Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 September 2006 - Strasbourg

13. Council Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0325/2006).

The following questions have been submitted to the Council.

Question no 1 by Claude Moraes (H-0595/06)

Subject: Directives

What plans does the Finnish Presidency have in relation to making progress on the revision of the Working Time Directive (COM(2002)0149 final⁽¹⁾) and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive (amending Directive 2003/88/EC⁽²⁾)? Does the Council seek further progress in relation to these issues during its six-month period of office?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the honourable Member for his interest in the progress on the revision of the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. Following the tremendous efforts of the Austrian Presidency preceding us, it is one of the main aims of the Finnish Presidency to reach agreement on the Working Time Directive. The directive quickly needs to find a jointly agreed solution in order to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the SIMAP and Jager cases. The Presidency thus also intends to do all it can to ensure that the Council reaches a compromise settlement as soon as possible regarding the as yet unresolved ‘opt out’ issue.

The Temporary Agency Workers Directive is another complex and politically delicate issue. As you know, differences in labour market structures and practices have led to differing views between Member States, and the problem has been to find an appropriate balance, where temporary agency employees would be given adequate levels of protection while at the same time the market in companies that provide a temporary workforce would be allowed to develop and grow. Recently, the Member States have renewed their commitment to the Lisbon objectives, including increased levels of employment and the availability of better jobs, which are evident in their national reform programmes. The Council believes that these objectives can be achieved in such a way that the different practices and traditions that obtain in national labour markets are respected.

The matter was last discussed by the Council in June 2003. Since then, different Presidencies have had discussions at various levels to ascertain whether opinions had altered. Up till now there have been two distinct views on the matter, so it has not been worth putting this issue on the agenda of future meetings of the Council. The Finnish Presidency will examine the issue and is also expecting some input from the Commission, which said in its communication on the screening of pending legislative proposals that it would reserve the right to reconsider the proposal based on what emerges in other discussions on future proposals.

The Presidency understands very well that it is important for the European Parliament to make progress in this area. We will be aware of the general opinion on this when the vote on the first reading of the Services Directive is voted on. If the Commission delivers its vital input with regard to this matter during our Presidency, we will be ready to undertake some constructive work to find a solution that is acceptable to all the Member States.

  Claude Moraes (PSE). – Thank you, President-in-Office, for that very full answer and for your honesty, particularly on the question of temporary agency workers.

You will be aware of our frustration in this House, particularly with regard to the Working Time Directive, and are right to say that this has been discussed in previous Presidencies. However, I would like to ask you a very frank question: what is different about the Finnish Presidency, and can you get the Members of the Council together and broker a deal in the interests of working people? Can you give a commitment today that every effort will be made to take the Working Time Directive forward and to put the Temporary Agency Workers Directive on the agenda?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the commitment can be given that the Presidency will work very hard to find a solution for the Working Time Directive. An incentive for this is, for example, that the way in which doctors’ working hours are interpreted causes huge problems for the Member States, and for this reason too it is very important to find a solution for this directive. It is still too early to say, however, whether we will be able to achieve the outcome that we would like to see.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – In his supplementary question Mr Moraes referred to the interests of working people. Is the Council aware of some research concerning large European countries published in the Financial Times in recent days, which shows that the majority of working people in all those countries, with the possible exception of Spain, want more flexibility in their working hours, not less? Will the Council take this into account when trying to broker a deal?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, I am not too sure if we are aware of this article in the Financial Times, but of course we are in many ways aware of the general trend, and as I have already said in my original answer and my last one, and in view of the developments that have taken place in the Member States, it is important to achieve a solution both in the matter of the Working Time Directive and that of temporary agency employees.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Do you believe that it is possible to solve this problem with the social partners in the context of a social dialogue – since they are, in fact, mainly responsible for the problem, also as far as working times are concerned? Taking this into account, do you also believe that a solution is possible if this matter is delegated to the social partners – to the representatives of the employers and the employees?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, this is obviously something worthy of debate, and is an issue that can be raised at the tripartite discussions, but for the moment we are in fact actively seeking a solution that is acceptable among the governments of the Member States specifically.

  President. Question no 2 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0598/06)

Subject: Implementation of the objectives of the European Youth Pact

In what way will the Finnish Presidency support the commitments given by the Member States' governments with the adoption of the European Youth Pact to increase employment for young people?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should stress how important it is that the European Youth Pact should cover a wide area. The needs of the young have to be taken into account in all relevant policy areas. For example, in attempting to improve employment for young people, it may be important to enact various measures removing barriers to education and mobility.

The question by the honourable Member relates in particular to how the Finnish Presidency intends to support the commitments of the governments of the Member States to improve employment. The Member States are responsible for planning and implementing their own employment policies, including those concerning young people. Member States are also responsible for most of the other policies connected with this issue, such as education policy.

The Presidency may nevertheless have an important job to do in raising these issues, especially while the work of the Council of Ministers is being organised. During the Finnish presidential term, the Council convening in December intends to deal with several questions directly connected with employment of young people. The Council will be presented with a report by the Employment Committee which examines the Member States’ national reform programmes, including their employment policies. The result of the survey by the Employment Committee just last year was that all the Member States tackled youth unemployment with reference to the Youth Pact and mentioned a raft of measures that had been introduced to build appropriate paths to employment for the young. There had been very great progress made in linking this to another priority area, the investment in human capital. This had been done, for example, by developing the transition from education to employment.

Finland expects that the Member States’ employment policies this year will also focus attention on resources for youth employment and ways of improving it. Youth employment is also certainly high up on the agenda in the talks to be held by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 1 December on demography and enhancing productivity through more and better jobs.

During the Finnish presidential term, the Council will discuss two issues that directly relate to improving employment for young people. Firstly, improving opportunities for lifelong learning is something that affects everyone, including the young. Secondly, the Finnish Presidency will try to propose concrete measures to improve accessibility to young people’s information services and provide quality information for all young people on important matters such as employment. Special attention needs to be paid to deprived young people.

In March, the European Council asked Member States to include young people and youth organisations in the implementation process relating to the European Youth Pact. The Finnish Presidency proposes to discuss initiation of an analytical dialogue at Council level with and between all youth sector actors, including young people and youth organisations.

To sum up, I will say that during the Finnish presidential term the matter of improving youth employment will be on the Council’s agenda in many connections. Finland urges all Member States to focus attention henceforth on the European Youth Pact and on the various ways of improving youth employment.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, thank you for such a complete reply and for the prospects which are opening up. The third part of the European Youth Pact makes provision for measures to reconcile the family and professional lives of young people, so that they can create new families in Europe.

At a time when unemployment is being successfully combated, do you not believe that a vicious circle is being created? That young people cannot easily create new families and that the demographic problem will get worse as a result?

Does the Finnish Presidency intend at the end of its term of office to present us with the positive results of its actions on reconciling family and professional life?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, one element of this Youth Pact, of course, is the attempt to improve young people’s education, their social participation and the transition to employment. For that reason it is very important, and this autumn we also propose to support the decision allowing endorsement of such multi-professional skills, in order to facilitate young people’s transition from education to employment as well, this being one of the thresholds involved. Obviously, reconciling work and family is still a separate category, but all these things are linked individually to the competitiveness strategy, that is to say the Lisbon Strategy.

  President.

Question no 3 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0600/06)

Subject: Illegal immigration: measures following the June European Council

On the basis of the agreements reached by the European Council of 15 and 16 June 2006, what concrete measures has the Council adopted or will it adopt to restrict illegal immigration by citizens of third countries and facilitate their possible return to their countries of origin?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the readmission and repatriation of illegal immigrants is one of the key factors in the Union’s policy on immigration, especially within the framework of a comprehensive approach to the question of immigration. I would refer the honourable Member to the concrete measures and initiatives which the Council cited in the general answer it gave this year to oral questions H-0440, H-0455, H-0473 and H-0478/06.

Regarding the period since the European Council in June, I would refer the honourable Member to the Euro-Africa Conference on Migration and Development, which Morocco organised, with the active involvement of Spain and France, in Rabat on 10 and 11 July. At the conference an action plan was adopted. Its third section specifically covers matters relating to the fight against illegal immigration and the repatriation of illegal immigrants. All the countries attending the conference stressed their commitment to the rapid implementation of the action plan.

On 17 July, the Council adopted conclusions on immigration, stating once again that illegal immigration must be effectively prevented at Union level. The conclusions also made mention of the significance of other immigration routes, especially in the Union’s neighbouring regions to the east and south-east, and the preparations that are under way for the next Euro-Africa Conference on Migration and Development, which Libya has promised to host.

On 19 July, the Commission published a communication on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third country nationals. It also deals with matters relating to repatriation and readmission. It was presented to the Council on 24 July, and the Council will examine it at a later date.

At present, the Council is discussing a proposal for a directive on common norms and procedures to be applied in Member States when repatriating nationals of third countries who are illegally resident. Talks on readmission continue in accordance with the guidelines and competences agreed by the Council. The Commission and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union also reported back on the implementation of key measures included in the comprehensive approach at a meeting of the Council held on 24 July.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) President-in-Office of the Council, thank you very much for your reply, but I would like to point out to you that, despite all of these agreements, illegal immigration via the Canary Islands is still increasing.

Almost a thousand immigrants are currently reaching the Canary Islands every day. Reception centres are overflowing, there is no way to return the immigrants to their countries of origin and the commitments made by 16 countries have not been fulfilled, except in the case of your country, since Finland, together with Italy and Portugal, has sent a naval unit.

At the end of the day, however, all of these measures, which look very good on paper, are not actually applied. We are facing a real avalanche of immigrants, causing alarm amongst the civil population and concern for the whole of the European Union, since these immigrants have not come to get into the Canary Islands, but to get into the European Union, and that has consequences for its labour markets.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the case that the honourable Member raises is in every respect a very important one from the point of view of the European Union and the Council. The European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union has asked Member States for surveillance vessels, radar and border security experts to implement its own operation in the Canary Islands. It is in the Council’s interests to strengthen cooperation in this area by developing forms of combined operations, and the Finnish Presidency intends to improve Europe’s integrated system for controlling external borders.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I just wondered how the Council expects the EU to meet the increasing challenge of illegal entry and the need for returns when in its draft budget for 2007, and compared to the Commission’s bid, it has actually cut the appropriations for Frontex, the Borders Agency to which the Minister referred several times, and the European Return Fund. I hope Parliament will be able to restore these cuts, but how can these be priorities when the Council is not following through on the financial commitments?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, it is obviously important that we also have adequate resources available to repatriate illegal migrants and to monitor that process, but I would also stress here the importance of the comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration. Then there is the matter too of cooperation with the other countries from which these illegal immigrants are arriving, and whether we can also improve conditions in the countries of departure, so that it would not be necessary to repatriate so many illegal migrants from the European Union.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) I would be interested in hearing your opinion about the possibility of establishing a model of best practice in the field of return to countries of origin. Do you think that the agency that the Commission has set up in Vienna might be able to produce a study of which methods have led to people choosing to return to their countries of origin?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union can also help in greater cooperation in the area of repatriation operations. As with everything else, the exchange of experience and good practice are obviously important.

  President. Question no 4 by Elizabeth Lynne (H-0602/06)

Subject: Elder abuse

In spite of the Toronto Declaration from the World Health Organisation and the United Nations' mention of the abuse of older people in the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, Member States have implemented legislation that deals with the related issue of domestic violence but that omits specific reference to protection for vulnerable older people.

The private care sector, for example, is not sufficiently covered by the current legal framework in many Member States. This can be seen in the UK, where the Human Rights Act does not apply to those who receive privately-funded care.

Will the Council urge the Member States to close these legal loopholes and respect the basic human rights of their older citizens?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council would first like to thank the honourable Member for having drawn attention to the matter of respect for the fundamental human rights of the elderly. Because the Union is based on the principle of respect for freedom, democracy, human and fundamental rights and that of the rule of law, the Council is naturally concerned about any possible loopholes in the legislation that would mean that the rights of older people are not being respected.

Respect for the fundamental human rights of all EU citizens and all people residing in the European Union is included in the Treaty on European Union, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted in December 2000 by EU leaders confirms those rights which result from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States.

Abuse of the elderly in care is not only a human rights issue, but also a social, and in some cases, a criminal one. This being the case, legislative action must be decided upon at national level, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The Council also wishes to stress that it upholds the principle of non-discrimination. It has already implemented measures to prevent discrimination and prejudice based on the six criteria of discrimination in Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and intends to continue implementing such measures in the future. One of the criteria referred to is age.

We should nevertheless remember that it is the European Commission’s task to monitor the implementation of, and compliance with, EU legislation in the Member States, and to submit proposals for justified legislative measures for approval by the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission has made a proposal for recommendation by the Council regarding the prevention of injuries and better safety. One of the priorities is the prevention of violence between people. The proposal will be on the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council’s agenda when it meets on 30 November and 1 December.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – I am very pleased that the Minister has said that there is further legislation coming forward on Article 13 regarding age. Can the Minister assure us that elder abuse will be given appropriate attention by Member States in the national action plans on health and long-term care? Will the Minister urge the Council and the Commission to release any results on elder abuse across Member States, so that we can have an exchange of best practice?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, we obviously have to remember that, concerning the need for a separate law on the protection of the elderly, it should be decided upon nationally in the Member States. As I said in my answer, however, the issues on the safety of the elderly are to be discussed at the Council meeting on the subject at the end of November.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). (DE) In Austria, the families of old people who need care are increasingly resorting to employing illegal care workers, since the state care allowance is insufficient to pay for authorised professional workers. In addition to proposing an increase in the care allowance, we are therefore also discussing a Social Year and appropriate retraining for the unemployed, as well as ‘care semesters’ for prospective medical students.

Has the proportion of undeclared employment in the care sector also risen in other Member States, and which suggestions for solving this problem are being discussed, or rather, which proposals should be supported by the EU?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, naturally, the aim is to build and promote a common European policy in a direction that would allow us to create joint quality criteria for services, regardless of how they are produced and financed. I cannot take a view on what the share of the grey workforce is, but this entire area of controversy is in my view linked to the question of the European social model, on which subject there was an excellent debate here yesterday in plenary.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – Yesterday we had a debate on the Daphne programme, especially as regards women and children. We are hearing a lot about the abuse of the elderly and it might be possible to take this question on board, because it covers a similar area. Two months ago there was a large meeting with eight European organisations of elderly people. Could this question be taken on board within the framework of Daphne?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the current Daphne Programme to which the honourable Member refers, and which is against violence, at present applies in particular to violence against women, but, as the honourable Member says, there are obviously also ways of exploring how the situation might be improved at European level with regard to elderly people too.

  President.

Question no 5 by Roberta Angelilli (H-0607/06)

Subject: Request for judicial cooperation with the United States

In March 2005, Nicola Calipari, an officer in the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI), was killed at a road block in Iraq during the liberation of an Italian hostage. Despite the representations made by the Italian Government, the US Justice Department has stated that it will provide no information over and above that contained in the report by Multi National Corps Iraq.

Unfortunately, the highest Italian authorities, and especially the Italian judiciary, have found the information contained in that report to be insufficient and incomplete, making the closest possible cooperation with the US authorities essential.

Will the Council address this matter within the scope of its CFSP remit so that these events can be fully clarified?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has not examined the incident referred to by the honourable Member, an incident it considers to be a bilateral issue between Italy and the United States of America.

  Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, so is the answer that the Presidency does not intend to take any positive action at all on the matter that has been raised?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the answer is that the Council has not discussed or looked into this issue, but we have various kinds of mechanisms in progress, in the sense that the European Union and the United States have negotiated an agreement on mutual judicial assistance, which also has a certain connection with cases of this kind. At present we need more internal procedures to have this agreement enter into force.

  David Martin (PSE). – I wonder if the Council would agree that this specific case highlights a more general problem that the United States expects Europe to cooperate with it on judicial matters, but when Europe asks the Untied States for cooperation, that country is much less willing to give it? Will the Council have a debate among its Members to discuss how it might put more pressure on the United States to cooperate with the European Union on judicial matters?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the agreement on mutual judicial assistance that I just referred to will help speed up the assistance process, when it enters into force, in many kinds of legal problems, and could also be one key factor in faster and more effective cooperation between the Union and the United States.

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

Question no 6 by Bernd Posselt (H-0608/06)

Subject: Democracy and the rule of law in Russia

What is the Council Presidency’s view of the current state of democracy and the rule of law in Russia, particularly as regards media freedom, the situation of non-governmental organisations, independence of the judiciary and the conditions under which, for example, former Yukos managers Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky are detained?

Question no 7 by Milan Horáček (H-0614/06)

Subject: Situation in Russia

Does the Council Presidency consider that a strategic partnership between the EU and Russia is compatible with the European values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which Russia does not respect, as the following examples indicate: the violation of freedom of the press, restrictions on civil society through the NGO law, human rights violations in Chechnya and the conditions of detention of Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council believes that the strategic partnership with Russia must be based on the common values endorsed in the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, especially those to which Russia is committed as a member of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The same values are also mentioned in the new treaty arrangements between the EU and Russia.

It is the Council’s opinion that if there is to be better stability and welfare in Russia, effective democracy will need to be established at all levels in the Russian Federation, as will compliance with the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and unconditional respect for human rights, including freedom and independence of the media, and for a viable civil society.

Like the honourable Member, the Council is concerned about recent developments with regard to the rule of law, obvious curbs on freedom of the press, the concentration of power, and new legislation in Russia that restricts the work of NGOs. The Council is likewise concerned about the human rights situation in Russia, and especially in Chechnya.

The Council is following developments closely and will raise these problems and issues regularly in political dialogue with Russia, in particular at the talks on human rights held twice a year. The Council will also be monitoring the implementation of the recently amended law to prevent action by extremist movements, with particular reference to the now wider definition of extremist movement.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). (DE) We read that the German foreign minister wants to table in the Council a proposal to bring about common values by creating closer, long-term networks between the EU and Russia. Is this not absurd, when Russia is not even prepared to change the poor conditions under which Mr Khodorkovsky is being held, conditions which contravene its own laws, or rather not even prepared to bring these conditions into line with its own laws, according to which prisoners must be kept close to their home town?

Have you spoken specifically and directly with Russia about the case of these two Yukos detainees?

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). (DE) I would like to ask the same thing as the previous speaker, because this represents a case in which Russia is in glaring violation of its own laws. However, obliged though I am for the answer to this question, it does, I think, raise yet another, namely whether, given the increasingly deteriorating condition of human rights in Russia, you believe that the concept of a strategic partnership with Russia is in itself possible or has a promising future. Do we not rather have to develop new models of cooperation, models which, alongside economic and security policy considerations, actually guarantee respect for human rights?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, there is no longer any need to establish these common values as such, because they already exist. They have been endorsed in the Partnership and Co-operation Agreements, and Russia is committed to them as a member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Obviously, however, there are challenges of all kinds associated with making these values conspicuous in practice and in the implementation of legislation.

These areas of dissatisfaction in the independence of Russian courts are indeed challenges for an evolving constitutional state, which we will be monitoring very carefully. It is nevertheless very important that there should be a good deal of two-way communication within the framework of this strategic partnership. For example, consultations on human rights are being held next in November. Moreover, political dialogue, which is engaged in with Russia on a regular basis, provides an opportunity to discuss and raise these problems in the area of human rights.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). (DE) The economic situation in Russia is indeed very prosperous, but in the field of human rights there is a massive deterioration going on.

Does the Council really believe that the measures it has introduced - namely, dialogue within the context of a strategic partnership – are up to solving this problem? Rather, does not this truly massive deterioration suggest to the Council that it should try a new strategy: reminding a neighbour of the European Union of commitments that it made in the context of its international relations?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the European Union and Russia are strongly linked in very many different ways: through peace and stability, economic cooperation and many other things. That is why it is important that the strategic partnership should establish a good basis and framework for this mutual dependence which exists between us. With the communication and political dialogue that accompanies this, and which exist at present, we can remind Russia of these human rights challenges, and that is what we do. So, at this stage at least, the Council considers that the existing mechanisms provide a good basis for improving communication and the situation regarding human rights.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) Mr President, Minister, while we are on the topic of the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia, I would like to draw the attention of the Council to the fact that this Parliament noted in its resolution this year that ‘the present partnership with Russia is more pragmatic than strategic, since it puts common economic interests in the first place, while failing to achieve any changes in human rights and the rule of law’. Does the Council not think that the position of the European Parliament should be considered more closely, especially as the term of the present Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia is nearing an end?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the Council does listen to Parliament’s opinion and listens very carefully. These matters obviously need to be gone over now, while we are preparing for the renewal of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement and the establishment of a mandate to renew it. I, however, believe that, while this collaboration is a very pragmatic one, it could in addition be much more dynamically strategic in nature than it is today, and that the European Union and Russia can also work in parallel, and as each other’s partners, in global forums.

  President. Question no 8 by Marian Harkin (H-0611/06)

Subject: Stem cell research

Will the Council clarify the legal position resulting from the European Parliament vote of 15 June allowing embryonic stem cell research in the EU?

Can an organisation based in any Member State apply for EU funding for embryonic stem cell research, even if that research is illegal in the Member State where it plans to carry out that research?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 15 June 2006 the European Parliament adopted its opinion on the first reading of the framework decision on the Seventh Framework Programme in accordance with the codecision procedure. The Council, for its part, reached political consensus on the Seventh Framework Programme for research on 24 July 2006, and this consensus is responsible for the outcome of the vote by the European Parliament. I would refer at this point to document number 11978/06, which mentions the political consensus reached on the Seventh Framework Programme. The point of consensus is to be able to prepare a second reading of the Seventh Framework Programme scheduled for the autumn. The result of this will presumably make it possible to adopt the Seventh Framework Programme before the end of the year.

The Community Framework Programme for research makes it possible to grant Community aid only to those research projects that are covered under the programme’s scope of application and have passed through the selection process. Research must of course comply with the legislation in those Member States in which it is intended to carry it out.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Thank you for your answer, Madam President-in-Office, I appreciate it. My question really refers to a situation in which a country does not have a legal framework in place.

Looking at what was voted through here in Parliament, we talked about research being subject to strict licensing and control in accordance with the legal framework of the Member State, but what if it turns out that a Member States does not have a legal framework in place? In my own Member State, Ireland, for example, there is no law governing embryonic stem cell research. Where, then, does that leave this decision by Parliament, and would the Council suggest that all Member States would need to put such a framework in place immediately?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the situation is of course problematic if such things have not been precisely regulated in national legislation, but according to the position adopted by the Council, the main conditions for funding are a precise ethical evaluation of each project proposal and consideration of the legislation in Member States. It is therefore important to realise that the intention behind this single solution and decision is not to create rules on bioethics that apply to Europe generally but to make a clear decision on something less broad in scope, which is what sort of stem cell projects can obtain funding from this Community programme.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – I am very glad that you have made it clear that it is up to the legislation of the Member State concerned as to whether it can undertake research. This is purely related to the funding of it.

I should be interested if the President-in-Office could tell us what opportunities she sees in the ability to undertake stem cell research and to fund it at a European level.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, national legislation is certainly something which will evolve in the years to come, because stem cell research is something new, although, as part of general European competitiveness and cooperation on research, it will be necessary to see whether added value can be achieved from cooperation at European level for research into this area too.

  President. Question no 9 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0612/06)

Subject: Closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp

At the annual summit of European and American leaders in Vienna, President Bush said that he wished to close the controversial prison camp at Guantánamo Bay but that he was awaiting a ruling by the US Supreme Court as to where the prisoners could be tried. In addition, it is necessary to ascertain how countries can take prisoners back. Some will have to be tried in the USA if there are no guarantees of due process in their own country. According to Bush, some 400 prisoners currently remain in the camp.

Does the Council know how many Europeans are being held at Guantánamo Bay? Could they not be returned with a minimum of delay and tried in Europe, where the most guarantees of correct treatment exist and as President Bush himself has suggested?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council is not responsible for the protection of EU citizens abroad; that is up to the Member States. Nor has the Council discussed anything to do with the number of Europeans held in Guantanamo Bay.

  Johan Van Hecke (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, it will come as no surprise that the reply to this question which I submitted as early as at the beginning of July, immediately following the summit between the European Union and the US in Vienna, is somewhat disappointing, because the question is very much linked to one of the topics that was discussed at that summit.

I would therefore be very interested to know whether any progress has been made and whether the Council has any intention of urging the United States to make haste in letting us know how many European citizens may be tried in the European Union and whether the Council is prepared to insist on a specific time schedule in this respect.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, Guantanamo Bay is of course still a serious matter of concern, but the European Union warmly welcomes President Bush’s announcement that he wishes to close Guantanamo Bay, providing that a solution is arrived at on these practical matters. Let us hope that progress is made in this area.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – On 29 June, the US Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals were illegal. At 7.45 p.m. CET, President Bush is due to make an announcement that he is seeking to change the law to make it possible to try Guantánamo Bay prisoners – including EU citizens – by military tribunal. If he makes that announcement – which I believe he will – can the Council protest in the strongest possible terms about this travesty of justice, as a matter of urgency?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the European Union has on many occasions stated that the treatment of prisoners captured on the battlefield must comply with the provisions of the Geneva Convention and the customary rules of international humanitarian law, and must respect human rights. Furthermore, it was the view of the informal meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers in Klosterneuburg in the spring that the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay should be closed as quickly as possible, so the Union has clearly expressed its opinion on the subject.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I do not think I have heard such a feeble statement as ‘the Council is not responsible for the protection of EU citizens abroad, that is just up to the Member States’. We take international action to try to protect the citizens of other Member States, for instance in the Balkans, but we will not have any joint action to protect our own citizens.

Does the President-in-Office not agree that if the EU had said way back in 2002 that it was unacceptable for our citizens to be detained without charge or trial in Guantánamo, then they might all be free by now, or put on trial and convicted if that was what should happen to them?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, it is important for the Presidency, representing the Council as it does, to keep within the limits of its competence. Any discussions which the Member States may have entered into bilaterally concerning the protection of their citizens are their own business. It still needs to be said that the European Union has on several occasions raised the matter of Guantanamo Bay in discussions with the United States, and these talks will be continued.

  President. Question no 10 by Sarah Ludford (H-0617/06)

Subject: Framework decision on racism and xenophobia

Will the Finnish Presidency renew efforts to get agreement in the Council on a framework decision to combat race and religious hate crime as proposed by the Commission in 2001 and strongly backed by the Parliament? Will you encourage the Commission also to come forward with a measure to combat homophobic hate crime?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has been waiting for an outcome on a framework decision, as at least one Member State has had serious reservations about the text in the form that it was in in 2004. As the Member State in question recently withdrew its general veto, the Finnish Presidency intends to work closely with the next country to hold the presidency, Germany, to have the issue discussed by the relevant working groups so that a framework decision can be taken as soon as possible.

There are no proposals on the Finnish Presidency’s agenda relating to homophobic hate crime, which the honourable Member refers to in her question.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I am very grateful for that positive news, which is most welcome. But I am sorry that the Minister feels that there are no proposals on homophobic hate crime. Does she not think that the EU really ought to be tackling the challenges of both racism and homophobia in their acute form of violence and hatred across Europe? We are becoming years out of date with the challenges that we are meeting, not least because of the third-pillar problems of the veto in the Council to which she had referred. Will you also make progress as regards the passerelle in bringing the third pillar – the intergovernmental part – into Community competence so that we can be more effective and democratic?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, I agree with the honourable Member that the European Union should try and intervene in key challenges, but, obviously, we have to do so step by step, and we cannot respond to all the challenges at the same time. We intend to prepare a follow-up to the seminar for experts held in June in connection with the framework decision, and after that we can certainly consider this proposal for a framework decision for a working group to deal with. As regards the passerelle, which the honourable Member mentioned in her additional question, as has been stated here before in Parliament, during its presidential term, Finland will actively look into ways of improving decision-making, leading to joint action in the area of legal matters and internal affairs.

  David Martin (PSE). – I am delighted that the one Member State's objection has been lifted to the adoption of the framework decision. Will the Presidency urge the COREPER Working Group to expedite their work on this matter so that we can get this adopted as soon as possible? Would the Council further agree that the adoption of such a framework decision would send a positive signal to our ethnic minorities in the European Union, particularly the Muslims, who feel under a lot of pressure in our continent at the moment?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the fact that we are making progress with the framework decision does not mean that it is now problem-free: differences in attitude to freedom of speech, the principle of legality and legal systems in the Member States in this regard still lead to unanswered questions. On the basis of discussions held so far, we now propose to draft a more focused proposal for a framework decision, about which it nevertheless has to be said that it will hardly have had time to be drawn up before the next presidency is behind the wheel.

  President. Question no 11 by Inger Segelström (H-0618/06)

Subject: Human rights of women in Iran

On Monday 12 June 2006, approximately one hundred Iranian women activists demonstrated in Teheran. They were demanding changes to the laws which discriminate against women in Iran. The demonstration was brutally broken up by police and 70 demonstrators were arrested.

What political condemnations will the Council make and what practical action will it take in bilateral contacts in response to the Iranian regime's violent attacks on women's rights activists and the violations of women's human rights which are taking place in Iran?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has frequently expressed its concern regarding the plight of women in Iran. In its resolution last December on the human rights situation in Iran, one that also had the Union’s support, the UN General Assembly expressed its grave concern over discrimination and other human rights violations, including the systematic discrimination against women and girls in legislation and in practice.

The Council deplores the worsening human rights situation in Iran. When it met on 20 March 2006, it condemned the harsh response to the peaceful demonstration organised on International Women’s Day. When it met on 15 May, the Council expressed its concern about the increase in the number of executions, random arrests, the tightening of restrictions on access to information, and the increase in violations of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Council was referring in particular to the intimidation and harassment of advocates of human rights lawyers and minority groups.

When it met on 17 July, the Council focused special attention on the continuing violations of freedom of expression and association, including the violent break-up of the peaceful demonstration by those demanding an end to laws that discriminate against women.

The Council is therefore aware of the incidents connected with recent demonstrations. The EU still intends to raise questions of human rights, including the rights of women, both with Iran directly and in international forums.

The Union intends to state its concern both in the confidential and in the public context. During the Finnish Presidency, the EU has already made three public statements on the human rights situation in Iran. On account of the death of the student activist, Akbar Mohammad, at the Evin prison on 24 August, the Presidency said that the EU was seriously concerned about the harsh treatment of dissidents, opposition leaders, student activists and all defenders of human rights in Iranian prisons.

In an official statement made at the end of July, the Presidency stated that the Union was gravely concerned about the worsening plight of the defenders of freedom of speech and human rights in Iran. The statement made separate mention of the prominent human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani, who was sentenced to five years in prison. Mention was also made of Ali-Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, who was arrested during the demonstration in support of women’s rights on 12 June, the lawyer Farshid Jadollahi and Omid Beruzi, who were also sentenced to prison, and the arrests of defenders of labour laws in Tehran.

An official statement was made on 10 July, in which the Finnish Presidency expressed the European Union’s concern that the Iranian academic Ramin Jahanbeglu is still in detention.

The Council is still trying to organise a meeting between the EU and Iran within the framework of the human rights dialogue which began in 2002. At the meeting both parties would have the opportunity to discuss all their worries concerning human rights.

  Inger Segelström (PSE). – (SV) Thank you, Mrs Lehtomäki, for your detailed answer. I am also very pleased that there has been such a strong and prompt reaction to these incidents, for I believe that there are many who, like myself, think that things are moving in the wrong direction. This event is proof of the fact. When one cannot even have a debate on these issues without being attacked in this way, fundamental work needs to be done.

I therefore wonder if there is any possibility of the Council taking the initiative of supporting the women’s organisations that exist. Parliament recently adopted a report on women in conflict management, at which time we talked about how we could take the next step in this area. My follow-up question arises, then, from my belief that many people are concerned about the fact that things are moving in the wrong direction.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, as I said, the Council is very worried that the situation seems in many areas to be deteriorating. At least as a matter of policy, we have also supported and will continue to support women’s organisations in a way that continues to highlight these human rights issues and the current problems, both in direct contacts and in international forums. We have also asked the Iranian authorities several times for further clarification of the violations of human rights that have occurred in the country.

  President. Question no 12 by Robert Evans (H-0622/06)

Subject: Further enlargement of the EU

Does the Council feel that the decision by some Member States to insist on a referendum before any further enlargement is a form of protectionism, deliberately designed to prevent certain countries joining the EU?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ratification procedure for any treaty or convention, including one connected with the accession of new Member States, is up to each Member State itself to decide on. For that reason, the Council cannot comment on the ratification procedure, nor would it be proper for it to do so.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – If the Council says it is inappropriate to comment in any way, it is probably difficult. However, I wonder if I can tease something out from the Council, perhaps in a broader sense. Does the Minister not feel that the mood perhaps changed in Europe after the negative referendums in France and the Netherlands, and that some people in certain countries have a fear of enlarging the European Union and perhaps see that calling a referendum would put a block on any future enlargement?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the mood has not changed, at least in the sense that, much to our satisfaction, the conclusions of the European Council in June, in which the matter of the Union’s absorption capacity was also covered, clearly stated that absorption capacity would not be a new criterion imposed on applicant countries, but something separate which would also have to be taken into account within the European Union. The Finnish Presidency proposes to have a thorough debate on all aspects of enlargement at the European Council in December, and after that we will certainly have a better idea than we do now of what the general mood is in the Member States with regard to this issue.

  President. Question no 13 by Brian Crowley (H-0631/06)

Subject: Combating international terrorism

Can the European Council make a statement as to what measures it has implemented this year at an EU level to combat international terrorism and also say whether it intends to bring forward any new EU initiatives in this political field of activity in the immediate future?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council would like to inform the honourable Member that the Counter-terrorism Coordinator drew up a comprehensive report in May 2006 on EU action to combat terrorism, which also covers the area of external relations. The report is the response to a request by the European Council to have a six-monthly review of the implementation of the action plan on counter-terrorism adopted in June 2004 and last amended in February 2006. The report contains a summary of the progress made since December 2005.

The European Union’s policy to combat terrorism is defined in its counter-terrorism strategy adopted last December. With the recent events in London, it became clear that there would be a need for closer cooperation than ever between terrorism and air security experts. EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers will be continuing these discussions at the informal meeting of the Council in Tampere.

  Brian Crowley (UEN). – Thank you for your response, President-in-Office.

On foot of your final comment, particularly with regard to what we saw happening in London recently, there did not seem to be any coordination with other Member States in the European Union. Perhaps they were not at the same level of threat as the UK on that occasion. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty concerning the security measures in airports. These depend on where you are travelling to and from. Perhaps there is now a necessity for closer cooperation and coordination concerning these matters.

At Tampere will the transport ministers be included in these discussions on how to protect civil aviation from these threats?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, we intend to step up that sort of cooperation and coordination as soon as we can. During the Finnish presidential term, we will be updating the counter-terrorism strategy and the action plan that goes with it. Furthermore, as I mentioned, it has become clear that there is still a need for closer cooperation between terrorism and air security experts. The other example concerns liquid explosives. The law enforcement authorities in the Member States will focus special attention on this question and others at their various meetings in the future.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – On the subject of combating international terrorism, can the Council tell us what steps it took to encourage the return of three IRA members convicted of international terrorism in Colombia, who later took refuge in a Member State of the EU – namely Ireland – and continue to enjoy sanctuary there? Is it not clear that the EU undermines its credibility as regards taking a stand on international terrorism if it acquiesces in Member States harbouring wanted and convicted international terrorists?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, it is obviously important that the European Union is able always to act coherently, in order to preserve its credibility too, and above all to remain effective. Perhaps we will be able to meet this challenge of coherence better if we engage in cooperation in the field of legal and internal affairs and in more effective decision-making.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the current restrictions on travel and the security measures at British airports are causing enormous disruption to normal commercial and economic life. I hope the Presidency will bear in mind, when coming to any concerted position at a European level, that it must make sure that economic and commercial life is able to continue.

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the restrictions on air transport and travel, which obviously apply especially to luggage, are not just disrupting commerce, but a large number of passengers too. It is for this reason that it is so important for experts on terrorism and air security to work closely together to find the right level of security: sufficient to protect citizens from terrorist attacks, but at the same time making it possible to travel as normal in the future.

  President. As the authors are not present, Questions Nos 14, 15, 16 and 18 lapse.

Question No 17 has been withdrawn.

Question no 19 by Esko Seppänen (H-0645/06)

Subject: Tours of duty for combat forces

As the EU is preparing to operate with combat forces, various countries' combat units will in turn be sent on tours of duty. Does any agreement exist between the Member States concerning the division of costs in the event of a combat unit being mobilised for military action during its tour of duty, and has it been agreed within the Council what is to be done if a country component of a duty unit does not wish to participate in an operation decided on within the EU?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, taking a decision to send troops for the EU’s crisis management operation is in all cases up to the Member States concerned. Troops are assembled from volunteers in accordance with decisions taken nationally on the matter.

The joint operational costs of the European Union’s military crisis management operations are financed with reference to Article 28(3) of the Treaty on European Union. This paragraph 3 states that any operational expenditure to which the implementation of these provisions gives rise is to be charged to the budget of the European Communities, except for such expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications and cases where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. Similarly, paragraph 3 goes on to say that in cases where expenditure is not charged to the budget of the European Communities, it will be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. This is what is stated in Article 28 of the Treaty then, and the Member States sending troops are liable for other costs on a national basis.

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, Minister, the second part of my question was completely ignored. What should be done in a situation where a country on stand-by duty has no inclination whatsoever to take part in an operation like this?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, as I said, the operation is initiated by a unanimous decision of the European Union, and a decision is taken in the Member States regarding any single operation. Stand-by duty troops would at the same time be made up of a larger whole. It remains to be seen what the reaction will be in a situation such as that proposed by the honourable Member.

  Brian Crowley (UEN). – First of all, I congratulate the Presidency-in-Office for the work that has been carried out in organising the coordination between the Member States of the peacekeeping group that is going to Lebanon. Following on from what you have said, President-in-Office, on the division of labour – some countries are obviously more able to provide logistical support than others – I would like to ask whether there is any coordination as regards who can best implement the various facets of the operations, or is that still a matter for bilateral relations between Member States?

  Paula Lehtomäki, President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, any stand-by duty troops would be assembled to form a team that works well together, and so there will have been coordination, as mentioned by the honourable Member, right from the preparation stage.

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

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.30 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

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

(1) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9.