We have put our finger on a contradiction: the International Monetary Fund is a part of a whole, with a specific responsibility, but at the same time it is much more than a part of a whole, because, as the lender of last resort, it has, as Mr Hamon has just mentioned, a sort of de facto pre-eminence that is not without its problems, resulting in a quest for better coordination with other international organisations, particularly the World Trade Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation. We need to think carefully about these coordination methods.

Secondly, we want to see a redistribution of powers. We do not want to succumb to an excessive demographic fever that would cut us off from the global economic reality, but we feel that, as it stands, the emerging economies are not adequately represented and that power must be redistributed to those economies.

Finally, we, like the rapporteur, would like Europe to speak with one voice and act as one. It really is distressing to see that Europe, which, across all the Member States, has almost twice as many votes as the United States, counts for so little within the organisation. Can we start moving towards the single seat right now? Probably not, but we do need to start moving towards informal models comparable with shareholder agreements, starting with the Eurozone and with the aim of subsequently getting the whole of the European Union to speak with one voice. Those are our concerns, and I do not think that they contradict Mr Hamon's.

  John Purvis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Hamon for the enjoyable way in which we have worked together on this report. It has been an interesting and, I hope, ultimately productive example of collaboration between our respective groups.

The PPE-DE Group welcomes the IMF’s review of its activities and of its future direction. The Fund has played an important role in the global economy for more than 60 years and we want it to carry on doing so, but to do this it needs to refocus on its core mandate of promoting financial stability and supporting countries with balance of payments difficulties. It has a key role in supervising the world’s monetary system and helping to prevent and deal with crises. Its surveillance role needs to be stepped up to concentrate on reducing global financial instability and advising individual countries about financial stability, economic growth, exchange rates and reserve accumulation, because these are essential preconditions if countries are to avoid and get out of difficulties and poverty traps.

The Fund has been criticised for its conditions when lending to financially stretched countries. I share the concerns that these conditions may have been too rigid at times but, as a responsible lender and custodian of funds, the IMF must be able to impose conditions when lending money. The requirements it sets out are there to improve a country’s economic situation by opening up markets and promoting sensible economic policies, good governance and sound financial management. Often, indeed, the IMF is a useful scapegoat for governments having to force through unpopular reforms.

Turning to Europe’s role in the IMF: as Mr Hamon said, the EU is currently spread over nine constituencies – I thought it was ten but perhaps he is right in saying nine – and has lacked any semblance of a cohesive position in setting IMF policy. A first priority, therefore, should be better coordination. There are advantages in being in different constituencies, not least that the EU has greater voting power than any other part of the world and can better influence non-EU countries within these constituencies, but this counts for little if our Member States are at sixes and sevens. A single EU seat is not a realistic goal just now, even if it is an aspiration for the long term, but much more could be achieved right away by better coordination of Member States’ positions.

My group will submit some amendments and some split votes in order to help improve Mr Hamon’s report which, overall, we hope to support.

  Ieke van den Burg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the other groups for their good cooperation in committee. I hope that the decision to postpone the vote on this report will provide an opportunity to assess which of the amendments tabled improve the report and which have the opposite effect. Perhaps we can find some compromises in the meantime.

I also agree that this is the right moment for Parliament to have this debate and that this is the right moment for this report, given that a strategic review of the IMF is taking place and the Economic and Financial Committee has produced a paper that will be discussed in the Ecofin Council. For us, too, the role of the IMF in strengthening the stability and solidity of the international financial system is a core issue. However, we should also like to see more focus and attention on social and public policy aspects, and that is why my group retabled some previous amendments.

On the constituencies issue and the single seat, both of you have already touched upon how we could strengthen the European voice vis-à-vis other parts of the world. The rapporteur is aware of my own observations on this debate concerning the situation in the Netherlands, in particular, and Belgium, which are in a broader constituency and subject to effects of this kind, but I believe that we could try to find a good formulation on strengthening the European voice and on strengthening the voice of the less-developed countries in the structure in particular.

The other amendment we would draw attention to is that concerning transparency and dialogue with NGOs. Here, the IMF could learn from many other international institutions, including our own European Investment Bank, on how to improve dialogue with, and consultation of, NGOs in their work. It might be important to stress this, as well as the issue of the accountability of EU representatives in the IMF. We see a role for the European Parliament in that as a follow-up to this debate, and we hope that we can agree on finding methods and structures, such as the ad hoc working party proposed in our amendments, to create a follow-up on this.

  Diamanto Manolakou, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, multiple financial crises, the rise in the number of poor countries and the exponential increase in their debts prove that the International Monetary Fund is the main means of promoting imperialist interests. It is an international organisation at the service of capital, which uses it to impose its choices on the peoples whose countries need loans, on the sole pretext of currency stability and balanced development.

The International Monetary Fund is engaging in political blackmail against the countries which need its loans, by imposing despicable conditions relating to all public policies and cutting public spending, especially on education, health, social protection and every sector which affects a balanced budget. The policy of harsh austerity and the unacceptable social terms imposed on countries which take recourse to it are designed to protect lenders and safeguard their capital, privileges and profits. They are characterised by disdain for the social consequences and provoke a general outcry and mass demonstrations when it meets.

However, it is not the outcry which results in its strategic review. On the contrary, the International Monetary Fund will acquire an even more aggressive character towards the interests of the workers following a review which will adapt its structure, administration and action, as well as its sectors of direct and indirect intervention in the new reality which emerged from the overturning of the socialist regimes and the new balances between the imperialist centres and the new targets of imperialism, which result in even greater exploitation of the workers and of wealth-generating resources, under the umbrella, of course, of the United Nations.

The European Union, in other words Euro-unifying capital, is seeking joint and coordinated participation in the International Monetary Fund, so as to increase its share of influence and profitability, not to change its policy, given that it is promoting a similar policy through capitalist restructurings and the Lisbon Strategy, by commercialising basic grass-roots needs.

The proposed administrative changes are nothing more than make-up which tries to conceal the truth. Only the fights of the peoples against imperialism and its institutions, against the choices of capital, can bring about changes on the basis of equal relations and mutual benefit, in order to achieve development which will guarantee grass-roots prosperity.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this debate gets to the very heart of what the European Union is all about.

In the United Kingdom – and I am sure in many other countries – the argument that was used when we first joined and continues to be used is that we are in the EU because we have greater influence in the world if we speak together with one voice. Well, I look at the WTO; I look at trade talks, where already no individual state may speak on her own behalf. What do I see? I see a Hong Kong summit that failed in December, despite the generous offer made by the Americans, and I see a situation where certainly the globe’s third largest trading nation could have done a rather better job for herself.

This proposal for a single European seat is certainly not going to suit Britain, Denmark, or Sweden. We are not even in the euro. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, 1976 – when we went cap in hand to the IMF – is a dim and distant memory. A single IMF seat is not about economic logic; it is purely about politics. It is purely about turning the European Union into an international superstate. As we heard in one or two of the previous speeches, it is about standing up and forming a bloc to oppose America. The same logic is being applied elsewhere when it comes to the United Nations Security Council. I ask myself – whether it is the United Kingdom, France, Germany or any other country – do we have more influence in the world speaking as 25, speaking with one voice? Or do we have more influence if we are able to put our own opinions forward and speak on behalf of our own people? I know the answer, but I suspect that most people in this House do not.

  Peter Baco (NI). – (SK) More than five years ago, financial authorities, including the financier Mr George Soros, were already issuing warnings and calling on the governments of the world to adopt measures to ensure the stability and transparency of financial markets.

The proposed European Parliament resolution on the strategy for reviewing the International Monetary Fund is therefore correct in highlighting the role of this international institution in securing financial stability. The draft resolution also correctly points out that this task has not been fully implemented, as a result of a lack of transparent global scrutiny over the standardisation process in the area of financial markets. The full implementation of this task by the International Monetary Fund would undoubtedly have a positive impact on financial market stability.

Increasing pressures in the financial markets also result from the constantly increasing volume of trading in derivatives, with the United States of America playing a leading role. The volume of trading in derivatives has long since become many times greater than the volume of transfers in the real money sector. Developments in derivatives’ trading may therefore become a time bomb for the world’s financial markets and the world economy as a whole, and I believe that our report should give much more prominence to this issue. For this reason, I am going to support the resolution proposed by the rapporteur, Mr Hamon. I would also like to express my thanks for his work.

  Cristóbal Montoro Romero (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, this report is very timely at this point, since the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral bodies have been with us for some years now, with the task of regulating the conditions of the world economy.

I believe that this is a story of success. A relative success, like all successes, ladies and gentlemen, but a success nonetheless, in relation too to the functioning of the International Monetary Fund, which has now put the kind of world crises that we have experienced during the history of the developed countries and in the developing countries behind us.

The emphasis placed by the International Monetary Fund on macroeconomic stability is fundamental in order to promote equal opportunities for economic development for everybody. Today we see it as essential for economic development to be based on a healthy balance of payments, inflation control and the balancing of budgets in the developing States. These healthy balances of public finances are fundamental to creating climates of confidence and, ultimately, to enabling a State to progress and develop higher levels of well-being and, in turn, to promote economic growth. From that point of view, our report must place clear emphasis on stability.

With regard to the European Union’s presence, we must not forget the problems we are currently facing within the European Union in terms of coordination and, therefore, although in the medium and long term we must move towards a single voice in the Monetary Fund and in other multilateral bodies regulating the world economy, we must be prudent and modest, as Mr Purvis pointed out, bearing in mind that, at the moment, we proceed on the basis of our various countries being represented in different categories.

Furthermore, it is important, as in the case of Spain, that we stand shoulder to shoulder with much of Central America and Latin America, so that we also take more account of the economic development of a region as essential as Latin America in order to ensure balance in world development and to ensure development and equal opportunities for Latin American countries.

This report therefore offers an opportunity for this Parliament to express its opinion and, in this regard, I hope that we are also working to achieve the greatest possible consensus and that this report will make a positive contribution to defining the role that needs to be played by multilateral bodies in modern economies.

  Manuel António dos Santos (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to ask a number of questions about this report. Many of them have already been addressed, however, so I restrict myself to talking about two of them.

I wish to remind the Chamber that on 12 April 2005, Parliament adopted an important resolution, which set out the EU’s role in implementing the Millennium Development Goals. This commitment for the EU to eliminate poverty has been repeated on countless occasions, which, quite apart from being consistent, provides real substance to policies specifically geared towards global development.

It is from this perspective that we should be analysing the own-initiative report by Mr Hamon, which is commendable for the information it provides and for the solutions it proposes for the much needed strategic reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The international community’s concerns and commitments as regards the development goals should also be attributable to the IMF, at least on an instrumental level. The Fund must also undergo a thorough-going transformation of its action towards the indebted countries if it is to make full use of its capacity to meet these objectives.

Whatever opinions may have been formed of the IMF since it was set up in 1944, what is indisputable is that it is facing a crisis of legitimacy, firstly relating to the nature and scope of its recommendations and the structural adjustment policies, and secondly relating to the allocation of voting rights and the marginal representation of the emerging countries and developing countries.

This brings me to the second question, which is that of the European dimension. On this issue I have high hopes. Although I appreciate the difficulties mentioned here of setting up a single representation and a single place immediately, I am very much in favour of a single representation and a single place. This is a political problem mentioned to me in a critical tone by an MEP who had the floor before me. It is actually a matter of choice and a political problem that lies within the EU itself.

It is the EU that needs first to pave the way for conciliation and coordination if it is to deserve this position of single representation in the IMF.

One thing I know without fear of contradiction: a single, coherent, audible European voice in the IMF is an essential prerequisite for a genuine cooperation policy.

This is also the thrust of Mr Hamon’s message, and he has my full support.

  Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, I should firstly like to thank the rapporteur for a generally constructive report. I share most of the views expressed in it. The report contains an in itself unobtrusive, but nonetheless clear, criticism of the International Monetary Fund’s structural programme and of the conditions imposed on recipient countries. Such criticism is crucial because this policy has, in actual fact, exacerbated poverty and increased social problems in many countries. It is therefore vital that the issues highlighted by the report, namely the fight against poverty and the need to achieve the Millennium Goals, be incorporated as overarching objectives of IMF policy. In the longer term, this type of institution ought no doubt to be a part of the UN system and of a coherent development policy.

I also join in the criticism of the lack of democracy in the IMF. What is crucial in this area is that the developing countries should have more power, and what is perhaps most important in this respect is their need to be given a fairer share of the votes when decisions are taken. Democratisation must, however, also mean that a developing country can be given the Managing Directorship. This post should not go automatically to one or other of the richest countries. Democratic control within the EU should also increase, but it should be exercised by the national parliaments. I do not think it would be fair to transfer power over IMF policy to the EU institutions, and I am therefore opposed to Amendment 5. I believe that policy within the World Trade Organisation is a shocking example of a lack of democratic control over EU policy.

For many years, there has been a prevailing tendency to place undue confidence in deregulation and free currency speculation. The majority of monetary movements are now downright speculative. If macroeconomic stability is to be achieved, there is a need for self-protection against these trends, at both national and international levels.

We have tabled an amendment of our own which is, I suppose, in keeping with the demands for increased democracy in the IMF and through which we wish to increase scrutiny, and we hope that it will be adopted. We shall vote against the proposal by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, but in favour of most of the proposals by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, as a rule we do not go in for plain speaking in this House. We tend to prefer euphemisms and diplomatic niceties, but today I will venture to call a spade a spade. The report before us is basically a scathing criticism of the International Monetary Fund.

Today, the European Parliament has the opportunity to say what critics of the Fund have been saying for years. The report rightly highlights the fact that, I quote, ‘the stabilisation policies implemented by the IMF have not always achieved the objectives hoped for and whereas stabilising economies too suddenly is likely to result in undesirable social adjustments’. We also agree that, I quote, ‘the monitoring of these programmes should be the subject of transparent democratic supervision’.

The Fund sometimes acts as if it were operating in the middle of the jungle, though it is a jungle whose rules it has itself created.

The number of conditions poor countries have to comply with in order to obtain assistance has been growing year on year. An example is the absurd situation that sub-Saharan African countries find themselves in, where they have to fulfil an average of 114 conditions in order to have access to funding.

The rapporteur has rightly emphasised the need to set up new financial tools. The Fund has too many priorities when it comes to reducing the debt of the poorest states. The IMF has to go back to its original role. Its main aim used to be global exchange rate stability, and this should still be the case today, as a previous speaker mentioned a short while ago.

In his report, Mr Hanon is right to state that the increase in the Fund’s tasks has not been accompanied by any significant reform of its management. We are therefore entitled to demand enhancement of the Fund’s legitimacy.

The rapporteur quite correctly points out that the Fund, and I quote, ‘has sometimes failed to prevent crises from becoming infectious and recurring’.

We wholeheartedly agree with the criticisms levelled at the Fund. We agree that its policy fails to take account of the fact that inflation is not the only economic problem facing developing countries, and that the Fund should focus on achieving macroeconomic stability and sustainable growth. Finally, we are pleased with the conclusions drawn in the report, namely that macroeconomic stability is not at odds with the fair distribution of growth.

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I would simply like once again to thank the rapporteur and the members of the committees who have been involved in the drawing up of this report, which, as I said in my initial speech, seems to me to be extremely useful.

I would emphasise the importance of the discussion that is taking place and that, it is hoped, will end at the Fund’s Assembly in Singapore, in September, with a new distribution of quotas which, in turn, will be linked to a new distribution of voting rights and hence to the governance of the Fund, which is something that can be improved.

I believe that it is important for the European voice to cooperate in establishing a clear approach to improving the governance of the Fund and the representation of the different States in the Fund’s governing institutions, in accordance with fair criteria.

I would emphasise the importance — and I believe that the huge majority of you will agree with me — of greater coordination of the countries of the European Union in terms of the positions taken by the European Member States in the Fund.

If we want the coordination of economic policies to progress, if we want there to be greater integration amongst the different Member States in the internal market and in the Economic and Monetary Union and if we want Europe’s external influence also to have an economic dimension, it is important that the European Union’s external economic dimension is also reflected in the deliberations and discussions of the Monetary Fund.

I believe that the European Parliament’s role with regard to the Monetary Fund will progress as we move forward with the coordination of the European voice in the Fund’s institutions, until eventually — I am convinced that we will get there, though not in the short term — we have a single voice and single representation for the countries of the European single currency in the Monetary Fund. This will not happen today, or tomorrow, but it is a direction that I believe to be both inevitable and desirable.

I shall add finally that reference has been made — and I share this concern — to the need for the Monetary Fund to act in coordination with the strategies also set out in other fields by multilateral organisations and, in particular, by the organisations of the United Nations system.

I believe that we must be pleased that the Monetary Fund is involved in and committed to the achievement of the Millennium Goals. Achieving these is one of the international community’s fundamental objectives. I believe that the Fund’s involvement and commitment, which would perhaps have been difficult to imagine fifteen years ago, are today a reality.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place in the March part-session.

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM). – (SV) The IMF’s board of directors consists of 25 people, each of whom represents an individual country or group of countries. The EU countries are represented individually or as members of nine of these groups.

The Nordic Group consists of the Nordic countries and the Baltic states and thus includes countries such as Norway and Iceland, which are not members of the EU.

The IMF’s role has changed since the organisation was founded immediately after the Second World War. Operating within a system of fixed exchange rates, its main tasks from the beginning were both to help countries with balance of payments problems temporarily to fund deficits in the balance of current payments and to check that the countries concerned were taking good care of their economies. It was also important that the countries did not devalue their currencies in order to become more competitive. Nowadays, the eurocountries, armed with their European Central Bank, have approximately the same role as the IMF. The eurocountries have fixed exchange rates. Possible concessional credits to eurocountries that end up in financial crises need to be handled within the group of eurocountries.

Countries outside the eurozone have fluctuating exchange rates and do not therefore end up with balance of payments problems. They also have better control of their debt ratios. It would be natural for the eurocountries to form a common group in the IMF, with one headquarters. EU countries outside the eurozone should not be part of the group. Nor is there any reason for Sweden to form part of a common EU group. If it were, we should also lose our ability actively to influence the IMF’s relations with the developing countries.

13. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

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

14.1. Cultural heritage in Azerbaijan

  President. The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on cultural heritage in Azerbaijan.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE), author. (LT) Sadly, in various parts of the globe, as a rule, the destruction of cultural monuments is a consequence of or prelude to the extermination of people. Therefore, I support the resolution and the opinion that we must declare our position on the destruction of cultural heritage in Azerbaijan. In conflicts such as the one between Azerbaijan and Armenia, it is difficult to blame only one side. Cultural monuments there are being destroyed as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which in 18 years has claimed the lives of 25 000 people and made a million inhabitants refugees. Neither aggression, provocation from one side or the other nor the desecration of cultural heritage will help to unravel this entrenched conflict. Only if the sides seek negotiations, find a common political language and show good will, with the aim of drawing closer to the European Union, can the flames be put out. According to recent surveys, a large proportion of the populations in both states want to bring the conflict under control as soon as possible. Those states, which want to play an active role in the European Union's Neighbourhood Policy, simply must protect the cultural heritage of minorities appropriately.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, the destruction and desecration of a cemetery by anyone, anywhere, is a barbarous act. If such a cemetery is also a monument of special archaeological significance, then it is part of our common international heritage and its destruction constitutes, in addition, a crime against humanity.

The Armenian cemetery at Julfa is a Christian cemetery of exceptional historical and cultural importance. Disregarding an international outcry, Azerbaijani governments, whether by omission or – more likely – by commission, have been responsible for the systematic destruction of this monument over the last few years. The actual perpetrators of that atrocious act are thought to be Azerbaijani forces and Islamic fanatic civilians.

It is totally unacceptable for the Azerbaijani Ambassador in Brussels to have recently sent e-mails to MEPs in which he embarks on a viscous personal attack against one of the authors of this resolution and attempts to denigrate and insult the integrity and wisdom of this Parliament.

I strongly urge you to vote in favour of this resolution and thus send a very clear message of our feelings of concern and disgrace to the Government of Azerbaijan for the destruction of the Julfa cemetery.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), author. – Mr President, the alleged demolition in December 2005 of the mediaeval Julfa – also known historically as Jugha – Armenian burial grounds, with the breaking-up of the khachkars, or beautifully engraved headstones, is a serious desecration of European Christian heritage.

The Azerbaijani Government claimed the video footage documenting this is fraudulent Armenian propaganda. But I have received independent verification that the footage is genuine from a British architect, Steven Sim, an expert in the region. Furthermore, if there has been no destruction, why are on-site visits refused by the Azerbaijanis, who also, rather bizarrely, state that this could have been done by looters needing the stone for local building work?

Once more Mr Sim has stated that passage into the cemetery requires passing through Azerbaijani army-controlled territory, making such a thing almost impossible without official support and in clear breach of their duty of care to protect the site.

I have also been informed by the Azerbaijani Embassy that this destruction is nothing compared to the destruction of Azerbaijani mosques. I was indeed sent photos of destroyed mosques. That mosques in the war zone were destroyed in 1991 is undeniable and to be condemned without reservation, but the photos I was sent I believe represent destruction that took place 15 years ago, not 3 months ago. Furthermore, the Julfa site in Nakhichevan was never part of the war zone. Also, it is worth pointing out that I have been informed that the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities have recently agreed to a project for the reconstruction of mosques destroyed on their territory.

We are now at a critical juncture in the talks between the two Presidents, Kocharyan and Aliyev, in Rambouillet, France, on finding a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. I therefore believe that any further planned destruction of Armenian heritage will not be conducive to lasting peace in the region.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, there is no doubt that all cultural monuments around the world are part of our common heritage and that they should not become victims of political events or, in particular, of war.

I would appreciate it if you would allow me to relate a personal anecdote. When I went to Armenia a few years ago and saw all those monuments and churches which have survived to this day since the early Middle Ages, I was reminded of my earlier visit to Spain, at the other end of the Christian world, a thousand kilometres to the west. I was impressed by how similar the monuments in these two regions were.

They were all monuments of early medieval culture. We are responsible for all the monuments in the world. Nonetheless those European monuments which bear witness to the cultural past and unity of Europe ought to be particularly dear to us, be they located in the remote eastern part of Armenia, the western borders of Spain or anywhere in between.

It seems to me that the events we are witnessing now are particularly distressing because the monuments being destroyed are more than just part of Europe’s heritage. They belong to the whole world. Azerbaijan’s responsibility is particularly clear. As Mr Tannock mentioned earlier, why does Azerbaijan not allow anyone to visit these places and assess the extent of the damage on site? Fortunately, we do know what happened as a result of barbaric decisions made by those in power in the region, and we have evidence of the damage on film.

This resolution must be passed and then we must monitor what happens next. The steps to be taken cannot be limited to words, however noble they may be. Words must be followed by actions and we expect Azerbaijan to take action.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), author. – (FR) Mr President, it is vital to remember the importance of the EU's commitment in the southern Caucasus, which is still wracked by frozen conflicts, but is highly strategic and resolutely European. We are aware that Mrs Ferrero-Waldner is currently on an official visit to the region, but I would particularly like to launch an appeal to parliamentarians and an appeal to responsibility.

At a time when the European Union is negotiating action plans with each of the countries to promote the stability of the region, Armenia and Azerbaijan have entered a delicate, but hopeful, phase of peace negotiations regarding the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Presidents Aliev and Kocharian met last Sunday at Rambouillet, under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk group. The success of the process is the top priority, because it could indirectly lead to a resolution to the other conflicts in the region. It is thus a vital precondition to the general stabilisation of the region.

In this context, ladies and gentlemen, do you really think, in your heart of hearts, that now is the time to throw oil on the fire by deleting, as the amendments propose, the sections that quite rightly allow a balanced approach to the joint resolution that we all negotiated together the day before yesterday? We have already condemned the destruction of the cemetery in Julfa, in Mr Tannock's report from January, and we continue to condemn it. However, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot leave out the global context of the frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which has been responsible for thousands of deaths and refugees; the wounds are still raw. Can we also ignore the fact that 20% of Azerbaijan's territory is considered by Armenia to be a buffer zone for Nagorno-Karabakh and that various elements of the cultural and religious heritage of these occupied territories have also been destroyed? It is high time to stop this dangerous escalation. It would be irresponsible to deny the shared responsibility of the parties to a conflict and to refer only to the destruction caused by one side, and it would also be contrary to our commitment to support our Armenian and Azerbaijani friends in the desire to resolve their differences.

Finally, this resolution comes at a time of increased tensions between the Muslim world and the western world. A weak text could reduce these events to a simple clash between the Christian and Muslim worlds. I therefore ask you not to give arguments to the extremists of all sides by voting for a resolution which, if it were amended in line with certain proposals, would be unfairly partisan. It is a question of personal conscience, but it is also the credibility of the European Parliament and, more broadly, the activities of the European Union in the region that are at stake.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. (NL) Mr President, in the days when the Russian Tsars ruled, the Transcaucasus was one of the conquered areas on the edge of the Empire, where the territories of Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis were not clearly defined, and where the peoples did not live in peace with one another, but were subjected to the undemocratic rule of the Russian state.

It was not until the 1920s that the three peoples were separated from one another administratively, each with their own territory. While this was necessary to secure peace, development and stability, it did mean that mixed areas had to be allocated to one of the groups that were involved in the conflicts. We can now see the effects this has had in minority areas South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and, above all, in Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhchivan, which are subject to both Armenian and Azerbaijani influences.

The temptation is considerable not only to drive out from those areas the people who belong to the neighbouring peoples, but also to destroy their historical buildings, places of prayer and burial and wipe out their memories for ever. Now that there is no longer an overarching Soviet Union that could deal with such excrescences, it has become even more critical that the rest of Europe should help to ensure that the neighbouring peoples coexist in peace and mutual respect in what are now independent states.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, for the Armenian people – the victims of genocide and massive expulsion from their homelands – to witness the destruction of their cultural heritage is perhaps the last chapter in their total deracination. ‘Nothing is happening’, say the Azerbaijani authorities. I know that where there is smoke there is fire. This total denial reminds me of the total denial that the genocide ever existed, the claim that it is a figment of the Armenian imagination.

In an exchange of e-mails with me, the political affairs advisor of the Azerbaijani embassy wrote, and I quote ‘we cannot exclude that some poor peasants of relevant cultural level might secretly use the stones from the cemetery for building construction or other related works’.

I cannot be sure who the perpetrators are, but I am sure that the responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of these monuments is 100% Azerbaijani.

  Martine Roure, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) The town of Julfa in Azerbaijan is the site of an important Armenian cemetery that is unique in architectural terms. This cemetery bears witness to the history of a region where, until the first quarter of the 20th century, more than 80% of the inhabitants were Armenian. This site was abandoned in the Soviet era and, in 1998, the local authorities started to destroy it. At that time, UNESCO was very disturbed by this, which resulted in a temporary halt to the work of the bulldozers. UNESCO also contacted the competent authorities to protect this heritage, because the damage caused to this memorial site was very serious.

Corroborating elements and recent eyewitnesses tend to confirm the suspicion that this destruction restarted in December 2005. We should therefore call on Azerbaijan, as soon as possible, to allow a mission to go to the site in order to assess the measures needed, now and in the medium term, to preserve this site, so full of history and, what is more, memories and culture, which constitutes the heritage of a people.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, today’s debate on human rights and democracy concerns the protection of the cultural heritage of the Armenian people, which is threatened with total destruction. Armenia, which has a population of 4 million, has been Christian since 301 AD, making it the first Christian country in the world. This fact is supported not only by historical documents but also by the thousands of crosses carved onto stone tablets, called khatchkars, which have been destroyed, just as other Armenian cultural treasures have been destroyed in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

The khatchkars, which are literally stone crosses between 0.5 and 3.5 metres high, were made of basalt. They were placed on a cuboidal base and the front of the stone, which bore the image of the cross, was positioned to point west. The Armenians saw the khatchkars as a protective power that would shield them from natural disasters. These structures were erected to commemorate important events they featured as compositional elements in sacred buildings and were also used as tombstones, always placed at the feet of the deceased.

A cemetery in Djulfa was destroyed recently. The cemetery dated back to the Middle Ages and was located in the region controlled by Azerbaijan. The scandalous process of devastation and destruction of Armenian cultural monuments began in 1998, when 800 of the stone crosses I described were destroyed. Although this process of destruction was temporarily halted following protests by UNESCO, it resumed in 2002. It is probable that the reprehensible destruction of Armenian cultural heritage is being carried out with the consent of the government of Azerbaijan, which sent special army units to destroy the stones bearing Armenian crosses.

Armenians have been persecuted for centuries. They have suffered as a result of war, aggression and occupation. They are a nation with a wealth of experience, both as a nation and as a Christian people. The Azeris have experienced destruction and suffering too, but it must be emphasised that no conflict can justify the destruction of cultural heritage, which is a common legacy for the whole of humanity.

Culture is an expression of communication between people, of shared thoughts and actions. It is a confirmation of humanity and a fundamental common legacy for communities. We therefore call for respect for our global common legacy, irrespective of religion and origin.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, I remember my own impressions of Azerbaijan, of Baku, and of that enormous building in the centre of town, namely the hotel where the Azeris who had escaped from Nagorno Karabakh were camping out. It was a frightening sight. Those people had been squatting there for many years. Obviously, I have them in my thoughts today too, not just the monuments that we are quite rightly discussing.

I agree with Mr Libicki that as a matter of course, monuments should be protected in all parts of the world, and that their geographical location should be irrelevant. I also think that this issue is a sort of evasive tactic used by the government of Azerbaijan, however. It is an attempt to avoid addressing the lack of democracy, the recent and not very democratic elections, and also the ban on democratic freedom and free speech in that country.

It is worth fighting to preserve monuments. It is something that we should, quite rightly, do. At the same time though, we should also promote democracy in Azerbaijan.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, we wish today to condemn Azerbaijan’s continuing indifference towards the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Furthermore, the destruction caused to the cemetery at Djulfa casts a shadow on the country’s commitments as a member of the Council of Europe. Twelve years after the main conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the position of the Armenian minority in Azerbaijan is still very unstable, especially as far as respect for its cultural heritage is concerned. The destruction of the cemetery at Djulfa can be compared, for example, to the Taleban’s destruction of the pillars depicting the Buddha in Afghanistan. It is a matter of respect for the past and for the history of the human race.

What can condemnation of the events lead to? We still hope that an impartial agency can inspect the destruction at the cemetery in Djulfa and that the gravestones that remain can be repaired. We also hope that protest will help prevent the future destruction of cultural heritage. The devastation caused to the cemetery at Djulfa is a crime against people’s heritage and, as such, is to be condemned. The destruction of these unique Christian artefacts constitutes an irreplaceable loss for mankind.

(Applause)

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the honourable Members for all their speeches. The Commission has been informed about the alleged destruction of artefacts in the Julfa Cemetery, in the Azerbaijani Autonomous Republic of Nakhichevan. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan delivered a statement at the 586th Meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council of 22 December 2005 and the issue was also discussed in the Council of Europe on 1 February 2006.

The protection of World Cultural Heritage sites in third countries is not within the Commission’s competences. We understand, however, that Armenia appealed to UNESCO, asking for a mission to be sent to Nakhichevan as rapidly as possible.

The Commission is well aware of the fact that episodes like the destruction in the Julfa Cemetery, if confirmed by independent sources, have a direct link with and are symptomatic of the long-standing conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has caused mistrust and destruction and claimed victims on both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani sides since the early 1990s.

The Commission will continue to use all the means at its disposal to persuade the parties to find a quick settlement to the conflict and, once a peace deal is hopefully reached, assist in the reconstruction and the rehabilitation of the region.

The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh particularly unacceptable today in that both Armenia and Azerbaijan are part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, which aims, as a priority, to build confidence in the South Caucasus region, encouraging regional cooperation in as many sectors as possible and contributing to peace, stability and prosperity at the borders of an enlarged European Union.

It is an ambitious objective that we will try to achieve, including through the implementation of the action plans that the Commission is currently discussing with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. In these documents we ask the three South Caucasus countries to undertake a number of steps in order to come closer to Europe. The documents cover a very wide range of subjects, including cooperation on education and culture and the protection of cultural heritage.

Implementation of the ENP action plans will be monitored closely by the Commission and the benefits which flow from these will of course be conditional on their achievements.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debate.

14.2. Sri Lanka

  President. The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Sri Lanka.

  Robert Evans (PSE), author. – Mr President, I am sure everyone appreciates that we are at a very crucial time, with the peace talks due to start next week.

I may be the only person here who has seen at first hand the damage that has been done by the war in the north and east of Sri Lanka: the devastation to property and lives; the real suffering – of the Tamil people in particular – and the dreadful attacks on Colombo, Kandi and other places in Sri Lanka. The deaths of many leading figures and ordinary people have gone without investigation. The tragedy and misery have been compounded by last year’s tsunami.

Now there is a real chance to restart. I hope that all those involved in the peace talks will appreciate how important these are, recognise their responsibilities and be prepared to compromise and not look for recriminations. Nobody in Sri Lanka would benefit from a return to conflict.

Personally I regret the absence of representatives of the Muslims, Buddhists and Colonel Karuna’s forces there, which I believe will make things more difficult. The ban on the LTTE people travelling to the European Union makes it rather anomalous that we have to have these talks in either Geneva or Norway. Nevertheless, we in the European Parliament should do everything we can, with the Commission and the Council, to assist, not hinder, the negotiations.

I wish them well.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. (NL) Mr President, most of the people who live in Sri Lanka are Sinhalese and consider themselves to be the only true inhabitants of their island, while, in its North-East, another people – the Tamils – are in the majority. Having as they do a different language, religion and culture from the rest of the country, they are seen by many as unwelcome intruders from the South of India. The parties from the Left and Right that take it in turns to be in government try to win the favour of the electorate by outdoing each other in their disregard for the wishes of the Tamils.

It is for that reason that the country has been in the grip of war for many years, with parts of it not under government control; plans for self-government from the North-East ended up not being implemented, and foreign mediation does not lead anywhere. Norway, in particular, has invested much energy in this, and its former mediator is now Norway’s Foreign Minister. It looks like the outside world is resigning itself to this problem never being resolved, to the endless continuation of the violence, which will leave much devastation and casualties in its wake, so that some of the country’s inhabitants will leave and seek refuge elsewhere.

From the point of view of human rights and democracy, acquiescence is unacceptable. That is why it would be good if this House were to send a message indicating Europe’s indignation at the lack of willingness to find a solution and highlighting our ongoing efforts to achieve results.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, today is a Thursday and as usual, we are dealing with the issue of breaches of human rights.

When we discussed Azerbaijan, we spoke about human rights in a very specific context – a cultural context. Culture is an important element of human rights. The situation is far more dramatic in the case of Sri Lanka. We really cannot wait for peace to be established there. On the one hand, we could remind ourselves of the old saying according to which nations pay for the madness of their leaders, and simply state that the blame lies with those who are behind the conflict rather than with the people of Sri Lanka, who are longing for peace. On the other hand, however, we are faced with a situation that is not uncommon across the world. There are the indigenous inhabitants and the later arrivals. The conflict between the indigenous Singhalese and the later arrivals, the Tamils, has significantly deeper historical roots. We may think today that we can forget about history and speak only of the future, but this is simply not possible.

We have to understand the feelings of humiliation experienced by the indigenous inhabitants who believe that they have more rights than those who arrived later and uninvited. These newcomers did not arrive as a result of any decisions made by the Singhalese. They appeared because of decisions taken elsewhere. That is what happened in Sri Lanka. Let us, therefore, try to ensure that peace is established as soon as possible and that the people of Sri Lanka cease to pay for the madness of those in power. However, we must take into consideration the fact that a historical right to power is the same right as the right to property of someone who has been deprived of that property.

I hope the European Union will do all in its power to ensure that peace is achieved in Sri Lanka.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE), author. – Mr President, it probably would have been better if we had been able to postpone this debate, but it was already on the agenda. We all know the reason we wanted to postpone it was because of the scheduled meeting between the Sri Lankan Government and LTTE in Geneva on 22-23 February.

I, along with everybody else, sincerely hope the talks will be successful. It will be a small step in the right direction if they are. That should improve the implementation of the ceasefire, which, as we all know, is not observed fully by either the Tamil Tigers or the government. We still see a lot of recruitment of child soldiers, which is an absolute scandal.

If we want to achieve a permanent political solution, it is important that we do not just look at the security issues. However, any talks that take place on a political solution must involve the Muslims and other Tamil organisations, as well as the government and the Tamil Tigers. Only by doing that can we have a clear way forward to a permanent solution.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), author. – Mr President, we very much welcome the negotiations to be held next week in Geneva between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. Three years have passed since the last talks and, for the sake of all the people of Sri Lanka, it is vitally important that violence should cease and that there should be real progress in the peace process.

We do not believe that it would be helpful for this Parliament to express its views formally at this sensitive moment, so we have agreed with other political groups that there should be no resolution.

Sri Lanka has suffered from an upsurge of violence since December 2005, which has claimed over 200 lives. Not surprisingly, there has been a breakdown in trust between the Government and the LTTE, which is impeding political progress and economic recovery. We note with concern that even the unarmed observers comprising the Sri Lankan monitoring mission have come under attack on many occasions during this period. Although the Sri Lankan Government has shown restraint in its response so far, both sides must refrain from acts of violence and dedicate themselves to the impending negotiations.

For peace and stability to return to Sri Lanka, the Government and the LTTE must be prepared to make compromises. A useful confidence-building measure would be for both sides to cease the use of anti-personnel landmines and to assist in their removal. To this end, the Sri Lankan Government should set an example by signing the Ottawa Convention, and the LTTE should sign the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment. Such a gesture of good will would verify their commitment to peace and could lay the foundations for further mutually beneficial initiatives.

The European Union and individual Member States can take action to facilitate the peace process. European countries should monitor the financial support provided by their Tamil communities to ensure that it is not being used by persons or for activities that undermine the already fragile ceasefire agreement.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), author. – (ES) Mr President, let us hope that nothing goes wrong and that next week, as has been said, these peace talks between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tiger movement take place, but the process has not been easy so far and it will not be easy in the future.

The 2002 ceasefire has been broken many times, hundreds of people have been killed over the last two years and there are thousands of internally displaced people. Kidnaps, torture and other kinds of abuse are still taking place, and the expectations created following the tsunami of December 2004 that that tragedy might help in tackling the internal conflict constructively have been dashed repeatedly. Furthermore, none of the mechanisms for investigating human rights appears to have been implemented satisfactorily.

For all of these reasons, we should be glad about the Norwegian authorities’ determination to promote a peace process in such difficult circumstances. This peace process can teach us a new lesson in how important it is to invest in building peace, rather than stirring up war.

If we analyse Europe’s investments in recent times, not just in Sri Lanka but in the region in general, we shall see that we have invested a lot in stirring up war and much less — very little in fact — in building and promoting peace.

I therefore hope that these talks next week – and I certainly hope that they will lead not just to a peace process, but to a process of creating a fair and lasting peace – will offer a genuine opportunity that can be copied in other models and that can be assimilated into other peace processes, above all putting into practice what Mrs Lynne has said: all of the actors involved in the conflict must be included; nobody can be excluded, not even those who are considered to be the greatest enemies.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, as every Member of this House is fully aware, the political, economic and social situation in Sri Lanka is becoming increasingly unstable. The local community, mainly made up of women and children, is the victim of uncontrolled and brutal violence. Murders, and the involvement of military forces in these killings are becoming part of the reality of everyday life in Sri Lanka.

The cease fire agreement reached in 2002 is currently under serious threat, and a new conflict may well erupt. Sri Lanka needs significant international support to guarantee a stable cease fire, which is essential in order for any progress to be made in the region.

The European Parliament should support Sri Lanka in all its efforts to achieve stability, peace and democracy. Combating any kind of racial or ethnic discrimination should be made a priority. Discrimination affects the local community on a daily basis and is an obstacle to obtaining just compensation, especially for the victims of the tsunami.

It is not enough to send money and feel satisfied that we have done a good deed. We also need to make sure that the funds are fairly distributed. It is only then that the financial aid provided by the European Union will produce tangible results. If the aid is not farily distributed, the funds may simply become the source of further conflict.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, after years of civil war, and with tens of thousands having been killed, negotiations are again on the agenda in Sri Lanka, and the only thing we can say with any certainty is that there can be no military solution to this conflict; there can only be a political one. I am very glad to see that the Norwegian Government has taken the initiative in setting these negotiations in motion; it is very interesting that it should be Norway that does this and not the European Union. The fact is that there is a quite fundamental problem, in that these conversations cannot take place in a European Union context because of the EU’s so-called list of terrorist bodies, which includes the LTTE, so those in charge of the negotiations cannot even enter the EU. That goes to show just how absurd this list of terrorist bodies is, which I believe is very often used as a means of taking action against political undesirables.

Let me make it quite plain that I am less than happy with the choice that we have taken not to vote today, since I do believe that that decision has been taken in response to political pressure. I would prefer it if we were to say loud and clear that we welcome these negotiations and express our desire for a real peace process in Sri Lanka.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, once again I should like to thank the honourable Members for their contributions.

First of all, let me state that the Commission is continuing to follow the situation in Sri Lanka very closely and we welcome the interest shown by European Parliament political groups in the resolutions calling for a peaceful solution to the conflict for the people of Sri Lanka.

The Commission welcomes the agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE to hold talks in Geneva on 22 and 23 February, with a view to reinforcing and improving the implementation of the ceasefire agreement concluded in February 2002. We congratulate the Norwegian Minister, Erik Solheim, for his tireless efforts and reiterate our full support for him and for Norway’s role as facilitator in the peace process.

Regarding the situation in Sri Lanka, although violence appears to have declined since the announcement of the Geneva talks on 25 January, we are extremely concerned by the escalation of violence in the past few months. Over 200 people were killed between the election of the new president in November 2005 and the end of January 2006. The European Union has expressed its grave concern about the continuing violence in Sri Lanka and urged all those engaged in violence and those with influence on them to put an end to it and stop the descent into conflict.

The year 2005 and the early part of 2006 were bad periods for the peace process, with the failure of the P-TOMS, the assassination of Foreign Minister Kadirgamar and the electoral boycott imposed in parts of the north and east. We therefore welcome the Geneva talks as an important step, which we hope will help stabilise the situation in Sri Lanka and lead to the long hoped for peaceful resolution of the bitter conflict.

Regarding the comments made about the tsunami funds, we have started delivering tsunami reconstruction, despite the failure of the P-TOMS. The Commission allocated tsunami victims in Sri Lanka EUR 5.5 million of assistance to revitalise livelihoods in the north and east and provide affected communities there with basic economic opportunities. That comes on top of a large EC assistance programme already running in the north and the east.

What we expected from P-TOMS was to move to a full reconstruction process where the government, the LTTE and the Muslim community would agree on priorities and projects. We had put all our weight behind P-TOMS and had earmarked EUR 50 million to go through the mechanism. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner made that public in March 2005 in Colombo, where we pressed very hard for a quick agreement. We still consider that that was the right thing to do. If P-TOMS had come to life, we would have reversed the negative trend in the peace process.

In addition to that, we should not forget that the Commission, through its Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid, has provided more than EUR 23 million to victims of the conflict in the north and east since the peace process began, and over EUR 40 million of aid to tsunami victims. A large part of that aid has been directed at linking humanitarian aid to the reconstruction effort.

  President. The debate is closed.

Since all of the motions for resolutions on the subject have been withdrawn, no vote will take place.

14.3. Guantánamo

  President. The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on Guantánamo.

  Martine Roure (PSE), author. – (FR) Mr President, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have been held in a legal vacuum, without charge, for four years now. We are alarmed by the continuing allegations of mistreatment: for example, hunger strikers whose self-imposed starvation is the only way they can protest against their total lack of the right to justice are apparently being strapped to chairs for hours so that they can be force-fed until they vomit blood.

I would remind you that the UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, has stated that, if this was true, it would be classed as inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment. We call for the UN and the NGOs to be given access to the Guantanamo detention centre and to the detainees. Guantanamo must also be closed without delay, and the detainees should be brought before an independent tribunal.

Finally, the United States must at least allow there to be an independent enquiry regarding the allegations of torture.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), author. – (DE) Mr President, the history of the US military base at Guantanamo is a history of injustice, for the Americans are there at all simply because they concluded what they call a treaty with a former Cuban government, a treaty which, as they see it, is invalidated only if it is cancelled by both parties, something that is quite utterly perverse.

Is it not time that we spelled it out that this military base must be closed down, and Guantanamo Bay handed back to Cuba? The reports that reach us from the American prisoner of war camp there are horrific. Over 500 prisoners are still being held there without trial and without due process, and they are on the receiving end of gross mistreatment and torture. Guantanamo is a lawless place. The torture that goes on there must be brought to an end, with those responsible for it and those who carry it out ending up in the dock of a court of law. Let us be quite clear about the fact that the closure of Guantanamo is being called for by a wide range of people, one of them being the German Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel. At the same time, though, her Minister of the Interior can say that ‘If I am rightly informed, one person has been interviewed in Guantanamo by the German authorities.’ It is evident that Germany or other EU Member States are benefiting from what goes on there. Now really is the time for the European Union to abandon its double standards.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), author. – (DE) Mr President, one could not put it in plainer language than did Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, who said, ‘Guantanamo does not meet even the minimum standards of international law.’ That is a devastating judgment, and we, in the European Union, must make it appropriately clear to our American partners that we can no longer regard these unjust acts in Guantanamo as acceptable, and that we never have done so.

I am very grateful to Mrs Merkel for addressing that issue very forthrightly when she met President Bush. The simple fact is that the war on terror, which is vital and which we support, can be waged only on the basis of law. If certain parties were to get the message across to the world that, ultimately, the strongest get their way, the effect would be catastrophic, for everyone would aspire only to be the strongest, and the law of the jungle would again hold sway.

It is for that reason that war, even against the greatest of evils, can be waged only on the basis of law, on the basis of human rights and of international law, with all the determination and single-mindedness that it demands, and these are dependent on strict adherence to the common values and shared convictions of the Western alliance and of the European Union, of which there is certainly no evidence in Guantanamo. All I can do, then, is to urge President Bush to close Guantanamo down as quickly as possible and hand the prisoners over to a proper legal authority.

  Graham Watson (ALDE), author. – Mr President, ‘when exactly will this nightmare end?’ Those are the words of Moazzam Begg, a British citizen released without charge from Guantánamo in January of last year. But they could equally be the words of all right-thinking citizens.

Guantánamo Bay has become a byword for all that is wrong with the US response to terrorism today. Four years after the first prisoners arrived, not one has received a proper trial and 500 remain in confinement, the vast majority without charge or due legal process. Just today, the United Nations has published a report which suggests that the treatment of detainees meets the definition of torture under the UN Convention against Torture. The authors conclude that the US Government should either expeditiously bring the detainees to trial, or release them without delay.

We would go further. We agree with the Amnesty International Director in the UK that there is no middle ground regarding Guantánamo: it must be closed. That is why my group will support this resolution to call on the US authorities to close Guantánamo Bay and to release the prisoners or try them in accordance with international law.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), author. – (ES) Mr President, in these urgent sittings during which we normally deal with breaches of human rights in the world, it is a long time since we have discussed the responsibility of the United States.

Although the list of issues to be discussed would be extremely long, I am at least pleased to have the opportunity to analyse one of the most shameful blights on humanity and, in particular, on our times: Guantánamo.

After four years, the approximately five hundred people currently detained in Guantánamo do not enjoy the minimum legal guarantees required in a democracy that respects the rule of law and the international rules on human rights.

The European Union cannot continue to be an accomplice, through its silence, in the maintenance of what in reality is quite simply a torture centre, and one in which the death penalty is applied in an arbitrary manner.

The existence of Guantánamo represents an enormous stain on the history not just of the United States but of all those on the outside who keep quiet and tolerate the base. And it increases even further the image of an imperialist and war-mongering nation that has absolutely no respect for the very rights and freedoms that the current US Administration claims to defend throughout the world.

There is absolutely no justification for Guantánamo’s existence, therefore, and less still on the grounds of the fight against terrorism. I am therefore delighted that this Parliament has finally had the courage to call for the closure of Guantánamo in such a unanimous fashion.

It now only remains for me to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that we must take a further step, that our work must be complete and that we must call soon for a thorough investigation of what is happening in relation to the occupation of Iraq. In particular, we must condemn the events in Abu Ghraib.

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, it appears to me that, on this issue, the House is very largely of one mind. If the European Union is to demand of states that they adhere to human rights, then it must do so globally and credibly. Neither human rights nor international humanitarian law are negotiable, and that is something we have to spell out to our American allies, with whom, after all, we share democratic values. I really do find it disturbing that this has to become a cause of dispute with the United States, for it is our ally, but that is the difference between them and the other parts of the world in which we call for respect for human rights. It is fortunate, and encouraging, that the USA is a democratic and open society, and that the same debate is going on there. I think that the majority of Americans would agree with us that one cannot, in these matters, simply suspend the rule of law. It is vitally important that we hold on to the moral high ground if we are to be credible in combating terrorism in other parts of the world and take up the cause of democracy. It is not acceptable that we should turn and look in the other direction, especially in our dealings with this great ally of ours, alongside which, in other parts of the world – in Afghanistan, for example – we are promoting democracy and human rights. It is worth considering the political and moral predicament in which we would find ourselves if we were to keep silent about Guantanamo, when we would no longer be able to maintain any credibility in our dealings with those states where we are trying to promote human rights.

That is why it is right to call for this camp to be closed down and for those who are held there to be brought before a regular court. We may well not have put it in such explicit terms, but the conclusion must be drawn that, in the absence of proof against them, these people must be set at liberty, dangerous though that may be in individual cases. Here, too, the rule applies that the accused is given the benefit of the doubt.

  Karin Scheele, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, in its report published yesterday, the United Nations very emphatically calls on the USA to close Guantanamo down without further delay, and our resolution today is, of course, intended to do the same thing. To date, charges have been brought against only 10 of the 500 persons interned at Guantanamo, and even then, before specially-established military tribunals rather than independent courts. Arbitrary detention, torture and mistreatment are gross breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It surely must, at long last, dawn on the Bush administration just how cynical and wrong this behaviour in the fight against terrorism actually is. The effective combating of terrorism demands that one works to persuade the world at large and stresses the importance of international law, by which the arbitrary killing of civilians is prohibited. It is that law that the Bush administration is disregarding, not only in Guantanamo, but also elsewhere.

  Elizabeth Lynne, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, what more evidence do the Americans need to close down this hellhole? The latest UN report, which was released yesterday, provides yet more proof that what the US is doing in Guantánamo Bay is illegal and a direct violation of human rights.

Four years on from the inception of this prison, we are still hearing of torture techniques that are banned under the UN Convention against Torture. My constituent, Moazzam Begg, who was released last year after three years’ illegal detention, said he witnessed other inmates being beaten so badly it may have caused their deaths. Now we hear in the report about people being violently force-fed to end their hunger strikes, not out of a desire to keep them alive, but in order to stop embarrassing the American Government.

In the name of humanity, this prison must be closed and the detainees either given a fair trial or, if there is no evidence against them, released forthwith.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, this is a brief resolution that can be summarised in two words: close Guantánamo. Any form of human rights in Guantánamo is conspicuous by its absence, and the whole set-up is, from beginning to end, redolent not of human rights, but of human errors.

In the course of a single Presidency, the United States has gone from being a country that most people want to visit, trade with and otherwise engage with to being a country that many avoid. Guantánamo may be situated on a military base in Cuba, but it is a cowardly attempt by the United States to avoid its own laws. We desire nothing more than that the United States observe its own Constitution and that the UN conventions be complied with. In both respects, Guantánamo is an absurdity. The Bush regime is acting like a bunch of old-fashioned, high-handed colonial masters when it comes to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, Abu Graib, the war against the Iraqi people and a list of conventions concerning everything from the fight against tobacco to the right to food.

These departures from international cooperation and international law damage the American people and the world in general. The Guantánamo prisoners are not alone in suffering oppression by the Bush regime, even if they are the ones who are suffering the most. We also have sympathy for the majority of Americans who have never supported the Bush regime and who are victims of its arbitrary procedures. These ordinary people are badly affected by the hatred and threats emanating from the world around them. The Bush regime could make a start on doing penance by closing Guantánamo.

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel it is entirely right that a resolution on Guantánamo is being discussed in this Chamber. It should be acknowledged that a similar resolution is required to commemorate 27th January. You are surely aware that this is the International Day for Prevention of Crimes Against Humanity. Naturally, we shall agree that a country which tortures prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo on the say-so of its President has no right to ask for cooperation from the EU on military actions launched unilaterally. The time has come to announce sanctions against the United States for its failure to respect human rights. This is a position that we broadly accepted this week when we adopted the report on the human rights and democracy clause in European agreements. Perhaps you do not remember this, or perhaps the argument of the military power in question is too strong. This is of course a matter of double standards.

I believe that once the Resolution, which has my full backing, has been adopted, it should be followed up by a proposal to indict those who, in Guantanámo and Abú Ghrajb, have taken part in acts that contravene the laws of the United States, and are in breach of human rights and international agreements. I should therefore like to suggest that the Commission set up an international criminal court to try these criminals. I also feel it important to recommend that the country holding the Presidency should call on the UN Security Council to table a resolution demanding sanctions against the United States. And incidentally, we are all certainly aware that the US base at Guantánamo Bay has for a number of years been occupied against the wishes of the legitimate government of the Republic of Cuba.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, our debate today is confirmed absolutely, I believe, by the recent publication in the Los Angeles Times of the report by five experts from the UN Commission on Human Rights.

We must no longer remain impassive observers of this modern barbarity. We must no longer remain silent in the face of the continuing violations of international humanitarian law and international conventions and of the torturing and human degradation in which the United States authorities continue to engage at Guantanamo. The European Union and the Member States must, I believe, take an immediate initiative to bring the matter before the international organisations and the UN and must call for the immediate closure by the United States of the Guantanamo prisons, for a fair trial by an independent international court and for the immediate release of the detainees.

I believe that, if we continue to remain silent, this will mean concealment. In the name of the fight against international terrorism, the Bush administration cannot take mankind into a new Middle Ages. Now it is the Guantanamo detainees, tomorrow it may be the detainees in another area, if we do not defend collective humanitarian values and our democratic principles.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) Hundreds of prisoners remain in a legal vacuum and suffer from torture. I am not talking about the notorious prisons of Saddam, the Taliban, Syria or other dictatorships, but about Guantanamo, which is controlled by the United States of America. Let us not forget that the USA is a country that played a central role in the construction of international human rights law and that under the Bush Administration is violating those rights in ignominious fashion, including the minimum standards of the Geneva Convention.

Europe must make its voice heard as regards Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and wherever the Bush Administration is exporting torture via extraordinary rendition. It must add its voice to the increasingly audible voices in the United States, such as that of the American Civil Liberties Union, condemning the immorality and uselessness of torture in the fight against terrorism and the lack of accountability of those in charge of such abuses.

The EU must demand that Guantanamo be closed down and that US politicians and military personnel at the highest level be brought to justice for crimes committed in the name of the war on terror. Because to remain silent plays into the hands of the terrorists and sacrifices the fundamental values of human dignity and the rule of law, the same values that the terrorist fanatics sought to destroy by means of 9/11 and attacks such as those in Madrid and London.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I agree with the case made in the resolution that global terrorism represents a threat, especially terrorism directed against democratic societies, but that we cannot fight terrorism using terrorist tactics. Such actions will not be tolerated and we have a right to state this fact.

We have this right because Europe is the cradle of humanitarian rights, because the first conventions on the protection of the rights of prisoners, the civilian population, and war victims were drawn up here in Europe at the start of the 20th century. After the Second World War, we developed these humanitarian principles. In Europe, we have a European, Strasbourg system for protecting human rights and finally we, in the European Union, have a Charter of Fundamental Rights which will be, and indeed already is, part of the European Constitution. All of these documents state clearly and unequivocally that human dignity must be respected, that no human being should be humiliated, threatened or persecuted, that no one should be held without trial, and that everyone has the right to defence.

I would like to ask: was all this forgotten in Guantanamo? Does no one want to remember it? Both our Amnesty International report and the UN report mention it clearly. We cannot accept such a situation and I therefore wholly support the theory put forward in the resolution. The latter states that the war on terrorism cannot involve any infringement of human rights.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, again I would like to thank the honourable Members for their very clear remarks. The global fight against terrorism on an unprecedented scale has created new challenges for the protection of human rights. The Commission constantly underlines that the fight against terrorism must be conditional on maintaining respect for human rights.

With regard to the situation of some 500 individuals who are being detained in Guantanámo Bay, although the Commission does not have competence to intervene on behalf of these detainees, we are following all developments closely. The Member States have also voiced concern bilaterally to the US regarding the treatment of their nationals.

The Commission continues to emphasise that all anti-terrorist measures must be consistent with international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It is our firm belief that the Geneva Conventions apply to all persons captured on the field of battle. So far as continued detention in Guantanámo Bay is concerned, according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there are absolute rights which are to be respected in all circumstances, such as the right not to be tortured or to be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

In this connection, we welcome the recent amendment to the Defence Appropriations Bill introduced by Senator McCain, which puts beyond doubt the fact that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment applies to persons held in US custody worldwide. Moreover, in our view, every person who has been detained must have some status under international law and is entitled not to be detained arbitrarily and to receive due process and a fair trial.

The European Union has also made clear its support for the request by United Nations Special Rapporteurs to visit Guantanámo Bay and to be able to interview detainees in private. The European Union has raised this issue repeatedly with the United States and will continue to do so.

In response to some of the interventions, the Commission has repeatedly made clear to the United States that the European Union is firmly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. I would also like to say that the report by the UN Special Rapporteurs which was published yesterday is being studied by the Commission with a view to taking this issue up again with the United States.

It is vital that the international community seeks to reassert full adherence to international law, including human rights and humanitarian standards, in relation to the alleged Taliban and al-Qa’ida members in Guantanámo and elsewhere. It is only by ensuring respect for those values by all parties that real progress will be achieved.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, if I may return – and briefly – to what Mr Pflüger had to say about Sri Lanka, the fact is that he has got it absolutely right. We are dealing here with a dangerous precedent, namely that resolutions can be tabled, and then subsequently withdrawn by the negotiating parties. We have accepted it on this occasion, but I would like to say – and on behalf of my group – that we will not accept it a second time and that this must not be allowed to become a precedent.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to inform Mr Posselt that it was his group that asked to have the vote withdrawn, so to say that they are not going to accept it is a bit peculiar.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place straight away.

15. Voting time

  President. The next item is the vote.

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

15.1. Cultural heritage in Azerbaijan (vote)

15.2. Guantánamo (vote)

  President. That concludes the vote.

16. Corrections to votes: see Minutes

17. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

18. Written declarations for entry in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes

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

20. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

21. Adjournment of the session

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

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

The European Council meeting in Barcelona in March 2002 wholeheartedly approved the Commission's action plan to eliminate the barriers within European labour markets by the end of 2005 and called on the Council to take the necessary steps to put the proposed measures into practice for those working in education, research and innovation.

Does the Council have any specific data on the progress achieved in reducing the obstacles to recognition of vocational qualifications, formal qualifications and informal education? Does it also have specific data concerning the acquisition of basic qualifications - particularly in relation to the new information and communications technologies - by all citizens and specific groups such as unemployed women?

(DE)The coordination of social security systems and the transferability of pensions entitlements are the subject of a recently amended regulation, as well as of a proposal for a directive which is currently being examined by the departments of the Council that deal with the preparation of legislation.

As regards social security benefits, the honourable Member will no doubt be aware that the new regulation on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation No 883/2004/EC), which will enter into effect simultaneously with the appendant Implementing Regulation, will replace Regulation No 1408/71/EC, which is currently applicable. The intention is that the new regulation should, as a legal instrument in the field of mobility between Member States, be more uniform in its application, easier to transpose and more contemporary in its approach, thereby helping not only to improve the insured persons’ entitlements to social security, but also to simplify the procedures involved.

The honourable Member will no doubt also be aware that the proposal recently presented by the Commission for a directive improving the portability of supplementary pension rights is aimed at making employees more mobile and improving job mobility overall, by enabling mobile workers, right up to the end of their working lives, to acquire sufficient supplementary pension rights. This proposal resulted from consultations at European level, lasting over a period of years, on the need for improvements in the functioning of additional pension systems and the means whereby these may best be achieved.

As the honourable Member has rightly observed, one of the major hindrances to people who want to work or study in another EU Member State, or, indeed, to transfer from one part of the labour market to another, is that their qualifications and skills may well not be recognised. The explicit goal of Community policy is that these obstacles be removed, and recent years have seen various Community instruments introduced and initiatives taken with a view to making the transfer of academic and professional qualifications easier. It should however be borne in mind that this is a step-by-step process, and one moreover subject to Article 149 of the Treaty, which states that the goals of Community action in the field of education include ‘encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study’. This process is, inevitably, a matter of subsidiarity.

As regards academic qualifications, the national academic recognition information centres (NARIC) provide relevant information on the recognition of diplomas and study periods abroad, and positive contributions are also being made by the European Credit Transfer System and the recently introduced Diploma Supplement.

As regards professional qualifications, a network of national contact points was set up in the Member States to be the first port of call for questions concerning them. In parallel with the Diploma Supplement, which relates to university education, the certificate supplement was devised to meet the needs of professional qualifications, and, at the same time, a common European model for curricula vitae was proposed with the aim of making it possible to set out an individual’s qualifications and skills in a simple and effective way. Since then, another instrument has been adopted in the shape of what is termed the Europass, which helps to promote mobility in work-linked training and apprenticeship by facilitating a voluntary and Europe-wide system for accounting for periods of education and training outside the ‘home’ Member State.

There is increasing acknowledgment of the benefits of informal education, to which the honourable Member referred, and initiatives in the fields of education and youth are being used to encourage Member States to develop the machinery for this type of learning to be recognised. It was in 2004, under the Irish Presidency, that the Council adopted final conclusions on common European principles for the identification and validation of non-formal and informal learning processes, and the Council working party on youth issues is currently examining a draft resolution on that subject.

Turning to the subject of the acquisition of basic qualifications, it should be noted that the Commission recently – as part of the Lisbon Strategy’s ‘Education and Training 2010’ work programme – made a recommendation on core competences, with specific reference to the IT field, and the Council and Parliament are currently examining it. The recommendation is principally intended to identify and define the core skills needed in a knowledge-based society in terms of that society’s cohesion and individuals’ self-development and employability; it is also about ensuring that, firstly, all young people, by the end of their basic education, possess the core skills needed in order to embark on adult life, and, secondly, that adults too can develop and update these skills throughout their lives.

It should also be noted that the Member States are currently being consulted on the possible creation of a European qualifications framework, the main purpose of which would be to ensure the inter-relation of national and sectoral qualification systems and thereby make it easier for individual citizens’ qualifications to be transferred and recognised.

The United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden have all opened up their labour markets to nationals of the countries of Eastern Europe. In welcoming workers from Lithuania, Poland and other new EU Member States, the former countries have managed to integrate workers from the latter countries in their labour markets and have increased their own GDP. However, the key problem of illegal labour involving the citizens of the new Member States arises in other EU Member States, in particular Germany and Austria, where restrictions on the migration of workers are being maintained. In view of this situation, does Austria still intend to maintain immigration restrictions for workers from the new EU Member States for three or five more years? What kind of example would the country currently holding the Presidency of the EU be setting for the other Member States which have not yet opened up access to their labour markets?

(DE)It should be borne in mind at the outset that an increase in the illegal employment of citizens from the new EU Member States is not a problem in Austria. As confirmed by the recent study by Biffl, Huber, and Walterskirchen: ‘Übergangsregelung zur Freizügigkeit’ [transitional arrangements for freedom of movement], Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, [Austrian Institute for Economic Research – WIFO], February 2006, illegal employment has not become noticeably more widespread in Austria.

Austria intends to maintain the transitional arrangements relating to the free movement of workers for another three years. Extension of the transitional measures is not about any one country setting an example, but rather – as is clear from the accession documents – it is for each country to take a well-considered decision on the basis of its specific situation and of the state of development of its labour market.

The individual and autonomous decisions by each Member State must take into account the states of their respective economies and their position in the growth cycle. One essential element in this is the potential for each labour market to absorb new workers, since responsibility towards migrants requires that they be able to meet the conditions for integration and be able to maintain themselves through their own labours. The geographical location also has to be taken into consideration, since the distance between the country of origin and the place of work will determine the extent of migration. Austria, which shares borders with the new Member States of the EU, is a good example of a country whose requirements for controlling the migration of workers differ in every respect from those of such distant countries as Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is in these outcomes and in the ways in which they develop that the Member States differ from one another, so that, for the purpose of the decision on the extension of the transitional arrangements, it is of only limited usefulness to cite any one country as an example for another to follow.

Within its borders the European Union ensures four freedoms – free movement of persons, services, goods and capital. It also guarantees freedom of establishment. These are fundamental freedoms and the EU will struggle to fulfil its potential if they are not extended to each and every citizen.

This year will see the end of the two-year transitional period in relation to the free flow of persons introduced by certain Member States at the time of the 2004 enlargement.

What is the Austrian Presidency’s position on the decision by certain countries to extend the transitional period for a further three years?

(DE)Under the terms of the 2003 accession treaty, decisions on whether or not to continue with the application of transitional measures relating to freedom of movement are a matter solely and exclusively for the Member States concerned. Those Member States desirous of applying the transitional measures for another three years following 30 April 2006 must inform the Commission of their intention to do so by that date.

The Austrian Presidency takes the view that the Member States should come to their decisions on the basis of the Commission’s report on the application of transitional measures relating to freedom of movement, and that such decisions should be balanced, taking into account all the various outcomes in each case and all significant factors connected with labour migration – primarily, that is, the state of the economy and of the labour market in the Member States in question, which will be crucial in determining whether it is certain, at least for an appropriate and predictable period of time, that the migratory workers’ income from work will be sufficient to cover their living expenses. Another significant factor is likely to be geographical location, since the extent of migration is likely to be determined by the distance between a person’s country of origin and the place where they work.

2006 has been declared European Year for Workers' Mobility in order to make workers aware of the advantages of working in another country or in a new sector of employment. It is asserted that this policy, which means moving from one region to another within the same country or from one country to another within the European Union with the purpose of finding work, broadening work experience or improving the skills/knowledge of workers, will contribute to the implementation of the revised Lisbon strategy. However, unemployment is still high (over 8% in the EU of 15 and over 9% in the EU of 25 at the beginning of 2005). The slight reduction is due either to State subsidisation of jobs (France) or to a reduction in the workforce actually in employment (United Kingdom 1991-2003).

If there are not enough jobs in one country or region, what is the sense in workers from other Member States seeking work there? Is there not a risk that they will move in search of jobs which are precarious and of limited duration, with all the attendant consequences for social, personal and family life?

(DE)The Council agrees with the honourable Member that mobility for workers can involve them facing difficulties and having costs to bear.

It is for this reason that the Commission is endeavouring, through the EURES (European Employment Services) international cooperation network, to coordinate the European labour market as best it may. EURES has members and partners in the 25 EU Member States, as well as in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, and fosters the international mobility of workers by offering such services as information, advice and job placement to workers and employers wishing to avail themselves of the right to free movement. The portal is currently used by 500 000 enquirers a month and it carries at present 1.5 million job vacancies.

The network’s advice service also, however, provides jobseekers with information on living and working conditions (accommodation, education, the cost of living, health services, social security legislation, etc) in the individual Member States.

The year of mobility in 2006 aims to guarantee the free movement of persons as a fundamental right, and to promote both the professional and geographical mobility of workers and their efficient allocation in line with sectors’ need for labour and its productive and profitable use in the Member States. The labour market is subject to pronounced dynamics right across Europe, with jobs being extensively shifted around in the course of a year in consequence of the growth and shrinkage of industries in response to constantly changing demand, along with redundancies and recruitments. Furthermore, the European central statistical office works on the assumption that an assumed increase in new jobs of 1-2% per annum in some regions of the EU will result in a sectoral labour shortage in 2010 if there is too small an influx of labour.

It is, in any case, improbable that a worker seeking a quite specific job will want to move to a country or a region where such jobs are available only in small numbers. Although the total jobless figure in the European Union continues to be regrettably high, unemployment rates do vary very considerably from one sector or region to another.

What are the Austrian Presidency's priorities in employment and social policy, does the Presidency agree that, in principle, any new health and safety strategy should be more focused on the implementation of existing legislation across all 25 Member States than the creation of new legislation?

(DE)The honourable Member asks for details of the Austrian Presidency's priorities in the sphere of employment and social policy. Austria will hold the Presidency for the first half of 2006 and during that period employment issues will be one of the focal points of the Council's work. Last year, the Council laid down the employment policy guidelines for the period from 2005 to 2008, guidelines which in principle remain valid in 2006. This year, the Council will concentrate on examining how those guidelines are implemented by the Member States. Measures in the employment sphere are of course chiefly taken using the so-called open method of coordination, i.e. without legislation being enacted.

At the start of the Austrian Presidency, the focus will not only be on employment issues, but also on issues relating to social inclusion and welfare protection, since the Council, drawing on work carried out by the Commission, will submit a report on these matters to the European Council at its Spring Summit in March. Further key priorities for the Austrian Presidency are: the amendment of the working time directive, continuation of the work on the coordination of laws in the sphere of social security, and consideration of the recent Commission proposal on the viability of old-age pension systems.

The honourable Member asks in particular whether the Presidency agrees that any new health and safety strategy should focus more closely on the implementation of existing legislation than on the enactment of new legislation. In that connection, the honourable Member is no doubt referring to the fact that, in its annual policy strategy for 2006, the Commission has announced that one of its key initiatives in 2006 will be a proposal for a new Community strategy on health and safety at work. However, that proposal will not be submitted until late 2006, when the Austrian Presidency is already over. For that reason, the Austrian Presidency will not be able to initiate discussion of that initiative itself in the Council. However, Austria intends to continue the preliminary discussions on the new Community strategy on health and safety begun under the UK Presidency. Accordingly, the Thematic Day of the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee (SLIC), to be held in Vienna on 27 March 2006, will be devoted to a discussion of that issue.

I can assure the honourable Member that the Austrian Presidency will actively seek to achieve progress on the reform of the regulatory framework, as stated, for example, in the Joint Declaration on that subject. The Presidency will attach particular priority to implementing measures designed to bring about better lawmaking.

The words 'Better Regulation' are currently on everyone's lips. Nevertheless, there is widespread dissatisfaction in Europe with many aspects of the EU, one frequent criticism being that it is a bureaucratic monster.

What steps does the Austrian Presidency plan to take to deal with this problem?

(DE)Simply talking about "Better Regulation" is not enough: businesses and citizens demand visible results that have a direct effect on them. The important groundwork that makes these possible has already been done at Community level and in many of the Member States. They now have to become reality, and without delay. The following are particularly important:

Simplification of EU rules and regulations, which have tangible effects on businesses and members of the public. Taken together with the other ongoing efforts at (horizontal) simplification, Commissioner Verheugen’s screening initiative and the current plans for sectoral simplification get us on the right track.

The measurement and reduction of administrative burdens has direct effects on the persons involved. The instruments required are available to us at the European level, and now we have to make use of them.

The effects of EU law must be known in advance if it is to be possible to reach deliberate and well-informed decisions. Such decisions are facilitated by impact assessments, which must be produced to the highest possible quality and then made use of in the negotiating process. In this area, what is particularly crucial to the economy is the competitiveness test.

There is nevertheless the risk that the public and the business world will be but little aware of these activities and that these will have no real influence on their basically negative attitudes. One way of counteracting that would be to provide better information on the actual measures currently being taken to reform regulation – measures that affect the individuals concerned; a wide variety of measures are currently being taken in this area, and it is often difficult even for specialists in this field to get and keep an overview of what is going on.

In the final analysis, our activities must, as already mentioned, result in manifest benefits for all concerned, in the shape of cost reductions or work being made easier, for it only thus that we will reach our goal. I believe that the measures I have mentioned take us in the right direction in this respect.

Another important way of involving the public and businesses is certainly to consult them on regulations that will affect them. There are many initiatives to this end, but it must still be the case that the interested parties must be fully informed about the options available to them as regards consultation, with their opinions listened to at the policy-making stage, and they must also be given effective feedback about those opinions.

Both members of the public and businesses often tell us that important decisions and regulations tend more and more to emanate from ‘Brussels’, with the nation state’s role receding more and more into the background, so that they end up feeling powerless in relation to the EU.

It is surely too simple to blame ‘Brussels’ alone for this development. After all, the reason why we joined together in this Community was that we would all derive clearly measurable benefits from it. To take an example: after ten years of the single market, the EU’s GDP was 1.8%, or EUR 165 billion, greater than it had been before the advent of the single market, with 2.5 million jobs having been created and the standard of living rising by EUR 877 billion (equivalent to EUR 5 700 for each household).⁽¹⁾

The question nevertheless arises as to whether maximising centralisation of regulation in Brussels is entirely beneficial. It is for that reason that the topic of ‘subsidiarity’ and the allocation of competences is also an important aspect of regulatory reform, raising the question as to which matters should be regulated at which level in the interests of maximum effectiveness. It is to consider this subject area that a conference on subsidiarity will be held on 18 and 19 April this year in St. Pölten.⁽²⁾

The economic stability and development of the EU's neighbouring States and the establishment of links between them and the Community are fundamental to the process of creating an area of security and prosperity surrounding the European Union.

What practical measures will be taken in the first half of 2006 with a view to establishing closer economic links between the Mediterranean States and the European Union (Euromed process)?

(DE)The most important event of recent years was the summit meeting on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona Declaration. The meeting was held in Barcelona on 29 and 30 November and, in the course of it, a five-year work programme focusing on political and economic reform was adopted. This meeting also gave priority to educational issues and aspects of legal and illegal immigration.

On 24 March 2006, a conference of trade ministers will be held in Marrakesh. The annual European and Mediterranean conference on economic change will be held in Brussels on 19 and 20 June 2006, and, on 25 and 26 June 2006, the finance ministers will meet together in Tunis to discuss the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), to put in place arrangements for peer review and mutual support in the reform process and to raise specific matters of common interest.

As regards the economic side, the Presidency has set itself the task of transposing the relevant parts of the work programme, which means:

further liberalisation of the trade in agricultural produce, on which the Council has accepted a negotiating mandate;

further liberalisation of the provision of services. It is intended that negotiations should be officially opened at the meeting of Euro-Mediterranean trade ministers on 24 March 2006 in Marrakesh.

The Presidency will also, jointly with the Euro-Mediterranean partners, work towards the following:

Incorporation of the original Pan-European-Mediterranean Protocol into the remaining Euro-Mediterranean agreements;

convergence on standards, technical regulations and conformity assessments;

closer analysis of the effects of economic reforms and cooperation in the region;

speedy development of a timetable for the removal of pollution from the Mediterranean by 2020, including providing support to the Commission in preparing for a conference on this subject;

subregional energy projects to promote an energy market in the Euro-Mediterranean area.

What direction is the Austrian Presidency taking with the Lisbon Strategy? In particular, what will be the direction regarding jobs and the take-up of new technology as well as with barriers to employment faced by particular sections of the community including young workers and older workers and those facing discrimination in the labour market?

What assessment does the Austrian Presidency make of the National Action Plans to combat social exclusion?

(DE)The general direction taken by the Austrian Presidency with regard to the Lisbon Strategy

The Lisbon Process and its focus on growth and employment, which was decided in March 2005, are the basis for the direction taken by the Austrian Presidency in the fields to which the honourable Member refers.

As Chancellor Schüssel said when presenting the Presidency's programme⁽¹⁾, during the first three months of its term of office - i.e. until the Spring Summit in March - the Austrian Presidency will concentrate on employment. Such subjects as job creation, the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in creating jobs, and education are of are the greatest interest to the citizens of Europe.

The direction taken by the Austrian Presidency with regard to employment issues (including the adoption of new technologies and obstacles to the employment of certain groups)

The main theme of the Austrian Presidency in the field of employment policy is 'Flexicurity - flexibility through security'. This entails striking a balance between flexibility and social security in Europe. These two principles are not to be regarded as alternatives but rather as complementary elements: only on the basis of properly functioning social security and insurance systems can the flexibility be achieved on the labour market which is required in the interests of international competitiveness. At the same time, preserving competitiveness is the most important precondition for the sustainability of social security systems.⁽²⁾

Only qualified workers can adopt new technologies. The Austrian Presidency therefore believes that the focus should be on knowledge, innovation and optimisation of human capital.⁽³⁾

During its Presidency, Austria undertakes to continue the work which was begun during previous Presidencies. In the field of employment we continue to subscribe to the objective of getting more people into employment and keeping them there. The Council adopted this objective last year in the Employment Policy Guidelines for the three-year period 2005-2008⁽⁴⁾. Guideline 18, in particular, calls on all Member States to:

– reduce youth unemployment,

– take measures to increase female participation and reduce gender gaps in employment and pay,

– work towards better reconciliation of work and private life,

– support active ageing, including appropriate working conditions for older workers, and discourage early retirement.

On 25 January 2006, the Commission submitted the progress report on the Lisbon Strategy, which also incorporated a draft of the Joint Employment Report. This report shows that the individual Member States, like the European Union as a whole, have adopted the right approach: for example, all the national reform programmes emphasise efforts to get more people into employment and keep them there. Special efforts are being made to improve the employment situation of women, older workers, young people and the disabled.

The Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) and the Commission will finalise the Joint Employment Report. The Austrian Presidency will try to ensure that the key messages of the Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) to the European Council in March 2006 also take up the principal theme of 'Flexicurity - flexibility through security' and - in the context of the demographic challenges which face us - devote special attention to improving the entry of young people into the labour market. On the basis of the report submitted to it, the European Council will draw its conclusion concerning the first year of the renewed Lisbon Strategy in the field of employment.

Combating social exclusion

As the honourable Member is undoubtedly aware, the Social Protection Committee is currently drafting the second joint report by the Commission and the Council on social protection and social inclusion, so that it can be adopted at the March meeting of the Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) and submitted to the European Council at its Spring Summit. In this connection it will be for the Social Policy Committee and the Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Protection) to make a political assessment of the national action plans to combat social exclusion.

This second joint report should assign due weight to the tasks which were defined at the informal summit at Hampton Court and which are derived from the review of the Lisbon Strategy in the spring of 2005. The report will therefore be based on the thesis that the interaction between the open method of coordination and the revised Lisbon Process should be reciprocal: social protection and social inclusion should promote the attainment of the growth and employment objectives, and the policy for growth and employment should yield social benefits. The joint report will be based on the plans and political declarations submitted by the Member States during 2005 concerning the three fields of policy 'social inclusion', 'pensions' and 'health and long-term care'.

Conclusion

The Austrian Presidency, for its part, will ensure that the most important results of the Joint Employment Report and of the Second Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion are duly taken into account in the key political recommendations on employment and social policy to be submitted to the European Council at its Spring Summit.

In the context of both the Lisbon strategy and the adoption of the European Youth Pact by EU Heads of State in March 2005, can the Council state what measures it is implementing to reduce the youth unemployment rate in Europe, which is presently running at twice the overall unemployment rate in Europe ?

(DE)On 25 January 2006 the Commission presented the first annual progress report in accordance with the revamped Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment. The contents, particularly the draft report on employment, will be discussed in the Council (employment, social policy, health and consumer protection) on 10 March and subsequently at the European Council's spring meeting on 23 to 24 March.

The national reform programmes attach particular importance to combating youth unemployment and integrating young people in the labour market. Most Member States give special emphasis to this target group in their national reform programmes.

In the national reform programmes, Member States focus particularly on increasing employment opportunities by combining training and work and thus increasing the employment rate. Greater coordination between education, training, mobility, employment and integration policy will facilitate the transition from school to working life. Training systems are to be modernized and better adapted to the requirements of the economy, and entrepreneurship is to be promoted. Since youth unemployment is closely linked to failure at school, the proportion of young people who complete their secondary education or complete a university education (more rapidly) is to be increased. Subsequently efforts will be concentrated on pursuing an active labour market policy and improving the quality of vocational further training.

A number of Member States have specifically set national targets for 2010 for reducing the school dropout rate and increasing the proportion of young people who complete their secondary education. A large proportion of the additional targets in the employment sector are specifically concerned with reducing youth unemployment.

In areas in which some Member States have already implemented interesting and successful policies, it is intended to exploit the potential that exists there, to learn from one another and to adapt and/or adopt measures.

The Lisbon Strategy's 'European Pact for Youth' is intended to improve general education and vocational training, mobility and professional and social integration of young people and, at the same time, to make it easier to meet the conflicting requirements of professional and family life. This Pact is intended to ensure the proper coordination of all initiatives by involving youth organisations at all levels.

The Pact sets targets in the fields of employment, integration and upward social mobility; general education and vocational training, mobility and the compatibility of professional and family life (see annex). The reactions of most Member States in their national reform programmes are reassuring, according to the Commission.

An important new target in the progress report is to ensure that all young job seekers are given a job, or an apprenticeship, or a place in a training or similar employment measure.:

- within six months/by 2007;

- within 100 days of completing school or university/by 2010.

Enterprises are to be given financial and other incentives to offer for students and unemployed young people work experience.

From 28 to 31 May 2006 a 'Youth Event' is being organised in Vienna and Bad Ischl at the invitation of the BMSG as part of the Austrian Presidency of the EU. There will be a special workshop on 'Youth and Jobs'. The following employment policy issues, inter alia, will be discussed there: youth unemployment and measures to combat it, labour market policy vs. employment policy and work life balance.

How does the Council assess the outcome of the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong?

(DE)From the beginning to the end of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, the Council presided over in-depth discussions of the most important issues, which were the focus of the deliberations with a view to composing a draft ministerial statement.

The Council observed and evaluated the progress of the negotiations on the basis of reports from Commissioners Mandelson and Fischer Boel. At various stages of the negotiations, the Council expressed its unreserved support for the Commission’s approach and actions.

At its last meeting, on 18 December 2005, the Council examined the final wording of the draft WTO Ministerial Statement that had emerged from the negotiating process. The Council informed Commissioners Mandelson and Fischer Boel that, in its estimation, despite certain defects and the lack of sufficient real progress on certain points, the outcome was generally acceptable. It accordingly approved the wording of the statement and noted the Commission’s intention to inform the final session of the conference that the European Community and its Member States approved the statement.

The Council underlined the EU’s determination to further pursue all its objectives in order that, in the next stages of the negotiations in the coming year, it might be possible to achieve far-reaching results that would be satisfactory to all parties.

The Council noted the Commission’s intention to state, at the meeting of the heads of delegations,

how important it would be for the EU to ensure, in the remaining stages of the negotiations, that non-agricultural products would be treated, for the purposes of market access, in the same way as agriculture;

that, in the Commission’s view, the text did not run counter to the EU’s desire that the abolition of agricultural subsidies should be given a monetary value;

how important it would be to the EU that an acceptable result be achieved on non-trade issues, including geographical indications.

The Council furthermore took note of the Commission’s statement to the effect that the progressive abolition of export subsidies should be fully consonant with the agreed reforms to the common agricultural policy.

The Council has taken note of the European Parliament’s debate of 16 January 2006 on the WTO Ministerial Conference and of the statements made by Commissioner Mandelson on that occasion. The Council looks forward with great interest to the evaluation of the results of Hong Kong that Parliament is to present before the end of April 2006.

At its meeting on 23 January 2006, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council discussed the agricultural aspects of the Hong Kong Conference, which were then examined in more general terms at the 30/31 January meeting of the General and Foreign Affairs Council, which had been preceded by an exchange of views between trade ministers on Sunday 29 January.

The Council will continue to closely monitor the further progress of the negotiations following the Hong Kong Ministerial Statement.

What practical measures in the sphere of employment law is the Austrian Presidency supporting with a view to implementing the 'flexicurity' strategy?

(DE)The flexicurity approach is founded on the idea that the creation and maintenance of adequate social security apparatus is an indispensable requirement in terms of the development of flexibility and competitiveness, and the concern is not only with supporting the unemployed until they find another job. It is rather more about making available the facilities and programmes to ensure that, when people’s employment circumstances change, and in such ‘transitional stages’ as training and parental leave, they suffer no disadvantages and are offered pro-active support.

One example drawn from the European level is the Commission’s current proposal for portable supplementary pension entitlements, which operates on the ‘rucksack principle’. The object of this is to reduce obstacles to freedom of movement between and within the Member States in so far as they affect occupational pensions credits. When a worker moves from one job to another within one Member State, or where that new job involves him or her moving to another Member State, it is intended that he or she should, as a matter of principle, have the choice as to whether to leave their entitlements in the previous system – putting them on ice, so to speak – or to transfer the entitlements into the new one.

An example at Member State level is the introduction of modern, market-oriented forms of labour law in the formerly Communist new Member States. The establishment of unemployment support and of statutory pension schemes played an important part in creating the conditions for the market economy in that they enabled workers to move out of the big state concerns that had hitherto provided most social security benefits.

Another example is the Austrian creation, in 2002, of occupational severance pay and pensions funds (2002), which made employment much more flexible but no less secure. Before the reform, workers were responsible for their own severance payments, a requirement founded on the presupposition that employment would be for many years or indeed lifelong. This obligation was transferred to independent employee welfare funds, to which employers make monthly contributions. The consequence of this was that employees would be entitled to severance pay irrespective of any change of employer, while, at the same time, employers would be able to divide up their severance benefits regularly over a period of time and thereby have a better idea of their financial position.

The Employment Committee (EMCO), too, considered the topic of “Flexicurity – Flexibility through Security" when it met in Bad Ischl on 9 February. At this meeting, various case studies were presented from Austria, Poland and Norway, and it was agreed that the specific situation in each country was crucial in determining not only the practical aspects of the introduction of flexicurity-oriented measures but also the costs involved.

The committee also welcomed what the Commission had to say about flexicurity in its country-by-country progress report. As well as including flexicurity in the draft Key Issues Paper for the forthcoming Employment and Social Affairs Council, the Committee will be setting up a smaller group of experts under Danish chairmanship. This group will produce a working paper, on whose conclusions the Employment and Social Affairs Council in June will draw.

We expect the Green Paper on developments in labour law, which the Commission has announced and which is due to appear before the end of the Austrian Presidency, to trigger general discussion of current trends in the development of new work structures and the demands these will make of labour law at both the national and European level. It is intended that not only the European institutions and the Member States should engage in this discussion, but also and in particular the social partners at national and European level.

It follows that it is, at this stage, still premature to think in terms of specific legislative action, which can in any case be embarked on only as and when the Commission has presented the relevant proposals. The Commission will no doubt wish, in the first instance, to await the outcome of consultations on the subject of the forthcoming Green Paper before deciding whether actual legislation should form part of any future initiatives.

Can the European Council make a statement as to the progress that is being made to implement a Single Payments Area within the European Union, as this would result in the provision of better banking services of a cross-border nature to the consumers of Europe?

(DE)On 1 December 2005 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on payment services in the internal market. This proposal is currently being examined in the Council’s working party on financial services. The Presidency will do its utmost to achieve agreement between ECOFIN and the European Parliament so that the directive can be adopted as quickly as possible under the codecision procedure.

This directive on financial services in the internal market will raise the ‘level playing field’ for providers of financial services and, in addition, guarantee equal market access, as well as modernising and promoting payment transaction infrastructures. Early agreement would therefore be welcomed, so that the objective of boosting competition in the payment services sector can soon be achieved.

Can the European Council make a statement as to whether it supports the continuation of the Interreg programme in the context of the budgetary framework 2007-2013, in light of the fact that this initiative successfully promotes cross border economic and social development in Europe ?

(DE)At its meeting of 15 and 16 December 2005, the European Council agreed to maintain measures to support crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation in the forthcoming programming period (2007 to 2013), under the objective of 'territorial cooperation'. Approximately 2.4% of the overall cohesion policy budget was allocated to this objective.

However, the Council and Parliament still need to discuss the regulations applicable to this form of cooperation and reach an agreement, particularly with regard to the general regulation and the regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

How long does the Council think that financial support will be provided to EU regions that are wealthy but come inside special geographical categories, such as the mountain areas of Austria?

(DE)Although the European Council, at its meeting on 15-16 December 2005, came to an agreement on the financial framework for the period from 2007 to 2013, including expenditure on the Cohesion Policy, the inter-institutional agreement on the financial perspective has not been concluded, since this can be done only following negotiations with the European Parliament.

The arrangements specific to the areas with major geographical or natural handicaps will be the subject of regulations on the Cohesion policy, which are currently the subject of negotiations in which the European Parliament is deeply involved.

At the present time, therefore, the Council is unable to give any indication as to the details of how the regions in special geographical categories, to which the question refers, will be dealt with.

Following the build-up of facts and accusations relating to the activities of the USA's security services, and particularly the CIA, including the transport, kidnapping and illegal holding of citizens, particularly in European countries, and their subsequent subjection to the most inhuman isolation, cruel treatment and torture, and considering that the situation is one which needs to be resolutely denounced and condemned; given that this appalling violation of international law and the Convention Against Torture forms part of a systematic policy of illegal activity carried out by the US authorities, who, under the cloak of the so-called 'war on terror' disregard the UN Charter and international law,

what efforts has the Council made and what initiatives has it taken to ascertain the whole truth in this matter, and what measures have been taken so as to prevent such criminal activities continuing in the future?

(DE)On 21 November, the General Affairs and Foreign Relations Council considered the issue of media reports on breaches of international law by the United States, involving the alleged imprisonment of suspected terrorists in EU Member States or, as the case may be, their alleged transfer through EU Member States. It was decided that the Presidency would ask the United States to clarify the content of these media reports, and Mr Straw, the UK Foreign Secretary, did so in a letter on 29 November 2005 to the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who then made public statements relating to this issue.

Freedom, democracy, respect for human and fundamental rights and the rule of law are values held in common by all the Member States, and it is on fundamental rights, and the EU’s adherence to them, that Community law is founded. In its political dialogue with third countries, the Council avails itself of every opportunity to address human rights issues, and it does so at all levels, and on a regular basis, with the United States.

In view of the Council´s commitment to promoting peace and reconciliation through its support for the International Fund for Ireland, restated at the European Council meeting of 15-16 December 2005, and given the recommendation by Judge Cory, who examined six cases of alleged State collusion in murders carried out in Northern Ireland, that an independent public inquiry into the matter be established, is the Council satisfied that the UK Government´s Inquiries Act 2005 will provide for such an inquiry?

(DE)The International Fund for Ireland was set up by the Irish and United Kingdom Governments in 1986 as an independent international organisation. The object of this fund is promote economic and social progress, as well as to support contacts, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland. The EU makes contributions to this fund.

At its meeting of 15-16 December 2005 the European Council noted the important work done by the International Fund for Ireland in promoting peace and reconciliation. It called on the Commission to take the necessary steps to continue the EU’s support for the fund, since it is now about to enter the decisive phase of its activity up to 2010.

The specific cases raised by the MEP are not a matter for the Council.

On Monday 12 December 2005, the Council stopped the publication of a report on the situation in East Jerusalem. The report had been requested by the Commission and proved to be very critical of Israel, particularly in regard to settlers' activities and the construction of the security barrier. The decision not to publish the report was welcomed by Israeli diplomats, who have been lobbying intensely against the report in recent weeks in Brussels. They have declared the report to be 'very unpleasant' and say that it threatens to exacerbate relations between Israel and the EU.

The decision not to publish the report was taken by the EU's Foreign Ministers with Jack Straw as chairman. One of those sharply criticising the report is the UK Member of Parliament Phyllis Starkey, who is chair of the Labour Middle East Council.

To withhold and keep secret such a document obviously raises questions and concerns.

Can the Council explain why the decision was taken not to publish the report and whether it was taken in consideration of the interests of the State of Israel?

(DE)The EU continues to be concerned about the situation in East Jerusalem, which the EU foreign ministers discussed at their meetings on 21 November and 12 December 2005.

At their meeting on 12 December, the EU ministers, considering the change in the situation in Israel and in the occupied territories, as well as the forthcoming elections on both sides, resolved that publication of the report would be counter-productive. Issues relating to East Jerusalem will continue to have priority for the EU in its dealings with the Israeli authorities at all levels.

European pre-standard ENV 14383-2 (Prevention of crime. Urban planning and design) is a pre-standard of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). The pre-standard contains details of urban planning measures in support of a strategy to prevent crime and combat the public’s sense of insecurity. The European institutions have no legal competence in the area of urban development. Instead, measures such as this can be implemented in a better and more targeted fashion at regional or municipal level. In Germany, therefore, the ministries responsible, as well as the relevant umbrella organisations, reject this pre-standard.

To what extent are the Council or the relevant Council working parties involved in the work on the pre-standard, and what is the position of the members of the Council on its content?

(DE)Since the Council played no part in the work on the pre-standard, it is unable to give the honourable Member information concerning the Member States’ positions on its content.

In no EU Member State do women constitute fewer than 50 % of the population. The Austrian Presidency has identified women’s health as a priority, in connection with the problem of Europe’s ageing population. Women’s health, and reproductive health in particular, are therefore an integral part of the Lisbon strategy.

Taking into account the principle of subsidiarity, what steps does the Austrian Presidency intend to take towards improving women’s health in the EU-25, with specific emphasis on the field of gynaecology and obstetrics, for example premature births, miscarriages, infertility, the menopause and cancer prevention?

(DE)The Council wishes to thank the honourable Member for bringing this important issue to its attention.

The Treaty requires that the ultimate goal of all health-related activities should be the improvement of the health of the European public. Women’s health, which includes their reproductive health, is vitally important to the welfare of people in the EU and is also significant in view of Europe’s ageing population and of the falling fertility rates. The Austrian Presidency therefore regards it one of its priorities that this issue should be given greater prominence at European level.

Issues relating to women’s health, notably cardiovascular diseases and the increased incidence of lung cancer consequent upon a rise in the numbers of women who smoke will therefore be key points in the discussions at the informal meeting of EU health ministers in April, which will also give particular attention to such diseases as endometriosis and osteoporosis.

The Austrian Presidency intends to present the Council’s June meeting with draft conclusions on women’s health, in which the Commission will be asked to produce a report on the situation as regards women’s health in the EU of 25 and to attach greater importance to the gender dimension in health policy.

At its June meeting, the Council will also consider the proposal for a European Parliament and Council resolution in favour of a Community action programme on health and consumer protection, which is also relevant to women’s health. The Presidency will therefore endeavour to reach political agreement on this important proposal, although this will be dependent on the outcome of the European Parliament’s vote, on the negotiations on the 2007-2013 financial framework and on the timetable envisaged for this.

Following a statement by Amnesty International⁽¹⁾ concerning the death in prison of Dhabihullah Mahrami, a Baha'i prisoner of conscience, the NGO Compass Direct has publicly revealed the facts of the murder of Gabor Dordi Tourani.

These cases are but two among countless instances of persecution of religious dissidents. Another is that of the trial and sentencing of Colonel Hamid Pourmand (see questions P-0400/05, E-1044/2005 and P-1466/2005) for supposedly converting to Catholicism.

The case of Gabor Tourani is especially shocking, by reason of the macabre details surrounding his death. He was kidnapped and stabbed to death, and his body was deposited at his house door. According to Compass Direct⁽²⁾, the Iranian secret police also carried out several searches with the objective of confiscating religious material and arresting or threatening his landlord's family.

By what means will the Council protest to the Iranian Government over the intensification of religious persecution in Iran?

(DE)The EU regards the treatment of religious minorities in Iran with grave concern. There will be no progress in relations between the EU and Iran without greater respect for human rights.

The EU raises the issue of discrimination on religious grounds not only in international fora, but also in its dealings with the Iranian Government.

The EU endorsed last December’s resolution of the UN General Assembly on the human rights situation in Iran, which expressed grave concern over the ongoing discrimination against religious minorities, and called on Iran to desist from all types of discrimination against members of religious minorities, and from other violations of their human rights.

The EU also raises these and other human rights issues directly with the Iranian Government. In January, the EU lodged a complaint with Tehran on behalf of Dhabihullah Mahrami and Ghorban Tori ⁽³⁾. The Iranian Government agreed to comply with this request and to supply the EU with the information requested. The EU also expressed its concerns about the Mahrami case in the course of the EU/Iran human rights dialogue.

The human rights dialogue between the EU and Iran dates back to 2002; the last meeting was held in the summer of 2004, since when, despite repeated attempts, the EU has not been able to arrange another meeting. The EU has called on Iran to demonstrate its respect for human rights and its commitment to dialogue with the EU. Despite the lack of any visible positive commitment on Iran’s part, the EU is still willing to engage in discussions with it on human rights, not least as part of the process of dialogue.

The Lisbon Strategy commits the Member States to invest 1% of their GNI per year in public research.

Given that, according to the Commission’s answer to Question P-3230/05, statistics indicate that between 1999 and 2003 - the most recent year available - the level of R&D investment as a percentage of GDP did not increase substantially in the EU, but, rather, virtually stagnated, what is the Council planning to do to ensure that Member States abide by their commitment?

(DE)Following the introduction of the revived Lisbon strategy and of a new system of administration, in 2005, the Member States were urged to include in their national reform programmes (NRPs) quantitative targets for expenditure on research.

In the first NRP, which was submitted to the Commission at the end of 2005, 18 Member States set themselves quantifiable targets. None of these have achieved the expenditure target set for 2010, namely 3% of GDP, two-thirds of which, it should be noted, is meant to be funded by the private business sector, although it must be stressed that the targets set by the Member States correspond to an increase in (public and private) research expenditure to 2.6% of GDP by 2010 – a marked improvement over the present state of affairs, which the honourable Member rightly described as amounting to virtual stagnation (with current research spending amounting on average to 1.9% of GDP, 55% of it coming from business and industry). ⁽¹⁾

Encouraging though the political will expressed in these quantified targets certainly is, the target aimed for is still rather less than the 3% set by the European Council at its meeting in Barcelona in 2002.

The Presidency will therefore constantly reiterate the importance of the shared Barcelona target, which will be crucial in enabling us to achieve the necessary edge over our competitors, although it is of course left to the individual Member States to take the necessary action to get more funding made available for research and development.

We are working continually towards this goal by means of the open coordination procedure, which is the only means available at Community level for encouraging the Member States to redouble their efforts in this area.

The Presidency has included among its priorities the continuation of talks to adopt common rules on the coexistence of GMOs with other forms of agricultural production. The Presidency is also aware of the demands of consumers, environmental organisations and producers, which have tended towards national preferences for organic and certified products. The present directive on GMOs and the Commission's approach to its administration is impeding the implementation of such policies, which has economic - and other - repercussions for the Member States, such as evidence of the effects of the coexistence of GMOs with conventional or organic crops and compensation for producers in the event of contamination. Furthermore, it has also been pointed out that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) bases its assessments solely on laboratory criteria, which are often far removed from reality.

Will the Presidency take the above considerations into account in order to improve the method of taking decisions at Community level and avoid implementing the current system across the board?

Will the Council change the manner in which the EFSA makes its risk assessments and, at the same time, strengthen its role?

(DE)I am very glad that the honourable Member has put this question, which perfectly reflects the concerns of the Austrian Presidency. Parliament’s support will be of great value to the Presidency in its efforts to introduce a Community-wide policy on GMOs that will be guided by the public’s expectations and concerns while also taking full account of the need for health and the environment to be protected.

As the honourable Member has emphasised, GMOs raise a whole range of issues around their long-term effects on health and the environment, and it is also to be borne in mind that (following a highly favourable assessment by the EFSA), the Commission is set to approve a number of GMOs despite the frequent votes by simple majority of the Member States in the Council against such approval.

The Environment Council will be having an in-depth discussion of this problem on 9 March 2006, in which issues of how to improve the assessment of GMOs’ safety, and also greater transparency in the approval procedure, will be considered.

The other important problem thrown up by GMOs is that of how they are to coexist with conventional and organic crops, that is to say, how to put in place more effective protection of conventional and organic crops against unintentional contamination by GMOs.

I can confirm to you that a conference prepared by the Commission will be held in the Austrian capital at the beginning of April and that what emerges from it will be taken as the basis for in-depth discussion at Council level in May, when the Council will – or so I hope – produce conclusions or recommendations concerning the introduction of common mandatory rules for coexistence with GMOs. This would be a way of avoiding the adverse effects of which the honourable Member was so rightly critical.

Finally, I would like to point out that the Austrian Presidency is planning to hold a scientific conference on the precautionary principle in GMO policy, to be held in Vienna on 18 and 19 April.

I can therefore assure the honourable Member that the Presidency will do its utmost to address the issues relating to GMOs that she has raised.

The Czech Government is intervening arbitrarily in the affairs of the Czech Communist Youth Union (KSM) and threatening to close it down with the aim of controlling the youth movement in the Czech Republic. This crude and provocative intervention by the Czech Government in the affairs of the KSM is a response to the ideological and political positions of the organisation and the broad support it enjoys among young people. The attack on the KSM essentially extends to the Communist party of Bohemia and Moravia which is very active politically and has 6 MEPs. These actions form part of a growing anti-Communist campaign which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of peoples.

What measures does the Council intend to take to ensure that the Czech Communist Youth Union can continue to function and, more generally, that Czech youth continues to enjoy basic democratic freedoms?

(DE)The European Union’s institutions not being competent to deal with these matters, the Council has never discussed this issue.

In Greece, as well as in other EU countries, the fruit and vegetable sector is very important for agriculture. Over the last few years this sensitive sector of agricultural production has been seriously affected by the EU's preferential agreements with third countries. As a result, it is becoming increasingly uncompetitive. It therefore needs Community protection if it is to survive, especially in EU regions where it is the only area of activity of the agricultural population.

Will the Commission set a timetable for reviewing the COM in fruit and vegetables? Is it likely to be radical, or does it agree that it should be restricted to ad hoc improvements, as the most important producer Member States demand?

Does it intend to include in its proposals specific new measures for a European strategy aimed at more effectively promoting European fruit and vegetables by launching advertising campaigns, conducting market research and setting up commercial networks for Community fruit and vegetables?

Does it intend seriously to consider the positions and observations of the European Parliament or will we see a repeat of what happened with the review of the COM in sugar when Parliament was ostentatiously ignored?

(EN)The Commission’s Working Program for 2006 includes the presentation of the Reform of the Common Organization of the Markets in fresh and processed fruit and vegetables products during the second half of 2006.

Further to the Dutch Presidency Conclusions (November 2004), the Commission is respecting its commitments regarding the impact assessment and the evaluations on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) before presenting legislative proposals.

At present, evaluations on the CMO are being carried out by an external consultant. At the same time, the impact assessment study on the different options for the reform is also being prepared by an inter-services group inside the Commission. The final outcomes of both studies are expected to be ready at the end of the first semester 2006.

Once the Commission adopts draft legislative proposals, the Parliament will have the opportunity to issue its opinion on the proposed reform. The Commission will take into consideration the positions and observations of the Parliament, as it has done on past reforms, including the recent Sugar Reform that was not only built on the basis of a restructuring Fund originally proposed by the Parliament, but which also bears a number of concrete examples of the Parliament’s influence.

In its programme of work for 2006, the Commission has included, as promised, the presentation of its proposal for the reform of the fruit and vegetables regulation.

Can the Commission state when it intends to present this proposal? Can it supply advance information on the initial conclusions it is in process of reaching while drawing up the impact assessments?

(EN)The Commission’s Working Program for 2006 includes the presentation of the reform of the Common Markets’ Organization (COM) in fresh and processed fruit and vegetables products in the second semester of 2006.

At present, evaluations on the COM are being carried out by an external consultant. At the same time, the impact assessment study on the different options for the reform is also being prepared by an inter-services group inside the Commission.

As regards evaluations, the outcome of these studies will be ready by the end of the first semester of 2006. The Commission will publish them on its web site.

Concerning the impact assessment, a document on the analysis of the different options to reform the fruit and vegetables Common Market Organization will be attached to the legislative proposals.

Taking into account the above, the Commission considers that it is too early to make any comment about the content of the future proposals.

Paragraph 80 of the compromise on the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 states: 'The European Council therefore invites the Commission to undertake a full, wide ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the CAP, and of resources, including the UK rebate, to report in 2008/2009. On the basis of such a review, the European Council can take decisions on all the subjects covered by the review. The review will also be taken into account in the preparatory work on the following Financial Perspective.'

Does the Commission consider that the above wording implies a revision of agricultural policy, in particular the method and level of funding for the CAP, which may also take place before 2013?

(EN)In 2003, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was the object of a major reform. The new single payment scheme has since been extended to include the majority of the CAP market sectors, with the notable exception of the wine, bananas and fruit and vegetables sectors, which are up for their own review in 2006/2007.

Though the reform included review clauses for the new instruments, and certain market sectors, in the period 2007-2010, the 2003 Reform was agreed in accordance with the conclusions of the Berlin, Göteborg and Brussels Summits, within an agriculture budgetary framework for the enlarged EU, set at the time until 2013.

The honourable Member is correct in stating that, in December 2005, the European Council reached a political agreement on the 2007-2013 financial perspectives, which requests the Commission to make "a full wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the CAP, and of resources, including the United Kingdom rebate, to report in 2008/2009”.

However, the 2007-2013 financial perspectives are currently the object of trialogue discussions between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Consequently, until the wording of the final decision is known, the Commission is not yet in a position to comment on what implications the agreement may have for the method and level of funding of the CAP. The ceiling agreed in Brussels in 2002 will be respected up to 2013.

Could the Commission outline its view of the future of agriculture and rural development in light of the recent proposal from Member States on the financial perspectives, in particular the proposal to allow Member States to transfer up to 20 per cent of the Single Farm Payment to rural development.

As this 20 per cent can be used in whatever way a Member State see fit, does the Commission have concerns that this approach signifies the beginning of the end of a common approach to agricultural policy in the EU and as such is inappropriate and should be resisted?

(EN)Reply to oral question

H-0033/06

by Ms McGuinness

February II 2006

The agreement reached by the Heads of Government in December 2005 offers clarity on the financial resources available for farmers and rural communities. It respects the agreement made in Brussels in 2002 concerning expenditure for direct payments and expenditure. However, all market and direct aid expenditure related to the enlargement with Bulgaria and Romania will have to be financed within the ceiling for EU-25. This increases the probability that financial discipline will have to be applied and lead to a limited reduction of direct incomes support payments for farmers in the old Member States.

As regards rural development, the amount agreed by the Heads of Government is less than the amount proposed by the Commission and also smaller than the amount available in the current period. This can of course affect our ability to meet the challenges facing rural areas, particularly in the context of ongoing Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, the Lisbon agenda or Natura 2000.

However, what is important now is to start the programming of rural development for the new period. The Parliament opinion on the Rural Development Strategic Guidelines to be adopted during this session will therefore be a very important step forward.

Voluntary modulation, shifting funds from direct payments to rural development, was introduced for the first time in Agenda 2000, which allowed Member States to transfer up to 20% of their direct payments on a voluntary basis. Very few Member States made use of this possibility and it was replaced by an EU wide compulsory modulation system during the 2003 CAP reform based on a franchise of € 5000. It is the Commission’s view that this system is a fairer, more coherent and more effective way of achieving this shift.

In the Commission’s view the proposed system of voluntary modulation, presents a number of technical difficulties. The application of modulation on market related expenditure seems technically impossible. The lack of a cofinancing obligation will reduce the overall financial effort devoted to rural areas, while the derogation from the rule that expenditure should be balanced between objectives may undermine the contribution to certain EU priorities. In all cases, the system should be established in a manner which does not cause delays in the agreement of programmes, particularly for those Member States which do not wish to make use of the system.

If the system were adopted in its current form, it would be appropriate to review its functioning within the general review of the Community Budget foreseen for 2008/2009. In particular because it would be very difficult to go ahead with further compulsory modulation, as previously suggested by the Commission, if voluntary modulation will be applied.

Regulation (EEC) 2081/92⁽¹⁾ on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and proposals for regulations COM/2005/0694 final and COM/2005/0698 final which amends it have a clear international dimension as regards supporting such products on the market. However, the negative experience of many years of intracommunity controversies concerning the exclusive right to use PDOs (protected designations of origin) and PGIs (protected geographical indications), as in the case of the Greek Feta cheese for example, show that the substantial competitive advantage conferred by such a guarantee on a product internationally is being eroded. Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to ensure that such designations are not in future the subject of lengthy bureaucratic and judicial disputes between EU Member States? Does it intend to propose specific mechanisms for providing moral and material compensation for damages incurred by the producers of products, the validity of whose designation and the procedure on which this designation is based are called into question?

(EN)Feta, a Greek Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) for a cheese, was finally registered by the Commission in 2002. Several Member States applied for annulment of the registration under Article 230 of the Treaty. In its judgment on 25 October 2005 the Court of Justice upheld the name “Feta” as a protected designation of origin for Greece. This subject is now resolved and the result is legal certainty for producers and consumers concerning the protection of Feta as a PDO.

The Commission understands the honourable Member’s concerns about a lengthy legal procedure and the inconvenience and cost that can result. However, the right to bring a case before the Community Courts is enshrined in the Treaty. The Commission has no intention of compensating operators for costs resulting from this type of legal action.

However, with the proposal to modify Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 the Commission seeks to streamline and clarify the registration procedure and this may have the effect of reducing the room for legal disputes.

In light of EU sugar reform, could the Commission outline its views in relation to the promotion of energy crops or biofuels to provide an alternative crop for farmers, and any financial incentives which could assist farmers in this transition?

(EN)The promotion of energy crops and biofuels to provide for alternative crops for farmers is a topic receiving the greatest attention from the Commission.

In the general context of EU Policy on renewable energies, on 8th February 2006 the Commission adopted “An EU Strategy for Biofuels”, which builds on last year’s Biomass Action Plan. The Biofuels Strategy will focus specifically on how we can help develop the production of feedstocks and promote the use of biofuels for transport.

With regard to the EU sugar sector in particular, developments taking place in biofuels represent an interesting opportunity.

The recently agreed reform of the EU sugar regime, which brings the sugar sector into line with the 2003 reform process, through the introduction of the “decoupled” single payment, will improve market orientation and boost competitiveness. In this context, since there will be no quota restriction on sugar beet grown for bioethanol, the growing of non-food crops for biofuels represents a real possibility for sugar beet farmers.

Furthermore, before the end of 2006, the Commission will come forward with a report on the implementation of the energy crops scheme and if appropriate concrete measures to encourage the cultivation of energy crops. The Commission intends to amend the relevant regulation to allow sugar beet to qualify for set-aside payments, when cultivated as a non-food crop, and to make sugar beet eligible for the energy crop aid of € 45/ha provided under the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reform.

There are errors in the proposal for a regulation on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, namely the imprecise definition of the alcoholic drink vodka and its incorrect classification under category B. It should be listed under category A.

Does the Commission intend to take steps to rectify the above errors?

(EN)The "Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks" adopted by the Commission on 15 December 2005 foresees a classification of spirit drinks into three categories, “spirits”, “specific spirit drinks” and “other spirit drinks”.

This classification is proposed for systemic reasons and is based on objective criteria such as direct alcoholic fermentation and distillation, the use of ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, and the use of flavouring and sweetening substances.

Products containing ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin are considered as “specific spirit drinks” and the different products falling into this category are clearly defined in Annex II of the proposal.

Vodka is classified in Category B “specific spirit drink” as it is entirely based on ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin. The Commission therefore does not consider that there is any error that needs to be rectified.

The Commission has announced that the COM in wine (the current provisions of which are supposed to apply until 2010) is to be reformed this year and it is apparently also considering the possibility of simplifying the agricultural-aid procedure by introducing a single scheme.

Would the Commission say in which marketing year it thinks the reform should take effect and what the likely timetable is for the presentation of the reform and the debate thereon?

Does the Commission intend to use the single scheme for the COM in wine?

(EN)The existing Common Market’s Organisation (CMO) in Wine, one of the few major agricultural sectors untouched by the 2003-2005 CAP⁽¹⁾ Reform process, should be reviewed and no doubt adapted and probably reformed to prepare the EU’s vine growers, producers and traders for the mounting competition in the new global market situation. Therefore, the process of Review and Reform of the Wine CMO has been launched.

Here is the overview of the work ahead:

The Impact Assessment work has just started. It will consist of an in depth economic analysis of the current state of play (market and CMO) and of possible changes. The Impact Assessment report will cover several options (ranging from status quo – the reference scenario – to a substantial liberalization) and their likely effects, and should be finalised by mid-2006.

Within this timetable the Commission will associate all the stakeholders of the sector with the impact assessment and analysis. One initiative will be to organise a stakeholders’ forum on 16 February 2006.

A Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament will be presented by mid-2006. Following further consultation with stakeholders including the Parliament on the basis on the Communication, an appropriate legislative proposal would follow later in 2006.

At present, it is not possible yet to indicate in which wine year the reform will be applied, as this depends on the process of negotiations of the Commission proposals.

“In its Communication on Simplification and Better Regulation for the Common Agricultural Policy of 19/10/2005⁽²⁾ the Commission envisages to table a proposal for a draft Regulation comprising the existing Common Market Organisations. In that Communication, the Commission expressed its intention to take a “step-by-step approach”⁽³⁾ and explicitly indicated that the integration of sectors which are subject to a substantive policy review in the foreseeable future such as fruit and vegetables and wine, could follow at a later stage.

At its meeting of 23 December 2005 in Brussels the EU's Management Committee for Beef and Veal decided to discontinue EU subsidies for shipments of slaughter animals with immediate effect. Does this rule apply only to shipments of slaughter animals, or to shipments of breeding animals as well? Does the decision also cover other types of animal shipment? When are the measures to come into force?

(EN)The basic regulation on the Common Market Organisation for beef and veal foresees that within the limits resulting from International Agreements, the difference between the quotations or prices of certain live bovine animals and beef products on the world market and prices in the Community market may be covered by export refunds to the extent necessary to enable their export.

These refunds can therefore not be considered subsidies for the transport of live animals.

On 23 December 2005, the Commission presented at the Beef Management Committee a draft Regulation aiming at eliminating refunds for live bovine animals for slaughter. The Commission adopted this Regulation on the same day and it was published and entered into force on the 24 December 2005.

Since then, export refunds for live cattle are therefore limited to female pure bred bovine animals of a maximum 30 months of age exported to all destinations but Romania and Bulgaria.

This decision reflects the improved situation on the EU beef market and follows growing public concern about the treatment of animals when they are shipped abroad for slaughter.

Furthermore, Regulation (EC) n° 639/03 laying down detailed rules as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport is in the process of being further reinforced. The adoption of the amended regulation is expected in the near future.

A sample taken by the European network Impel has shown that 48% of all consignments of waste departing from the EU consist of illegal waste, as revealed by customs inspections at various European ports. Will the Commission draw up a coordinated plan to provide training for customs services and cultivate their awareness of this problem? In what form will this be done? Will the Commission coordinate and finance a broader European approach? If so, when, and what means will be made available for this?

(EN)The problem of illegal waste shipments raises serious issues of environmental concern. The Commission has therefore closely monitored the results of inspections carried out by the IMPEL network⁽¹⁾. This network found in 2004 a significant rate of illegal waste shipments in a number of Member States. The results of IMPEL’s inspections were presented to national authorities at a meeting concerning implementation of waste legislation organised by the Commission in September 2004.

IMPEL’s inspections of October 2005 show that illegal waste shipments remain at a high level. The Commission met with waste shipment experts from Member States in November 2005 to deal, inter alia, with these matters. The Commission considers that efforts to increase coordination and awareness should be further intensified in order to combat illegal waste shipments. This year the Commission therefore envisages organising training for national authorities, such as customs services, aimed at raising the awareness and improving co-operation concerning the enforcement of Community legislation on waste shipments.

In the near future Community legislation on waste shipments will be strengthened when a new regulation is adopted by the Parliament and the Council and becomes applicable. This regulation will specifically address the issues of illegal shipments and gaps in enforcement. It will enhance cooperation between Member States to facilitate the prevention and detection of illegal shipments as well as rules on inspections and spot checks.

In the written answer to my oral question H-1078/05 concerning the Irish Ferries dispute and reactivation of a Ferries Directive, the European Commission said on 13 December 2005 that while no other legislative proposals were foreseen in this regard, it would 'examine all possible means of resolving the problem of employment conditions, particularly in intra-Community passenger transport, from an economic and legal standpoint'.

Can the Commission please elaborate on this planned examination and explain what steps it will take to ensure that the rights of all workers – both third country and EU nationals – are protected?

(EN)The Commission intends, on the one hand, to gather comprehensive and accurate information and statistics concerning the labour market in intracommunity regular maritime transport services and, on the other hand, to study any legal implications of the application of host state social conditions to third countries’ ships engaged in intracommunity trades.

As regards the rights of seafarers, the Commission intends to present in 2006 a Communication on maritime labour standards. This Communication will explore the integration into Community law of the Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention, to be adopted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) during the 94th Maritime Session of the International Labour Conference in Geneva (7-23 February 2006), possibly through an agreement of social partners. This Convention unites into a coherent international framework the Conventions and Recommendations on maritime labour standards that have been adopted by the ILO since 1920.

What progress has the Commission made in negotiating readmission agreements with third countries?

(EN)The Council has so far (January 2006) authorized the Commission to negotiate Community readmission agreements with 11 third countries: Morocco, Sri Lanka, Russia, Pakistan (negotiating directives received September 2000), Hong Kong and Macao (negotiating directives received May 2001), Ukraine (negotiating directives received June 2002) and Albania, Algeria, China, Turkey (negotiating directives received November 2002).

Agreements with Hong Kong, Macao and Sri Lanka have entered into force.

Negotiations with Albania and Russia have been completed. These two agreements are currently in the process of being ratified (anticipated entry into force for Albania early 2006, for Russia early 2007).

Negotiations with Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey and Ukraine are ongoing. We are hopeful that negotiations can be completed first semester of 2006 with Ukraine, Pakistan and Morocco.

Negotiations with China and Algeria have not been formally launched yet.

In view of the Council´s commitment to promoting peace and reconciliation through its support for the International Fund for Ireland, restated at the European Council meeting of 15-16 December 2005, and given the recommendation by Judge Cory, who examined six cases of alleged State collusion in murders carried out in Northern Ireland, that an independent public inquiry into the matter be established, is the Commission satisfied that the UK Government´s Inquiries Act 2005 will provide for such an inquiry?

(EN)Since the end of the 1980s, Northern Ireland has benefited from EU financial support in favour of peace and reconciliation. This is a concrete expression of EU solidarity towards the peace process established by the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

In 1989, the European Community became one of the main sources of funding for the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), an international organisation established by a treaty between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments "to promote economic and social development, and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland". The European Community currently contributes € 15 million per year to the IFI.

In addition, in 1995, the European Community set up a special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (the "PEACE Programme"), which operates in Northern Ireland and in the Border Region of Ireland. This programme aims "to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and to promote reconciliation in the region". From 2000 to date the PEACE II programme has continued work towards this objective and the European Council allocated a further € 200 million for the period 2007 to 2013.

The EU’s commitment to peace and reconciliation has therefore been amply demonstrated.

The appointment of a judge to examine past events in Northern Ireland is a decision on a sensitive matter to be taken by the Member States involved, with the benefit of their specialised knowledge of the region and of the historical background. It is a matter upon which the Commission has no power to comment and it would be inappropriate to offer an opinion on any potential future inquiry.

Organised tours of beggars from Eastern Europe are an increasing problem, as since enlargement to the East, the police are less able to take action. A check in the regional capital of Bavaria revealed that all the beggars came from the Slovakian town of Rimavska Sobota, an indication that European cities are being shared out among the Eastern European mafia. During the Football World Cup in Germany in June and July, the police expect massive, professionally-led and well-organised groups of beggars. The increasingly aggressive behaviour of beggars in underground trains and around cars stuck in traffic is particularly alarming.

To what extent is the Commission aware of this problem, and what measures are planned to deal with groups of beggars?

(EN)This issue is of obvious concern to all of Europe’s citizens, particularly in light of the forthcoming World Cup tournament in Germany this year.

Begging is an obvious social problem, with undesirable consequences for both the people who practice it as well as the people who are subject to it.

In the process of building an area of Justice, Freedom and Security, the Commission is involved in increasing coordination, cooperation and information sharing amongst Member State police forces focusing especially on organised crime. Insomuch as organised, begging constitutes criminal activity, for instance when linked with trafficking in human beings and the corresponding measures can be used. On the other hand, due to the cross-border nature of problems related to major sporting competitions such as the World Cup, there are specific measures in place where Member States’ services are collaborating to minimise crime, public disorder and violence often associated with such events.

Under the Hague Programme of 2004⁽¹⁾, the Commission has been tasked with taking forward several initiatives which are likely to be relevant to this particular issue. The specific actions to develop in this context have been detailed in the joint Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme.⁽²⁾ A key demand of the Hague Programme is that information exchange between Member State law enforcement authorities by subject to the Principle of Availability by 1st January 2008. This means, in effect, that information should move between law enforcement agencies, without the fact that it crosses national borders presenting any sort of impediment. Work is already underway on this issue, with the Commission having recently put a proposal for a Framework Decision before the Council.

General police cooperation has likewise been made a priority. On 18th July 2005 the Commission adopted a proposal on improvement of law enforcement cooperation at the internal borders between Member States, and this has been followed up by monthly meetings of the police cooperation working group.⁽³⁾ Furthermore, the European Police College has now been given the status of a body of the Union following adoption of a Commission proposal on 20th September 2005,⁽⁴⁾ which should be an important move forward in strengthening police cooperation and mutual understanding. Likewise, an exchange programme for police officers has been included as a priority in the AGIS⁽⁵⁾ programme for 2006. All of these measures will enhance the ability of national police forces to tackle cross-border crime more effectively.

Insomuch as these gangs of beggars appear to be organised, the Commission is developing a specific strategy on organised crime at an EU level, and indeed a Communication on this subject was recently presented.⁽⁶⁾ Key objectives are to improve knowledge of the phenomenon and to strengthen prevention, investigation and cooperation on organised crime in the EU. The strategy is also to involve the intensification of cooperation with third countries and international organisations such as Interpol and Europol.

The honourable Member understandably voices particular concern in relation to the forthcoming World Cup being held in Germany later in the year. In addition to the initiatives outlined above, the Commission actively supports the development of improved crime prevention and control initiatives for international sporting events, and football events in particular. A key area of concentration has been on the exchange of experience between EU Member States in order to establish common standards of safety and public order. In particular, there is Council Resolution of 6th December 2001⁽⁷⁾, concerning a handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation, and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved. In addition, a Council Working Group deals with aspects of violence occurring at sporting events and at football matches in particular.

The Commission has developed, and is indeed in the process of developing initiatives that should do much to enhance the ability of national police forces to tackle cross border activities with a criminal element.

What view does the Commission take of the ethical concerns felt in many Member States about the use of EU funding to promote research into embryonic stem-cells, and what does it think of the proposal to give more encouragement to research using adult stem-cells instead?

(EN)The Commission respects the ethical concerns expressed by many Member States. The Commission’s proposals for the 7th EU R&D Framework Programme (FP7) clearly state that research activities funded should respect fundamental ethical principles, including those reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Account will be taken of the Opinions of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies.

In the FP6, any funding decision regarding human embryonic stem cell research is based on a thorough evaluation of the scientific excellence⁽¹⁾ and European added value of the R&D proposal, a strict double ethical review at national and EU level, and the approval of a Regulatory Committee representing all 25 Member States.

The EU is to a large extent funding research in adult stem cells. Today, only 6 funded projects of the FP6 have a research component dealing with human embryonic stem cells, whereas more than 60 funded projects deal with adult stem cells (i.e. more than 90% of all EU funded stem cell research projects).

However, the FP7 proposals do not pre-empt possible amendments in the further legislative procedure and following open debates at Parliament and Council level.

On 29 July 2005, Turkey signed an additional protocol extending the customs union between the EC and Turkey to the ten new Member States. At the same time, Turkey issued a declaration stating that this protocol did not imply any recognition of Cyprus. On 21 September 2005, the EU issued a kind of counter-declaration stating that Turkey's declaration had been unilateral, did not form part of the protocol and did not affect Turkey's obligations under the protocol (Commission, Progress Report on Turkey, SEC(2005)1426, 9 November 2005, p. 40).

In December 2005, the Turkish Government formally stated that Turkey would not open its ports and airports to vessels and aircraft registered in Cyprus. In its progress report of November 2005, the Commission stated that this constituted a violation of the principle of the free movement of goods (p. 56).

A Commission source has said that, at the beginning of each chapter, the Commission will lay down clear conditions. In connection with previous enlargements, this strategy was employed very exceptionally.

When does the Commission expect the negotiations on the chapter concerning free movement of goods to begin? Will the Commission make it a condition for the opening of these negotiations that Ankara should lift its ban on vessels and aircraft registered in Cyprus?

(EN)It is not possible at this stage to predict when accession negotiations with Turkey on the specific chapter concerning free movement of goods will begin. The screening of this chapter is scheduled to be completed during the first quarter of 2006; subsequently, the Commission will report on the results of this exercise to Member States.

As for all chapters, the screening report will include a recommendation as to whether the chapter is ready to be opened for negotiation. If the Commission considers that negotiations should not begin on a given chapter, it may propose benchmarks to be met in order to allow the opening of that chapter. According to the procedures set out in the framework for accession negotiations, benchmarks will include inter alia, depending on the chapter, “the fulfilment of commitments under the Association Agreement, in particular those pertaining to the EC-Turkey customs union and those that mirror requirements under the acquis”. In this respect, the Council Decision on the Accession Partnership with Turkey, which is monitored in the bodies established by the Association Agreement, lays down, among the short term priorities, the need to “remove all restrictions to free circulation of goods due to discrimination against carriers of Member States, on the ground of their nationality or previous dockings”.

In addition, the Commission refers the honourable Member to the declaration of the EU of 21 September 2005, which stresses that “the opening of negotiations on the relevant chapters depends on Turkey’s implementation of its contractual obligations to all Member States”.

The Commission recently announced a plan for a reduction in translator numbers which will seriously affect the Spanish language and Europe's Spanish-speaking citizens.

Can the Commission explain how it sees the budgetary implications of this decision?

Does the Commission believe that the language budget represents excessive spending when the aim is to allow citizens full access to the Union, especially given the special communication effort which the EU has to make at a moment of institutional crisis like the present one?

Can the Commission provide an estimate of the costs of the translation and interpretation into other non-official languages recently promoted by certain Member States?

(EN)As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, the 2004 enlargement was an unprecedented challenge for the translation services of the EU, in particular that of the Commission. Faced with a severe lack of translation capacity in the new languages, drastic measures had to be taken. These measures consisted of decreasing demand and increasing translation capacity⁽¹⁾, so as to ensure that the Commission would be able to fulfil its legal obligation of translating legislation and politically important documents into all official languages.

The human resources strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced; part of the existing translation capacity will be allocated to tasks linked with multilingualism such as web translation, terminology, etc., which are in increasing demand as they constitute a means of communicating directly with the citizens.

There will be no budgetary implications, nor will there be any negative consequences for the EU’s communication with the citizens.

For the translation into languages other than the official EU languages, the Commission refers the honourable Member to the Council Conclusion of 13 June 2005⁽²⁾, which states that the direct or indirect costs associated with the implementation of any administrative arrangements concerning translation into these languages will be borne by the Member State concerned.

On 29 November 2005 the Commission announced a plan to reduce its numbers of translators. This plan particularly affects its Spanish-language translators, whose number would be cut by 33%. This is an especially severe cut in the case of Spanish, a language spoken by over 45 m EU citizens and more than 400 m people worldwide.

Furthermore, Spanish is the language with the fifth highest number of speakers in the EU, the fourth most widely taught as a foreign language, and the fastest-growing EU language in terms of numbers of speakers both within and outside the Union. The cut in the number of translators would, paradoxically, place Spanish in sixth place in terms of translation.

Can the Commission provide the exact details of this plan to reduce the numbers of translators, of which so far we are aware only from media reports? What is the legal basis for the Commission's distinction between 'procedural languages' and the other official languages?

(EN)The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the Commission remains as committed as ever to the principle of multilingualism. According to Article 1 of Regulation No 1/1958 of the Council⁽¹⁾, all official EU languages are to be treated on an equal basis as far as the publication of legislation and other documents of general application is concerned.

This means that Spanish has the same status as any other official language. Moreover, no translator will lose his or her job. There will be no disadvantages for the translators concerned with respect to grade, salary, career development or any other similar aspects.

The principle of multilingualism is not linked to the number of speakers of a language, but is a democratic necessity: citizens of the EU must be able to read documents that directly apply to them in the official language of their country, whether they have 40 million or 400 000 native speakers. It is therefore logical that Spanish, Slovak, Dutch, Swedish and all the other official languages are treated equally, so that all EU citizens are granted the same democratic rights.

However, the Commission may, under Article 6 of Regulation No 1/1958 of the Council, decide which of the official and working languages are to be used for its internal communication. This should not be confused with the obligation to fully respect the principle of multilingualism in the translation of documents of a legislative or regulatory nature.

The human resources strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources. In general, the English, French and German language departments require more staff needed for the editing of originals, translating incoming documents from the Member States, etc.

Translating staff will be used appropriately to respond to new and growing demand, also in other linguistic areas such as web translation, editing, and in general reinforcing multilingualism in all aspects of the Commission’s activities.

The Commission has announced that it intends to reduce the number of translators. This will have a dramatic impact on Spanish and will clearly discriminate against this official language. Article 290 of the Treaty establishing the European Community provides that 'the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Community shall, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Statue of the Court of Justice, be determined by the Council, acting unanimously'. On the basis of this article, in 1958 the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation No 1 determining the language rules, which has since been amended on various occasions and contains a list of the EU's official languages, which currently number 21. It also provides that the institutions may stipulate their language arrangements in their rules of procedure.

What is the substance of the Commission's decision? What is its legal basis?

(EN)The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced. The new strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool – not a Commission decision – which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources.

Translating staff will be used appropriately to respond to new and growing demand, also in other linguistic areas such as web translation, editing, and in general reinforcing multilingualism in all aspects of the Commission’s activities.

The Commission remains as committed as ever to the principle of multilingualism and the application of Council Regulation 1/1958⁽¹⁾.

In July 2005, the Commission agreed on an ‘action plan to improve communicating Europe’. At the end of 2004, the Spanish Government submitted a proposal to the Council of the European Union seeking authorisation for Spain’s co-official languages (Catalan, Galician and Basque) to be used in certain circumstances, including in written correspondence between Spanish citizens and EU institutions. This would be financed by the Spanish Government.

While other institutions have already agreed to this, I am aware of the political difficulties surrounding the proposal that may arise at Parliament. However, as there are no problems with funding, I think that the Community’s political representatives should realise how important the request is. Not only is it a way of safeguarding a rich linguistic and cultural pluralism: it is also a way of bringing speakers of Catalan, Galician and Basque – without prejudice to Castilian – closer to EU institutions and policies.

In view of the fact that the Commission shares the wish to make it easier for the public to read about and communicate with the Community institutions in their own languages, does the Commission not think that adopting this agreement could also bring the public closer to and increase their political involvement in the EU?

(EN)The Commission shares the view of the honourable Member about the importance of communicating with citizens in their own language to bring them closer to the EU Institutions.

Following the invitation formulated by the Council, the Commission signed an Administrative Agreement with Spain on 21 December 2005. This will permit all Spanish citizens and residents to correspond in writing with the Commission in any language that has official status recognized by the Spanish constitution (Basque, Catalan and Galician). This Agreement will be implemented in the course of 2006.

On 18 January 2006 the Commission replied to my written question P-4568/05 on the reduction of the number of Spanish translators in its services. I do not agree with the arguments advanced in Commissioner Figel's reply, and I feel it does not provide a full answer as to whether the Commission is maintaining the plans made public in early November 2005, which entailed, inter alia, an unacceptable reduction in the numbers of Spanish translators which takes no account of such crucial factors as the number of Spanish speakers and the remarkable growth of the language both within and outside the Union. Can the Commission state whether it intends to continue with those plans or whether it has decided to modify them in line with public opinion, the stand taken by the Spanish Government and my own position, in order to avoid damaging the remarkable value added represented for the Union by the use of Spanish as one of its main official languages and ensure it is not discriminated against by comparison with English, French and German?

(EN)The Commission reiterates its statement that, according to Regulation No 1/1958 of the Council⁽¹⁾, Spanish has the same status as any other official language.

In fulfilling its obligations under this Regulation, the Commission must make the most efficient use of existing resources, which means that for its internal communication, translation is provided according to real needs. This does not affect, however, the full respect of the principle of multilingualism concerning the translation of documents of a legislative or regulatory nature.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced; part of the existing translation capacity will be allocated to tasks related to multilingualism such as web translation, terminology, etc., which are in increasing demand as they constitute a means of communicating directly with the citizens.

In light of the above, the Commission sees no reason to change its policy.

The Spanish press has recently reported that the Commission is planning to reduce the number of Spanish translators it employs.

Will the Commission say exactly what its plans are for cutting back its Spanish translation service? How many Spanish translators is it intending to shed? Upon what criteria are the cuts to be based? Is any account being taken of Spain's inhabitants and of the number of people in the world who speak Spanish?

(EN)The strategy of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation is an internal management tool which aims to make the most efficient use of existing resources, following the Demand Management Strategy put in place after the 2004 enlargement to cope with the severe lack of translation capacity in the new languages⁽¹⁾. This strategy has lead to a reduction of the number of documents to be translated, which in turn has reduced the need for translators in the languages of the old Member States. In this context, it has proven necessary to allocate part of the existing translation capacity to tasks linked with multilingualism such as web translation, terminology, etc., which are in increasing demand as they constitute a means of communicating directly with the citizens.

This strategy involves all linguistic departments and does not by any means affect the status of any of the official EU languages.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that the overall number of linguistic staff will not be reduced; no translator will lose his or her job. Translating staff will be used appropriately to respond to new and growing demand, also in other linguistic areas such as web translation, editing, and in general reinforcing multilingualism in all aspects of the Commission’s activities.

There will be no disadvantages for the translators concerned with respect to grade, salary, career development or any other similar aspects.

The principle of multilingualism is not linked to the number of speakers of a language in the world, but is a democratic necessity: citizens of the EU must be able to read documents that directly apply to them in the official language of their country, whether they have 40 million or 400 000 native speakers. It is therefore logical that for example Spanish, Slovak, Dutch, Swedish and all the other official languages are treated equally, so that all EU citizens are granted the same democratic rights.

The Commission would like to assure the honourable Member that it remains as committed as ever to the principle of multilingualism and the application of Council Regulation 1/1958⁽²⁾.

In his New Year's message, General Hilmi Ozkok, the Chief of the Turkish Armed Forces, referred to the Cyprus problem. He asserted, inter alia, that the Turkish forces were stationed in Cyprus in order to protect the interests of Turkey itself and preserve its geostrategic role in the region. General Özkök's position confirms Turkey's intention of continuing its illegal occupation of part of the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union. This is a violation of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus and is contrary to the principles and values of the EU and international law.

What measures does the EU intend to take to ensure the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union? As part of these measures, would the EU support the beginning of the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the Republic of Cyprus at the earliest opportunity and their replacement by a European force in cooperation with the United Nations?

(EN)As it has stated on numerous occasions, the Commission remains fully committed to supporting a resumption of talks under the auspices of the United Nations for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue, addressing all core issues such as security, constitution, property and territory. The Commission hopes that such talks will be re-launched as soon as possible.

The EU's new nomenclature for medical specialities, published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities' CONSLEG system (CONSLEG: 1993L0016-01/05/2004), refers to the speciality of plastic, reparative and cosmetic surgery as 'cosmetic surgery'.

This designation is not acceptable: plastic surgery consists of far more than cosmetic surgery, no recognised qualification in cosmetic surgery exists in Europe, and this attitude will effectively legalise the practice of cosmetic surgery by unqualified persons calling themselves 'specialists in cosmetic surgery', thus endangering those who resort to their services believing them to be properly trained and qualified.

Can the Commission state what action it intends to take on the matter?

(EN)Several professional organisations representing plastic surgeons have already drawn the attention of the Commission to the fact that in the French text of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications⁽¹⁾ the heading for the specialisation of plastic surgery is by error worded as "Chirurgie Esthéthique" instead of "Chirurgie Plastique" and have asked the Commission what it will do to correct this.

As the Commission has already informed the professional organisations concerned, in the original version of Directive 93/16/EEC the heading was correctly worded as "Chirurgie Plastique". In 2001 the said Directive was amended by Directive 2001/19/EEC. During the legislative process in Council and Parliament and the translation into French of the later Directive, the heading of "Chirurgie Plastique" was changed by error into "Chirurgie Esthétique".

As Directive 93/16/EEC, amended by Directive 2001/19/EEC, has recently been recast as part of the new Directive 2005/36/EC on professional qualifications, the Commission has already drawn this error to the attention of the Council Secretariat General with a view to having it rectified and included in a "corrigendum" to the new Directive 2005/36/EC on professional qualifications which is currently under preparation.

According to an article in the Financial Times (11 January 2006), fears that a company might be sanctioned for not releasing price-sensitive information immediately under new rules in the Market Abuse Directive, is making them reluctant to give press conferences or interviews or hold informal meetings with the press. Is the Commission concerned that disclosure rules are making companies more cautious and therefore more reluctant to provide information to investors and the media?

(EN)The Market Abuse Directive (Directive 2003/6/CE and its implementing measures: Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC, 2004/72/EC and Regulation 2273/2003) has only recently been implemented in the Member States. It introduces more comprehensive and consistent rules of handling inside information throughout the financial markets in Europe. As a rule, issuers are now required to inform the public as soon as possible of inside information which directly concerns them. When they disclose inside information to any third party in the normal exercise of their duties, they must make effective public disclosure of the same information either simultaneously (in the case of intentional disclosure) or promptly (non-intentional disclosure). This obligatory disclosure does not apply if the third party owes a duty of confidentiality to the issuer.

The Market Abuse Directive has indeed made the issuers (and other persons concerned) more watchful of the proper handling of inside information disclosure. They now take greater responsibility for the access of third parties to inside information. The Commission thinks this is a good development. The Commission is also confident that existing and prospective shareholders will recognise the efforts of companies to comply with disclosure rules from the Market Abuse Directive while ensuring a steady and meaningful flow of information on their activities to the public.

The Commission is confident that in this early period of application of the Market Abuse Directive issuers will receive guidance from the national securities regulators responsible for supervision and enforcement of market abuse rules. The Commission will of course closely monitor and evaluate the impact of the Market Abuse Directive and its implementing measures on the functioning of EU securities markets.

What assistance exists to help SMEs in dealing with the European Commission? A reputable engineering firm in my constituency was subject to an EU audit, and they experienced great difficulty when appealing the results. The European Commission has extensive resources available to it which SMEs often lack. How can the Commission guarantee that small businesses are fairly treated in their dealings with the Commission? How can SMEs access detailed, appropriate and expert advice?

(EN)The honourable Member refers to a specific case of a company which has been the subject of an EU financial audit. This is difficult for the Commission to comment on, in the absence of more precise information. As a general rule however, it is a condition of Commission funding that projects financed from the EU budget may be subject to such an ex-post control, as foreseen in Article 60.4 of the Financial Regulations. The Commission reviews the Financial Regulation regularly, as foreseen within Article 184 thereof. The last review took place in 2005 and led to a proposal for the amendment of the Financial Regulation⁽¹⁾, which is currently being negotiated with Council and Parliament and which the Commission proposes will come into force on 1 January 2007. As Article 184 provides for a revision of the Financial Regulation every three years or whenever it proves necessary, a further revision can be expected to start in 2007/2008, for entry into force in 2010.

When carrying out such audits, the Commission applies the relevant international standards. They include the possibility to comment on the auditor's findings and recommendations: a company or any other body that has been audited therefore has the possibility, during what is known as the "contradictory procedure", to bring further information to the Commission’s attention that may cause a revision with regard to the initial position. This should be done in writing (letter or e-mail), a means which is affordable for a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME).

On the more general point raised, the Commission means to assist SMEs and wishes to highlight the following:

- The Commission adopted a Communication on Modern SME Policy for Growth and Jobs, aiming at creating a comprehensive policy framework for SME actions, in November 2005. It foresees actions to be taken to ensure that SMEs are taken into account when assessing or preparing EU legislation, and to simplify the rules and reduce the procedures for SMEs to participate in Community programmes. The Commission would welcome parliamentary support to further reduce the administrative burden for SMEs and strengthen their participation in Community programmes.

- The Commission has upgraded the role of SME Envoy, which is now carried out by the Deputy Director General of DG ENTR⁽²⁾. The SME Envoy and her team are in charge of mainstreaming the SME dimension in EU policies, listening to SMEs and their representatives and highlighting their concerns to the different Commission services. The SME Envoy can be contacted directly at [e-mail]

.

- The Euro Info Centre (EIC) network provides detailed, appropriate and expert advice to SMEs on EU matters - including Community programmes. There are nearly 270 EICs and over 300 local EIC relay points across Europe. Indeed the Commission has developed two new mechanisms in order to improve the feedback from SMEs into community policy-making via the EIC network: “SME feedback” and the “SME panel”. “SME feedback” will identify difficulties encountered by SMEs in the implementation of European legislation or policies while the “SME panel” will test a piece of legislation or a policy in preparation among a panel of local SMEs. Therefore the nearest EIC may be able to look at the issue with the SME in question.

- In addition specific tools and actions have been developed or are under consideration to improve information available to SMEs on ongoing and forthcoming programmes and to support their participation in EU programmes, including SME help-desks, local contact points or dedicated calls for proposals.

It has recently been disclosed that the Generalitat of Catalonia has been using clinical case-histories to assess the use of Catalan in the health service. Articles 8, 11, 14 and 18 of Directive 95/46/EC⁽¹⁾ on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data ban the processing of data relating to health without the explicit consent of the person concerned, lay down an obligation to inform the person concerned of the main elements of the processing of data, grant individuals the right to object to the processing of data and stipulate that data-processing operations must be notified to the supervisory authority for prior assessment. Article 6 stipulates that data must be 'collected for (...) explicit and legitimate purposes'.

Does the Commission consider that all these conditions have been met in the above case? Bearing in mind how important it is to guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly privacy, will the Commission demand an explanation from the Spanish Government?

(EN)As laid down in Directive 95/46/EC, personal data concerning the health status of a person is considered to be “sensitive data” which requires special protection. Article 8 of the Directive subjects the processing of personal data relating to the health status of a person to special conditions. In substance their processing requires the consent of the data subject, or a national law allowing their processing and laying down appropriate safeguards, for instance in the framework of the provision of medical care of the management of health care services, or when it is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject. The Directive allows Member States the processing of these sensitive data for other reasons of substantial public interest provided that they set up suitable safeguards.

The Commission must point out that under the system laid down by the Directive on data protection, Member States data protection authorities are the competent authorities to monitor the lawfulness of personal data processing activities performed within their territory. These authorities must take appropriate measures to enforce data protection legislation and to prevent or put an end to unlawful data processing activities, namely by means of controls or sanctions.

The Commission will ask the Spanish authorities for information about the facts referred to in the question to verify that the enquiry conducted by the Generalidad de Cataluña complies with the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, namely Articles 7, 8, 10, 11, 18 and 20. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission will decide on the appropriate follow up.

The legal situation in the EU is as follows: pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005⁽¹⁾ of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, valid since 1 January 2006, E. coli are to be regarded as a process hygiene criterion. Two of five sample units may lie between 100 and 1000 E. coli per gram.

The legal situation in Australia is as follows: the authorised limit value for five sample units of E. coli is completely different from that in the EU. Here no more than one of five units may lie between 10 and 100 E. coli per gram, and this is not a process hygiene criterion, but a marketing criterion designed to protect consumers.

This constitutes an immense distortion of competition and stands in the way of EU cheese exports to Australia.

What is the Commission doing to remove this enormous barrier to trade?

If identical limit values cannot be decided upon, I call upon the Commission to ensure that in the case of imports into the EU of the products in question the low Australian limit values apply.

(EN)The Commission thanks the honourable Member for bringing this issue to its attention, and assures the Parliament that the issue will be raised with Australia with view to clarifying the situation.

It should be noted, however, that it is the right of Word Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Members within the context of the WTO Agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) to define their own appropriate level of protection, as long as it is not a disguised, arbitrary or discriminatory restriction on trade. The Commission will, in due course, examine the Australian measure to determine whether it is in conformity with the SPS Agreement, and inform the Parliament accordingly.

The European Commission wants to reconnect the EU with the people of Europe. Would the Commission agree that there is huge concern among EU citizens about the plights of our neighbours in the developing world as witnessed by many public manifestations? Will the Commission make this a communication priority?

(EN)The character of the EU, its institutional complexity and the absence of a unified and homogenous “European” public opinion are important challenges when defining Communication priorities.

The Commission agrees that the European public has a relatively weak perception of the EU’s external assistance and its role in the world. While European public opinion surveys have revealed that Europeans are extremely positive towards the idea of providing development aid, only few associate the European Union with Development Policy. The Commission is very much aware of this and, together with Member States, other EU institutions and International organisations, is taking up this challenge. The communication action plan of Directorate General (DG) Development foresees a large variety of activities, both in all EU Member States and in our partner countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), to promote European development policy. To reach best the various target groups, the Commission has put a special emphasis on information support to press and media. Special training seminars for journalists from the new Member States and from partner countries are organised in Brussels and weekly and monthly newsletters are sent electronically. The Commission has also developed various audiovisual products during 2005 to support the visibility of development policy and in particular Europe’s support to the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals). Some of these products were also part of an information campaign targeted at the public at large at the occasion of the United Nations World Summit in September 2005. The Commission has produced and marketed various TV spots, it has also produced and distributed various VideoNewsReleases as a service to the audiovisual media. Not to forget our publications. A special website on the main European initiatives in development policy during 2005 and, in particular on Europe’s support to the MDGs was put online in September 2005 and will be further developed this year. To connect with people in Europe, the Commissioner in charge of Development and Humanitarian Aid is also happy to the response to his web page and he has been happy to organise an Internet Chat with European citizens. The Commission will continue to strengthen its efforts in this area during 2006. It considers these communication activities important for the visibility of its foreign actions. It is important that with the different policy and communication initiative taken we communicate that European engagement is a value added for Africa and African development is a value added to Europe. The Commission shall do its part but success is dependent on other positive engagements. The EU as such provides more than half of the Worlds Official Development Aid. Clearly the EU deserves more visibility for its huge contribution to combat and eradicate poverty, also for the part that goes directly from Member States or via International organisations.

Heads of States and Governments declared at the end of the June 2005 European Council, a “period of reflection”, following the negative votes in France and the Netherlands on the European Constitution. Already in July 2005 the Commission agreed an action plan to improve communicating Europe. The action plan was followed by a Plan D agreed by the Commission, in October 2005. The Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate sets out a structured process to stimulate a public debate on the future of the European Union. As part of the ambition of informing people on EU’s role through concrete achievements and projects and listening to people’s expectations about what should be done in the future, there is a clear reference to Europe’s borders and its role in the world. The Group of RELEX (External Relations) Commissioners is taking this task seriously and is jointly approaching the challenge.

The challenges of today’s world are big, but the Commission has a good story to tell. Together with Member States, other EU institutions, other international organisations and the civil society, the Commission shall tell that story and shall hear what the citizens have to say.

The Commissioner in charge of Development and Humanitarian Aid is personally engaged together with the Vice President for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy and other colleagues to respond to this challenge.

Communicating the achievements of the EU development policy and the external assistance to the citizens was, is and it will be one of the Commission’s priorities.

The Commission has sent a reasoned opinion to Greece for failing to implement Community legislation, calling on that country to take arbitrary measures which will further exacerbate the problems of seafarers and workers in general living on the islands and, at the same time, will increase the risks posed to the safety of shipping and protection of the environment, thereby provoking an outcry.

Does the Commission consider that abolishing the objective criteria of tonnage and engine power to determine the composition of the crew, the age-limit for withdrawing superannuated vessels from service and the total liberalisation of economy-class tickets are in the interests of the users of these services, and of employment and development on the Greek islands or do they exclusively serve the interests and the profitability of the shipping companies and should the Commission, therefore, reconsider its position?

(FR)In its reasoned opinion addressed to Greece on 19/12/2005, the Commission pointed out the need to comply with Regulation (EC) 3577/1992⁽¹⁾ which applies the fundamental principle of the free provision of coastal shipping services.

Opening these services up to competition allows them to be provided at a lower cost for passengers and the community in general. In the event that private initiative is insufficient, public service obligations may be imposed. Although the EC Treaty takes account of the special nature of island regions, island coastal shipping services cannot, however, all be automatically classed as public services. Greece must justify the need for the public service obligations imposed for each of the lines in question.

In its reasoned opinion, the Commission has not expressed any grievance relating to the age-limit established by Greek legislation for the withdrawal of superannuated vessels.

The Commission’s reasoned opinion does not imply the total liberalisation of economy-class tickets. The Commission has only noted that almost all of the island lines are subject to price cap measures without any proof being reported, and even researched, to show that, on the lines in question as a whole, market forces alone will not be sufficient to ensure satisfactory price levels in terms of public service requirements. There are several lines with a significant amount of traffic throughout the year and on which there are several operators, for which such a framework has not been demonstrated.

With regard to the determination of crews, the Commission has stated that for each category of seafarers, Greek legislation stipulates the number of them that must be employed on a vessel, solely on the basis of its tonnage, the number of passengers authorised to be carried and the time of year. By prohibiting operators from being able to take account of the type of vessel in question and of its specific needs, this legislation hinders the freedom of operators to chose the manner in which they provide their services to users, without the usefulness of the legislation in question in terms of safety and environmental protection concerns having been demonstrated.

Why is there a Commission rule whereby prospective heads of unit have to undergo a preparatory training programme given exclusively in French and English, thus artificially reducing the required linguistic skills to those languages and, as a result, discriminating against German which is the second most widely understood language in the EU and a Commission working language? How is this practice consistent with the Commission's policy of promoting 'multilingualism', i.e. mother tongue plus two foreign languages? Is the Commission prepared to offer the required training programme in a form whereby the individuals concerned can themselves choose two of the three languages in which they would like to follow the courses?

Would the Commission prefer an arrangement which does not allow the choice of a candidate's mother tongue as one of the two languages to be selected so that 'only' those candidates whose mother tongue is one of the 17 'non-working languages' would have a 'free choice' between the three languages? Is the Commission also prepared, where comparable situations and configurations are concerned, to try in an appropriate way to bring about a situation in which German and French are treated equally - not merely on a formal basis - either in a positive sense, i.e. French is available and, therefore, so is German, or in a negative sense, i.e. German is not available and, therefore, neither is French?

(EN)The Commission’s preparatory management course, ‘First Steps in a Managing People’, is designed to provide prospective Heads of Unit with the management skills required to carry out their roles effectively. The course is not intended to test the participant’s linguistic abilities or to develop his/her language skills. The decision to offer this specific course in French and English only was determined by taking into account the languages in which, as a matter of fact, managers mostly operate in their day-to-day work (as opposed to those they can use) and by ensuring a balance between considerations of multilingualism and the sound and efficient management of the financial resources of the central training budget.

Language skills are developed in separate specific courses, covering 28 languages. All staff are able to develop their language competence in any of these languages, in line with both the multilingualism policy of the Commission and specific work-based needs. In addition, Commission managers are offered individual and intensive language training as an alternative to standard courses, with a particular focus on German, French and English.

The Greek press reports (To Vima of 24 January 2006) that the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Karamanlis - who has also been Minister of Culture for almost two years - has spent only 9.5 hours in total during that period in his office at the Ministry of Culture meeting people from the world of the arts, while convening one single meeting of the Committee on Education and Culture, whose members are paid and have regularly collected their salaries for one year now. Moreover, the take-up rate of Community appropriations by the Ministry of Culture for contemporary culture is only 6%. Why is this take-up rate so low?

(FR)In his question, the honourable Member mentions the Greek Ministry of Culture’s take-up rate of Community appropriations for ‘contemporary culture’.

The Commission would refer the honourable Member to its detailed reply to written question P-5020/05 by Mr Sifounakis, which deals with the same subject.

Without a healthy young population it will not be possible to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. Women’s reproductive health is therefore vital to improving the European economy.

In 1997 a report was drawn up on the state of women’s health in the EU-15 (COM(1997)0224 final). Following the accession of 10 new Member States, does the Commission intend to start compiling data on the state of women’s health, and is the Commission planning to draw up a similar report for the EU-25? If so, will this report include data from the field of gynaecology and obstetrics?

(EN)In the framework of the Community Public Health Programme, the Commission has launched the EU Project REPROSTAT (Reproductive Health Indicators in the European Union

). This project contains a final recommended minimum list of indicators that EU countries can use to monitor reproductive health. Core indicators are defined as those essential for monitoring reproductive health and related health care. Sexual health and sexual violence have been also identified as important aspects of reproductive health.

The current Work Plan 2006 for the implementation of the Community Public Health Programme includes an action on ‘Operating the health information and knowledge system’ which includes the preparation of EU-25 reports on gender specific health problems and sexual and reproductive health.

The Work Plan 2006 includes also as an EU priority the development and definition of indicators to improve relevant information for gynaecological and menopausal health.

There is a strong interest of the Commission to produce an updated EU-25 Women’s health report which should include reproductive health and gynaecological problems. This report should be produced following the rules of the Work Plan 2006 for the implementation of the Community Public Health Programme, and the Commission looks forward to receiving relevant project proposals to enable this work to be taken forward.

The statement by Mr Rehn of 25 January 2006 raises serious questions regarding the institutional and political role of the Commission as a guardian of the Treaties, the Community acquis and the European legal order. Does the Commissioner really believe that the attempt by the Turkish Government to conflate the issue of the obligations it has incurred, through its signature of the Customs Union and the decision of the Council of Ministers of 3.10.2005 initiating accession negotiations, and the strengthening of ties with, and the upgrading of, the Turkish Cypriot regime is worthy of serious consideration and constitutes an attempt to move forward on the Cyprus issue? Will the Commission say why, instead of insisting, as it should, on the timely ratification and smooth implementation of the Customs Union Protocol, it has rushed out a statement that it agrees essentially to changes in the agenda of the obligations of Turkey, a candidate country, thereby contributing to the 'deculpabilisation' of Turkey in respect of its contractual obligations? What purposes does this Commission move actually serve, since it allows Turkey to engage in haggling with the European Union, thus ultimately undermining and invalidating the decisions taken by the European Council and the Council of Ministers?

(EN)The Commission is prepared to consider any effort to achieve progress in the current deadlock with regard to the Cyprus problem. Its long-standing position is to support a resumption of UN⁽¹⁾-led talks for a comprehensive settlement as soon as possible.

This position is reflected in Commissioner in charge of Enlargement’s statement of 25 January 2006 on Turkey’s Cyprus initiative. The statement did not comment on the substance of the proposal but referred to the need to analyse it carefully. The Commission is ready to contribute to the discussion of the proposal if it is taken up by the parties concerned.

In the Commission’s view, there is no conditionality or ‘trade-off’ between the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement, extending the Agreement, including the EC-Turkey customs union, to the 10 new Member States, and the direct trade regulation for northern Cyprus.

On 29 July 2005, Turkey signed the Ankara Protocol and is expected to implement it fully. The Commission will monitor this process.

On 26 April 2004, the Council expressed its determination to put an end to isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. In response to the Council’s invitation, the Commission proposed on 7 July 2004 a package of aid and trade measures with this objective and hopes that the Council will soon take a decision on this basis.

One of the greatest obstacles to the mobility of artists within the European Union is the lack of a social security scheme which takes account of their mobility. As the periods for which contributions are made in various Member States are subject to national rules, contributions do not always give entitlement to benefits.

Is the Commission not considering taking account of mobility by launching a pilot mobile social security project reflecting the specific nature of the profession of artist?

(FR)The social security systems of the Member States are not harmonised at Community level. The Member States therefore have the competence to determine their own social security systems. There is, however, coordination of these national social security systems.

This coordination, laid down by means of Regulations 1408/71⁽¹⁾ and 574/72⁽²⁾, is intended to allow persons to move within the European Union without losing their social security entitlements. This coordination applies to workers who are or have been subject to the social security legislation of one or more Member States who move within the European Union, and in this regard it also applies to artists.

In order to prevent a person from losing their social security rights when they move within the Union, the coordination is intended in particular to establish a principle of aggregation according to which periods of insurance in one Member State are taken into account when establishing entitlements to services in accordance with the legislation of another Member State, so that periods of insurance are never lost.

The Commission would remind the honourable Member of the fact that, under current Community law, there is no legal basis for establishing a social security system at Community level that is applicable to artists.

In its resolution P5(2003)0410⁽¹⁾, the European Parliament called on the Commission to adopt preventive measures to tackle the use of new generations of long-residue neurotoxic products, in particular by setting up a committee of internationally recognised beekeeping specialists to adapt plant protection product approval protocols in order to deal with problems relating to the health of hives.

What action has the Commission take in response to these requests? How can the Commission continue to authorise neurotoxic molecules on the basis of approval procedures using evaluation protocols that are obsolete and which fail to take account of the sub-lethal effects of such molecules (often linked to chronic toxicity in the long-term)? Is the Commission prepared to study the links between the presence of such neurotoxins which are widespread in the environment⁽²⁾ and the decline in bee populations observed in several Member States and which are having a significant impact on European honey production?

(EN)Following the Parliament resolution on the difficulties faced by the European beekeeping sector in 2003, the Commission has taken into consideration economic losses caused by bee mortality in its support policy on beekeeping.

When Council Regulation concerning national beekeeping programmes has been modified in 2004, eligible actions within those programmes have been explicitly extended to the restocking of hives to consider bee mortality (which is a reality in some regions of the EU).

Under this new action, purchase of colonies and breeding queens can be financed by the Commission and Member States within the national beekeeping programmes in order to limit the economic impact of bee mortality on European beekeepers.

Among the € 23 million available in the EU budget for 2005 for beekeeping programmes, national beekeeping programmes sent by the Member States to the Commission showed that around € 1.5 million had been allocated to this specific action.

The placing on the market and authorisation of plant protection products is regulated by Council Directive 91/414/EEC. This Directive provides that pesticides may only be used if it has been demonstrated that their use bears no unacceptable effects on human and animal health, and the environment. This assessment covers the risks to honeybees and their larvae and the tests applied are based on standards developed by intergovernmental organisations such as the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation, in which 47 governments collaborate. Its standards are periodically reviewed. The part on honeybees has been revised in 2002/2003 and the Commission is therefore not convinced of their obsolete nature.

Currently, the Community is running a wide programme of re-evaluation of old pesticides which started in 1993 and must be concluded in 2008.

The honourable Member is surprised that some of the substances continue to be on certain markets. However, it must be underlined that pending a Commission act national rules remain applicable.

This is also the case for the two insecticides that French beekeepers hold responsible for the increased mortality of their bees, namely fipronil (commercial name Regent®) and imidacloprid (commercial name Gaucho®) and to which the honourable Member is most probably referring.

These substances have been suspended by the French authorities since several years and their safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is ongoing.

The Commission is awaiting the results from this assessment. For fipronil, the conclusions of EFSA are expected by March 2006 and for imidacloprid after the summer. After submission of this scientific assessment, the Commission will have six months to take a decision on whether the use of these substances is acceptable.

It is barely four years since the war in Angola came to an end. There is still chaos in a large part of the country, the civilian population is still heavily armed and large areas are inaccessible because of landmines and the devastation of infrastructure. In September this year, elections would normally have to be held in Angola.

What measures will the Commission take to make it possible to organise elections in Angola in 2006?

(FR)The Commission is treating the legislative elections in Angola as a particular priority, since they are a significant test of the government’s and the country’s commitment to moving towards democracy. The general situation in Angola four years after the end of the war, as described in the oral question, leads to enormous practical and logistical challenges in terms of organising the elections. President dos Santos has not yet officially announced the date of the elections, but the latest information suggests that it is less and less likely that they will be held in 2006.

With regard to the measures supported by the Commission in Angola, the ‘emergency mine action program for sustainable return and resettlement’, with a contribution of € 26 million, is directly aimed at the challenges identified and contributes to creating the conditions for holding elections.

A significant effort is also being made with a view to contributing to national reconciliation, both at central and at local level, with direct support for projects in the field of human rights and support for the democratic process, with organisations from Angolan local society, with appropriations from the Democracy and Human Rights budget line.

Furthermore, and as pointed out recently in the reply to written question 2512/05 by Mr Ribeiro-Castro, the Commission has informed the Angolan Government on several occasions of its willingness to contribute actively and more directly to the preparations for the elections, but the government has not yet responded officially to this offer of support. However, the Commission believes that the Angolan Government may take up the offer of support for the preparations for the elections, when the date of the elections is announced officially.

A medical doctor in my constituency ‘has been receiving reports that the European Union is again threatening to remove the right of five thousand British doctors to dispense medicines to their patients directly without the intervention of a pharmacist.’

What is the truth of this allegation?

(EN)The Community’s legislation on medicinal products harmonizes the granting of marketing authorization for medicinal products. It also addresses certain aspects of the distribution of medicinal products such as the requirement for a medical prescription and the wholesale business. By contrast, the retail trade is not covered by this legislation.

The Commission is not aware of an action at the level of the European Union that aims at regulating or restricting the possibility of doctors in Great Britain to dispense medicines to their patients directly without the intervention of a pharmacist.

Following the ECJ's ruling on the issue of labelling of animal feed, could the Commission inform the EP about its intention regarding the announced simplification of EU feed labelling rules, taking into account the necessary adaptation following the recent ECJ judgment?

Would the Commission be prepared to present a single, consolidated legislative proposal for a harmonised feed labelling regulation to the EP and the Council?

What is the Commission's view on the effects of quantitative labelling rules on feed and food safety, consumer information and intellectual property rights?

How does the European Commission intend to assure the right balance between protecting consumers and avoiding misleading information to feed customers on the one hand, and protecting intellectual property rights and providing legal certainty to feed business operators and customers on the other?

(EN)Following the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of 6 December 2005, the Commission will of course take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

The Court of Justice declared invalid only one specific provision of the feed labelling legislation, and the Commission is currently reflecting what legal follow-up to give to the judgment.

The Commission has also committed to present a proposal to recast the feed labelling legislation by the first quarter of 2007, which is included in the Commission Simplification Rolling Programme. An impact assessment study and a round of consultations with stakeholders have been concluded.

On that basis, the Commission will prepare an integrated impact assessment before submitting a single proposal to the Parliament and the Council, which will also take into account the judgment of the Court of Justice.

As the future proposal will be drafted on the basis of the outcome of the impact assessment, it is premature to indicate how the Commission will deal specifically with quantitative labelling, which was per se not declared invalid by the Court.

The objectives of the future proposal will be to ensure food and feed safety and facilitate smooth functioning of the internal market, but also to protect the economic interests of all feed business operators.

The Commission's July 2003 Communication (COM(2003)0458 final) on the implementation in the Member States of the Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC⁽¹⁾) noted (p. 8 English version) that no specific measure transposing this legislation into Irish law was adopted in Ireland but that a provision in the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001, transposing other EC legislation, states that certain provisions of Irish law apply to posted workers in Ireland.

Is the Commission of the view that the Posting of Workers Directive has been fully and correctly transposed in Ireland, in line with criteria established by the case law of the European Court of Justice? What correspondence has the Commission entered into with Irish authorities on this matter and what has been their response? What action will the Commission take if it takes the view that Ireland has not correctly transposed this Directive?

(EN)According to the information available to the Commission's services, Ireland has transposed Directive 96/71/EC on posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services⁽²⁾ by providing in the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act that a number of Acts apply to posted workers. The Acts referred to in this provision cover the terms and conditions of employment enumerated in article 3 (1) of the Directive.

As indicated in the Commission's Communication on the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC⁽³⁾, several problems were detected as regards, inter alia, the transposition of the Directive into Member States' legal systems, particularly those Member States that have not deemed it necessary to adopt specific and explicit transposition measures. The Commission further indicated that this could be considered not to be in conformity with the criteria established by the Court's case law regarding the transposition of Community directives.

As far as the honourable Member's question is concerned, the Commission will, therefore, contact the Irish authorities for further clarification.

Since 1999, nine of the 25 Member States have been allowed to apply a lower rate of VAT to 'labour-intensive services': home renovations, domestic care, window cleaning, small repairs to bicycles and clothes and hairdressing. Lately, Austria had proposed that they should continue to be allowed to do so until 2010. Poland and the Czech Republic were granted a derogation period until the end of 2007, allowing them to charge a reduced level of VAT on new housing. However, the proposal to extend this period after 2007 was not approved. On Monday, 30 January 2006, Poland rejected a deal agreed by all 24 other members of the European Union. The Polish refusal means that other EU countries are breaking the law when continuing to levy a lower rate of VAT on the above services, and legal action can be taken against them.

What further plans regarding this problem does the Commission have?

(FR)Poland has accepted the compromise initially reached by 22 Member States at the meeting of the ECOFIN Council on 24 January 2006 and then agreed to by two further Member States.

The problems raised by the honourable Member have therefore been resolved.

On 19 January 2006, 'Coca Cola 3E' announced the closure of its factory in Athens and its warehouses on Rhodes, Corfu and at Messolonghi, with the loss of hundreds of jobs and immediate redundancy for 150 workers. In view of the fact that the company's profits rose during the first six months of 2005 alone to € 205 million, from € 156 million for the same period in 2004 - an increase of 17% - it appears that what the company calls 'restructuring' is no more than an expression of its intent to increase its enormous profits even further. This situation confirms that it is not only loss-making companies which carry out redundancies but even the most profitable and 'sound' because, in the name of 'competitiveness', they treat workers as expendable commodities.

What measures will the Commission take to prevent mass redundancies of workers and, in general, to ensure that jobs are preserved, expanded and improved?

(FR)The Commission is aware of the possible negative consequences of the closure of a factory, if confirmed, on the workers in question, their families and the region. It does not, however, fall to the Commission to give its opinion or interfere in decision making within companies, unless a breach of Community law is involved.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that Community legislation contains various provisions aimed at ensuring the appropriate management and justification of restructurings, particularly in the event of the closure of a company. These include, in particular, Directive 98/59/EC relating to collective redundancies⁽¹⁾, Directive 2001/23/EC on transfers of undertakings⁽²⁾, Directive 94/45/EC on the European works council⁽³⁾, Directive 2002/74/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer⁽⁴⁾ and Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees⁽⁵⁾.

On 31 March 2005⁽⁶⁾, the Commission adopted a communication entitled "Restructuring and employment" in which it lays out a global and coherent European Union approach to situations of restructuring. It stipulates the Community policies to be implemented in order to anticipate and accompany economic transformations, support employment and encourage rural development.

The Commission’s industrial policy, the employment strategy, actions in the field of equal opportunities as well as the use of Structural Funds, are of particular importance in the situation raised by the honourable Member. Furthermore, the European Council of 15-16 December 2005 very recently accepted the principle of the additional creation of a globalisation adjustment fund to assist workers laid off following major shocks resulting from globalisation to receive training and find new jobs.

The Lisbon Agenda cites the information and communications sector as a key area for promoting growth in the EU. However, it is in the telecommunications sector in particular that Europe is in danger of lagging behind the United States. In the United States deregulation has triggered a boost in investment in super-fast fibre-optic networks. Major European network operators, on the other hand, are still subject to double supervision by the competition authorities and regulatory authorities. The current legal framework was created more than 10 years ago as a purely transitional measure to bring monopolies within a competitive environment. It has since proved to be a curb on investment in new networks and markets.

Will the European Commission take the opportunity of the forthcoming review of the telecommunications framework legislation to opt out of sector-specific price and access regulation or, in the interests of investment certainty, at least set a clear deadline for ending such regulation?

Will the European Commission use the opportunities available to it within the existing legal framework to give new networks relief from regulation in order to encourage the investment that is urgently needed now?

(EN)It is somewhat misleading to suggest that the telecoms sector in the EU lags behind the United States (US); in broadband communications, for example, several Member States have higher penetrations than the US. Competition between US cable companies and incumbents is driving investment in fibre. Competition between infrastructures has allowed regulatory authorities in the US to relax the access rules on the fibre networks of incumbents. Nevertheless, US incumbents are still subject to supervision by state and national authorities⁽¹⁾. Many European incumbents have decided to exploit fully their existing copper access networks rather than invest in fibre at present. To some extent this is due to significant differences in network architectures in the US and EU, and particularly to technical limitations in US networks, where the length of the local loop makes xDSL deployment impossible for up to 60% of US households.

Recent data from the European Competitive Telecommunications Association (ECTA) indicates that investment in Europe has grown at a faster rate than in North America or the Asia Pacific since the introduction of the current regulatory Framework, which was in 2002⁽²⁾, and not ten years ago, albeit with significant differences between Member States. For example, telecoms investment in Germany was € 57 per capita compared with € 154 per capita for the United Kingdom⁽³⁾.

The honourable Member urges the Commission to consider introducing an opt-out of sector-specific regulation or the inclusion of a sunset clause in the interests of investment certainty during its forthcoming review of the EU legislation. Withdrawal of price and access regulation is already foreseen in the current framework whenever markets are effectively competitive, as is the principle that emerging markets should not be regulated inappropriately. While investment certainty is important, experience with the growth of broadband in the EU since 1995 demonstrates that competition and not relief from regulation is the major factor driving investment. A study by SPC⁽⁴⁾ Network found in 2005 that broadband penetration in Europe increased by 3% for every 1% increase in competitiveness between different delivery routes (including cable, local loop unbundling/shared access and bitstream)⁽⁵⁾.

The honourable Member also raises an important question of how can we best achieve competition and investment in next generation networks. In Europe today, the decision on finding the right balance between competition and investment can no longer be solely a national decision. This is a European process, and the review of the regulatory framework should not encourage fragmented national approaches which may favour only the former national incumbents and could thereby block the development of a true Europe-wide communications market.

Lithuania would like to become a member of the euro zone as from 1 January 2007. Last year, projections were brought out to the effect that Lithuania and Estonia were a little too impoverished to join the euro zone and that that would be genuine grounds for not admitting the countries into the euro zone as from 1 January 2007, which is what the two Baltic states hope for.

The mandatory criteria which a country must comply with in order to become a member of the euro zone are well known. Does the Commission envisage the possibility of changing the criteria this year and of introducing new, additional criteria for countries seeking to join the euro zone? Can the Commission confirm that there will be no new additional criteria to be met and that Lithuania, Estonia and the other countries wishing to join the euro zone will be assessed on the basis of the same five criteria: rate of inflation, the long-term interest rate trend, level of government deficit, net government debt and exchange rate stability of the national currency?

(EN)Article 122(2) of the Treaty sets out the procedure which has to be followed to allow the Council to decide on the possible abrogation of a Member State with a derogation (i.e., to allow the Member State to adopt the euro).

The Commission has no intention to change this procedure or to introduce additional criteria.

The Commission has submitted a new proposal aimed at authorising fresh concessions regarding additional possibilities of importing textiles and clothing in quantities exceeding the import quotas that were renegotiated in September 2005, thus acting in the interests of the big importer groups rather than of the textile and clothing industry in the Member States.

The Commission stated in an earlier answer, in which it tried to reject the notion of activating the safeguard clauses, that the memoir of understanding should be considered a definitive agreement whose aim is to avoid a situation of never-ending negotiations, arguing that any other option would have damaging consequences and stating that it has no intention of raising the quotas.

Can the Commission explain why it is not taking the responsibility - without taking measures that would worsen the situation of the textile and clothing industry in the Member States - of alleviating what it admits are certain difficulties facing the business community because it has not been possible to comply with the contracts concluded before 11 June 2005, a situation for which the Commission is primarily responsible?

Why is the Commission not taking the initiative to renegotiate the agreement, in line with the long-standing demands of the representatives of the textile and clothing industry, in order to protect productive capacity and jobs in this sector?

(EN)The Commission did not propose new concessions to the EU textile and clothing importers.

The issue of Chinese textiles, which occurred in 2005, has been solved through a “once for all” Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and China (MoU) of 10 June 2005 as amended by the Agreed Minutes of 5 September 2005. It foresees quantitative limits. The sharp entry into force of the MoU led to transitional difficulties during the summer. In order to apply the quantitative limits as agreed in the MoU in a fair way, a fine-tuning of the MoU has been negotiated with the Chinese on 5 September 2005. On the EU side, the Council endorsed it on 7 September 2005. The Commission recalls that renegotiating this overall agreement is not an option. In this regard, the Commission and the honourable Member are on the same line.

Can the Commission outline the progress made to date in terms of implementing the European Digital Libraries scheme?

(EN)On 30 September 2005 the Commission adopted the Communication ‘i2010: Digital Libraries’ (COM(2005)465), outlining a strategy based on three main pillars: (1) digitisation of content stored in traditional formats; (2) online accessibility of this content; and (3) digital preservation – making sure that our cultural heritage in digital format will also be available for future generations.

The digital libraries strategy is part of the wider efforts of the Commission to foster a better use of the Information and Communication technologies for economic growth, employment and quality of life, as defined in the i2010 initiative. The digital libraries initiative demonstrates the potential of these new technologies in projects for the benefit of citizens.

In the four months following this Communication, discussion and work on digital libraries has gained momentum, both at national and EU level. Progress is being made in various directions, indicating that the Commission’s strategy is well supported by the different actors concerned, including Member States, and cultural institutions such as libraries.

The Communication was discussed in the Culture Council of Ministers of 14 November 2005, where Member States showed strong support for the initiative and endorsed the idea of a European Digital Library based on the networking of national resources and building on existing initiatives.

The Conference of European National Libraries (CENL), an organisation comprised of 45 major European libraries, has committed to contributing to a European digital library based on an incremental and decentralised model, with a preferred multilingual central access point for users. The Commission is contributing to these collaborative efforts.

A High Level Expert Group (HLG) will advise the Commission on how to deal with the challenges for realising digital libraries. It will bring together stakeholders from the cultural institutions (libraries, archives, museums), publishers, rightholders organisations and IT-firms. The HLG will be composed soon; its first meeting is foreseen for the end of March 2006.

An online consultation on digital libraries was launched on 30 September 2005 and closed on 20 January 2006. It has triggered more than 200 contributions, which can be found at the following site: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/index_en.htm

.

The input of stakeholders, which is currently being analysed, will be considered in drafting a Commission proposal for a Recommendation on digitisation and digital preservation, planned to be adopted by the Commission during the current year. The Commission has also started preparatory work for the announced Communication on digital libraries of scientific information. This is an area with its own specificities and dynamics in view of the need to handle and store huge quantities of digital data, and the rapid growth of publications only available in digital form.

Enhanced co-funding possibilities are being made available for initiatives on digital libraries with a real European scope and added-value. € 60 million are earmarked for projects related to digital libraries through the eContentplus programme (2005-2008). A first batch of projects received under the 2005 eContentplus call for proposals is currently being selected. Finally, the Commission intends to step up its research funding in this area under the 7th Framework programme for Research and Technological Development. The detailed work programme, including the proposals relevant for the digital libraries initiative, is at present being elaborated.

Can the Commission state what concrete measures it is taking to combat the use of illegal substances in sporting activities?

(EN)The Commission attaches great importance to this sensitive and complex issue.

It has to be underlined, first, that legally binding and supporting measures by the European Union would require a legal basis which does not exist under the current Treaty framework. Those measures fall therefore under the competences of Member States and their respective sport organisations.

In the absence of formal instruments, the Commission is supporting, however, at political level Member States in their coordinated actions in the international field. The fight against doping in sport is a standing item on the Rolling Agenda of EU Sport Ministers meetings.

The Commission also places great emphasis on encounters with civil society. In June 2005 the Commission organised a consultation conference with the European sport movement entitled: “The EU and Sport: matching expectations”. In this framework a workshop on the fight against doping was held⁽¹⁾. In October 2005, the same topic was discussed at a one-day expert meeting with representatives from Member States’ governments. At such meetings, the emphasis is on the exchange of experiences and good practice.

Finally, under the framework of the Programme of Community Action in the field of Public Health 2003-2008, the Commission co-financed in 2004 a 3 years’ project on doping and health aiming at especially disseminating developed materials about health side effects of doping and drug abuse with regard to different age-groups, the addictive potential and gender specific differences⁽²⁾.

There is an urgent need to broaden single market freedoms available to fund managers in Europe as this will help to ensure the transition to higher capital funding for pensions.

In this respect, can the Commission state the progress that it has made in terms of developing a European-wide structure for the asset management fund industry?

(EN)An efficient investment fund business is crucial for mobilising savings for investment in the real economy and for helping households to accumulate savings for retirement. EU law in this area is restricted to allowing investment funds to be marketed in other Member States on the basis of their home country authorisation (the 'product/UCITS⁽¹⁾ passport'). While the UCITS passport has encountered some problems in its practical implementation, it has paved the way for cross-border sale of investment funds. However, it has not been enough to facilitate industry consolidation and greater efficiency. The European fund market is still populated by relatively small and inefficient funds.

The question whether the Commission should do more to enable the fund industry to better serve the European investor was at the heart of the July 2005 Green Paper. The Commission invited reactions on a range of new single market freedoms for the fund industry. These included the right of fund managers to manage a fund in another jurisdiction (management company passport); measures to allow more efficient pooling and merger of funds; and the possibility for funds to use custody and depositary services from partner country banks.

Responses received show a high level of interest in expanding the single market framework to include some of these possibilities. These issues are also to the forefront in preparatory discussions on the Parliament 'own initiative' report in response to the Commission Green Paper. However, feedback from industry, investors and national authorities pinpoints a number of commercial and supervisory issues that warrant further exploration. To help identify viable responses that meet these concerns in a cost-effective way, the Commission is taking a number of steps. It has asked an expert group to report on these issues in June: any recommendations will be tested with other stakeholders. The Commission has also launched two studies aiming to analyse the main challenges emerging in the asset management area.

All of this work will feed into reflections on any further steps that might be taken to enhance the single market for investment funds. The Commission will present its definitive conclusions on these issues in the form of a White Paper, which is expected to be adopted in autumn 2006. This could then be quickly followed by any relevant measures to enhance the functioning of the European single market for investment funds.

The chaotic run-in to the introduction of digital tachographs, which has been postponed several times, has been described by the industry as a farce. Can the Commission guarantee that digital tachographs and the software required to read and check the data recorded on them will be brought into line with the new rules on driving and rest periods when they enter into force at the beginning of 2007? Can the Commission also give an assurance that it will take action in good time if problems should prove to arise?

(EN)The new Regulation on driving times and rest periods will not affect the proper functioning of the digital tachograph (including the software), however it will establish the firm, mandatory introduction date for the digital tachograph (twenty days after publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal, foreseen effectively for May 2006).

The objective of the digital tachograph and the driver card is to record and store facts, i.e. activities of the vehicle and the driver, irrespective of its duration, in a safer and more secure way than it is the case with the analogue tachograph. It means that the setting of the digital tachograph does not need to be changed when the new rules on driving times and rest periods come into force in 2007.

The enforcement authorities of the Member States are responsible for the interpretation of the data stored in the digital tachograph, according to the rules on driving and rest periods. Their enforcement policies, and also their enforcement tools, will have to be adapted to the new rules.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the Member States. To this end a project called “Monitoring of the Implementation of the Digital tachograph” has been in place since March 2005. In addition to monitoring the implementation process, the project provides valuable support to Member States in setting up a framework for enforcement, including training and information seminars for control officers.

The EU has not allocated Cohesion Fund monies for the building of a flood prevention reservoir near Racibórz on the River Oder. This news has caused widespread dismay among inhabitants of the Oder river basin and led to a loss of confidence in the European institutions. In July 1997 catastrophic flooding occurred in the Oder river basin, causing the death of 54 people and damage costing almost € 5000 million. Directly after the flooding the Polish Government set about repairing the damage. We rebuilt more than 1 000 km of dikes and increased flood water retention capacity by more than 150 million cubic metres. In implementing the programme we are working closely with our German and Czech neighbours. Poland is meeting its accession obligations as regards implementation of the provisions of the framework water directive.

Given the above, why has Poland not been allocated financial aid for the project and what is the likelihood of Cohesion Fund resources being made available in the near future?

(EN)On 24 November 2005 the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European Commission received a request from the Managing Authority of the Cohesion Fund in Poland for co-financing for the project “Raciborz Dolny Flood Reservoir on the River Odra”. After verification, this project application was considered admissible. A letter was sent to the Managing Authority in which the admissibility was confirmed and a project number was attributed to the project (2005 PL 16 C PE 020). The co-financing envisaged from the Cohesion Fund is € 130 million.

Meanwhile the Commission services are studying the application and it is foreseen that, on the basis of the project description, questions will be submitted to the Polish authorities. If these questions are answered in a satisfactory way and if sufficient financial resources are available to make the approval of this project possible during the year 2006, a Commission Decision can be expected before the end of 2006.

However for the environment sector, financial resources for the period until the end of 2006 are already fully committed through 88 approved projects. Therefore the availability of financial resources depends on the submission by the Managing Authority, before the end of 2006, to the Commission of a sufficient number of applications to decommit savings generated in these 88 projects. Only on the basis of these savings could the Commission approve before the end of 2006 the above mentioned project as well as 11 other projects in the environment sector for which the Commission has received admissible applications from the Managing Authority, for a total value of € 335 million.

If these financial resources are not made available, then the “Raciborz Dolny Flood Reservoir on the River Odra” could be proposed for Cohesion Fund financing under the Regulations of the next financial perspective (2007-2013).

Energy policy should also be part of regional policy. This is made clear in the 'convergence' and 'competitiveness and employment' criteria of the European Fund for Regional Development which is now coming up for its second reading in the European Parliament. What is therefore involved is support for energy investments on environmental grounds, improving energy efficiency, the principle of promoting energy efficiency and the production of renewable energy and the development of effective energy management systems. At a recent conference arranged by the European Parliament with delegations from the national parliaments, it came to light that there is a lack of clarity as to the priorities that the Commission is setting in this area.

How does the Commission see this principle operating in practice and how, more specifically, can scientific research into and the regional development of renewable and sustainable energy production be integrated in practice into European Union policy and the policy of Member States and their regions?

Does the Commission intend to establish priorities that Member States can follow when implementing regional policy?

(EN)The Commission recognises the importance of energy policy action in the framework of the forthcoming period 2007-2013 for European Union regional policy. In addition to the relevant provisions set out in the draft regulation for the European Regional Development Fund, to which the honourable Member is referring to in his question, the Commission had suggested specific priorities for future European Union energy policy action through Community regional development programs in its Communication ‘Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013’⁽¹⁾, notably support projects on energy efficiency, promotion of low energy intensity development models and renewable and alternative technologies (wind, solar, biomass).

The role of the Community funding instruments are further specified in thematic Communications of the Commission, notably such on overriding political challenges for the energy policy of the European Union. Recent examples are the green paper on energy efficiency, the biomass action plan and the EU strategy for biofuels. For the forthcoming Spring European Council the Commission intends to table a green paper on a secure, competitive and sustainable energy policy for Europe, which will open the debate towards an integrated European energy policy. Then, the Commission intends developing a final Communication on energy policy later this year. Taken together, this should give further guidance for the Member States and their regions.

Concerning the integration of scientific research into the European Union policy, it should be highlighted that one of the objectives of the EU research policy is to contribute to the achievement of EU energy policy aims and targets as well as to help to successfully implement EU Directives at national, regional and local levels by supporting research and demonstration projects. Thus, they encompass both the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency addressing as well the mitigation of the environmental impact of energy production and use. Main priorities in the energy field proposed by the Commission for the 7th Framework Program (2007-2013) are: electricity, fuels and heat production from renewable sources, energy efficiency and savings, hydrogen and fuel cells, clean coal technologies, zero emission power generation and smart energy networks.

Is the Commission satisfied with the degree of independence of the competition protection tribunals in the Member States vis-à-vis merger processes that affect sectors which are of strategic importance for the completion of the single market and economic growth in Europe, as in the case of energy?

(EN)The organisation of the national merger control system is a competence of the Member States. In this respect, it is also for the Member States to determine the degree of independence of the National Competition Authorities. Having said that, over the last 10 years, a clear evolution towards greater independence can be observed in the status of National Competition Authorities. This is something which the Commission welcomes.

The honourable Member also mentions the impact of mergers in strategic sectors for the internal market and the growth of the European economy, and cites as a particular example the energy sector. The honourable Member will be aware that the Commission has recently expressed some concerns about the allocation of cases between the Commission and National Competition Authorities in this context. In particular, experiences with mergers in the energy sector in recent years have shown that similar cases are sometimes dealt by the Commission and others by National Competition Authorities. It is therefore important to ensure that similar cases, in terms of their impact on the functioning of the common market, are dealt with in a consistent manner.

This is the reason why the Commission has started a re-examination of the 2/3rds rule which has a direct impact on the division of competences between the Commission and Member States. According to this rule, concentrations in which each of the undertakings concerned achieve more than two-thirds of their Community-wide turnover within the same Member State do not fall into the Commission’s competence. The Commission has started to collect relevant data concerning those mergers which would have been looked at in Brussels, in the absence of the rule. It will then be possible to assess how the two-thirds rule has functioned in practice both (a) in terms of the number of cases affected, and (b) in terms of the nature of those cases. Once this fact finding exercise is concluded it will be examined whether there are improvements to the present system that the Commission could propose.