Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 7 September 2006 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR OUZKÝ
Vice-President

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

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

4. Use of passenger personal data Agreement with the USA on the use of Passenger Name Record data (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on the Commission statement on the use of passenger personal data

and

- the report by Sophia in 't Veld on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs concerning the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council in respect of the negotiations for an agreement with the United States of America on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to prevent and combat terrorism and transnational crime, including organised crime (2006/2193(INI)) (A6-0252/2006).

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, as you know, the European Court has stated that the Council and the Commission decision on the transfer of PNR data to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection serves the purpose of protection of public security and concerns public activities in the area of criminal law. Therefore, these activities are excluded from the scope of the European Data Protection Directive and Article 95 of the European Treaty, even when the data being processed was originally for the supply of commercial services.

The situation in general concerning legal bases underlines the need for a single system of legal bases for justice, liberty and security issues. This is what I call the ‘Communitarisation’ of the so-called Third Pillar; therefore, I called upon the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs to ensure a clear legal framework for justice, freedom and security by favouring the use of the so-called passerelle clause, Article 42. I know that the European Parliament shares the Commission’s point of view on this very important matter, which I will raise again during the informal Council in Tampere in a few days’ time.

I believe that this new agreement under negotiation with the United States should have the same content and include the same level of safeguards regarding legal certainty for air carriers, respect for human rights, notably the right to privacy, and the purposes for which the PNR data may be used. In addition, it could integrate the current undertakings, as requested in the draft recommendation attached to the annulled Commission decision, and which the United States currently implements.

As you know, these undertakings provide for rules and procedures, which effectively restrict the use of PNR data by the United States authorities. In order not to endanger public security, all efforts should be made to ensure that this agreement replaces the current one at the time when it expires, by 30 September at the latest. The Commission is doing its utmost to start negotiations with the United States as soon as possible. In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of the EU Treaty, negotiations are led by the Council Presidency, assisted by the Commission. The negotiations should start tomorrow in Brussels. A draft text has been transmitted to the United States authorities by the Presidency, which, as I said, is leading the negotiations.

I am aware of your request to the Presidency to make the text of the draft agreement available to you. I am personally in favour and I can assure you that for its part the Commission intends to fulfil its obligations under the Framework Agreement between our two institutions and therefore I will keep Parliament informed throughout the negotiations. It is indeed my intention to report to Parliament regularly on this issue and, as you probably know, I shall be participating in a meeting of the LIBE Committee next week, on 12 September.

Finally, I want to recall that, should no new agreement be in place on 1 October, air carriers flying from Europe to the United States risk legal complaints from citizens based on divergent national legislation on the transfer of PNR data to the United States. For that reason, it is extremely important to ensure legal certainty through an agreement concluded at European level as of 1 October, whilst continuing to ensure a high level of security and at the same time privacy protection for our citizens.

  Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE), rapporteur. – Mr President, today we are discussing the PNR Agreement with the United States. However, we are all fully aware of the fact that this issue can only be debated in a wider context, particularly in the light of the information received last night to the effect that President Bush has finally admitted that secret CIA detention camps actually exist. We should look at this issue in the wider context of the methods used to combat terrorism – the methods that we in Europe want to use in the fight against terrorism and the methods that are used by our friend and ally, the United States.

The case of the CIA detention camps and rendition flights and the case of the PNR Agreement demonstrate very clearly the urgent need for Europe to speak with a single voice. We urgently need a single European policy in this area. I welcome what Commissioner Frattini has said, because in my view a common EU policy is not one designed by a handful of ministers that meet behind closed doors, in informal meetings. An EU policy is one made following a proper democratic procedure that involves Parliamentary scrutiny, i.e. in codecision with Parliament. You therefore have my wholehearted support for the proposal on the bridging clause. I hope that the governments too will now realise how urgent that is.

With regard to the PNR issue itself, we should distinguish three phases. One is the short-term renegotiation of the current agreement, which is very urgent and needs to be concluded by the end of the month. I have heard rumours which seem to indicate that the US is in no great hurry to conclude the Agreement and might actually ultimately prefer bilateral agreements. It is therefore very important that all European countries and the EU institutions close ranks and adopt a united stance.

I very much welcome the much more forthcoming attitude adopted by the Council and Commission this week. That is the best way forward. Were there to be no agreement it would be absolutely catastrophic for the European Union and for the protection of our citizens’ personal data.

With regard to this agreement, we all seem to agree that the substance of the agreement should preferably be left untouched. We would have preferred to improve the agreement, but the US would like to move in another direction. I therefore feel that the best we can achieve at the moment is to have the same agreement but on a new legal basis.

During the negotiations, however, you should insist that the undertakings made in the current agreement be implemented without delay, because assessments have shown that even if there is an agreement it is not being fully and correctly implemented. I would notably point to: the switch from the ‘pull’ to the ‘push’ system, which is long overdue; information to passengers, which is key but which is apparently still not happening; and purpose limitation – which is a more difficult issue, but an absolutely crucial one. I hope you can see to it that the undertakings are integrated into the agreement rather than being a sort of appendix that is not legally binding.

With regard to the medium and long term – i.e. the post-2007 review – we very much hope that by then the passerelle clause will have been adopted, that Parliament will have secured codecision and that everything will be dealt with as part of a proper democratic procedure. At that point, Parliament will insist on proportionality, which is to say that there should be data-sharing, because we all want a safer world and to fight the scourge of terrorism, but that this should be proportional. We should not share more data than is strictly needed to achieve our purpose. It goes without saying that there should be adequate protection of personal data and procedural safeguards. That is quite clear.

One of the proposals in the report, which fortunately received the support of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, is that we start a parliamentary transatlantic dialogue. I feel that this rift with the US needs to be healed. We must fight terrorism together. It cannot be that while we call the Americans ‘cowboys’ they call us ‘cowards’, and we are deeply divided.

At the same time, there are proposals circulating on a European PNR policy. I am rather unhappy that we only learned about this through the media. We have heard that this idea was presented at an informal meeting in London a couple of weeks ago. That is not the way forward. If there is to be such a policy then we would prefer that it were presented here in Parliament.

Finally, I should like to make a very urgent appeal to the Council to adopt proper arrangements for data protection under the Third Pillar, along the lines set out by our rapporteur, Mrs Roure.

(Applause)

  Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, we are four-square behind the objective of preventing and combating terrorism, given that this threat has already been visited on some of our Member States and hangs over all of us at all times. We want to cooperate with other countries in the fight against terrorism, not least the United States of America.

One of our citizens’ greatest concerns at the moment is their security and the more united the Union is in this regard the more effective the response will be. It is therefore preferable to have one agreement between the Union and the United States of America than 25 bilateral agreements. This will put the Union in a stronger position as regards not only the prevention of, and fight against, terrorism, but also the protection of fundamental rights.

We must ensure that there is no legal vacuum at European level after 1 October 2006 as regards the transfer of passenger data. Mr Frattini took the right option, in light of the decision taken by the Court of Justice, to condemn the existing agreement, and at the same time to open negotiations on a new agreement with the United States. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has lent its firm backing to the Commission’s request to the Council to grant it a mandate to reopen negotiations. We know that this is a short-term agreement to fill in the gap between the obsolete agreement and a new long-term agreement, which is something that can and must be considered at the earliest opportunity.

As regards the future negotiations. I should like to underline the example of the agreements with Australia and Canada, which we find acceptable in terms of proportionality, which sets appropriate limits as regards scope, time, and amount of data, and which is subject to monitoring by a judicial authority.

I therefore support the idea of starting dialogue before the year is out between the EU and the USA, Canada and Australia with a view to jointly preparing the 2007 review and to setting up a global standard for forwarding passenger name records.

I should also like to welcome the desire expressed by Mr Frattini to maintain close cooperation with Parliament. I hope that this desire is translated into practical action and is not restricted to rhetoric, and that the Council follows suit.

  Martine Roure, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should, of course, like to begin by giving my full support to the report by my fellow Member, Mrs in't Veld.

We want a two-stage strategy: the conclusion of an interim agreement by 30 September, in order to guarantee continuity and not to cause any inconvenience to Europeans who travel to the United States, and the negotiation of a new, better-founded agreement, during the review, which is initially planned for 2007. Two stages are therefore required.

However, the agreement to be concluded before the end of the month must not be hastily negotiated. Mr Frattini is proposing that we keep the same text and just change the legal basis, as denounced by the Court. We can accept that, but only on two conditions. Firstly, the European Parliament must be fully informed of the debates under way with the Americans and must provide a political input. What is more, the national parliaments must also be kept informed. Secondly, we must be certain that all of the undertakings will actually be complied with and implemented by the US authorities. I am specifically referring to the possibility of shifting from the PULL system to the PUSH system, as provided for in Undertaking 13, and of establishing judicial review procedures in the event of misuse, as provided for in the agreements concluded with Australia and Canada. In the longer term, the new 2007 agreement must offer European nationals the same level of protection of their private lives as that guaranteed in Europe, and that is indeed a minimum requirement.

Finally, during the informal meeting in London, Mr Frattini made several practical proposals concerning a European PNR and a biometric positive profiling system, to be used on a voluntary basis. I should like to know what exactly is the status of this meeting, in which important proposals were discussed without Parliament’s having been informed of them. As regards a possible European PNR, it is quite clear that we will be unable to accept any proposals that allow Community legislation and national laws on the protection of Europeans’ personal data to be circumvented. Nor will we be able to accept a procedure that bypasses the role and the democratic function of the national parliaments in this sector. Furthermore, I would point out that the Commission proposals on these issues cannot be accepted without the framework decision on the protection of data under the third pillar being adopted. My fellow Member, Mrs in't Veld, pointed this out, and this is an aspect that we will not lose sight of.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is not clear that there is any current use for PNR data in the US for the purposes for which the original agreement was signed – i.e. by the Customs and Border Protection Service – because CAPS II and the Secure Flight programme are dead.

In his article ten days ago, the US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff complained of being handcuffed and prevented from using all available resources. He wants to analyse PNR records in conjunction with current intelligence, to identify high-risk travellers who are ‘unnamed threats’, and to share the information routinely with other homeland security sections, such as immigration, as well as the FBI and, indeed, ‘our allies in London’. So we do not need a European PNR system: we will get it by the back door.

The Chertoff vision is of data-mining and profiling on the basis of past and assumed future behaviour and stereotypes of potential terrorists. This takes us well beyond the simple checking of people against watch lists, for which APIS data – i.e. name, date of birth, nationality and passport number – is quite sufficient. We have not begun to tackle the risks of this, so we need a very good explanation of what PNR data is being used for in the United States and what profiling techniques are being used. We need strict and legally-binding purpose- and access-limitation provisions.

Similar concerns arise in the context of the EU plans for European PNR and so-called ‘positive profiling’. Under the 2004 EU APIS Directive, governments gave themselves the power to use the personal data for law-enforcement purposes ‘in accordance with their national law and subject to the data protection provisions under Directive 95/46/EC’. Surely the Court judgment on the US PNR agreement has shown that Directive 95/46/EC cannot be the legal basis for data used for security purposes? Therefore we need the third-pillar measure. Has the Commission thought about this?

I agree with Commissioner Frattini and Mrs in ‘t Veld on the need for a coherent EU policy. If you look at this PNR topic, the SWIFT scandal or CIA rendition, you see a pattern of a disunited Europe: Member States running round like headless chickens, subject to divide and rule by the United States. We are not even a reliable partner: we are not even ratifying the agreements like Europol protocols, which would allow cooperation with the FBI. We are ineffective, dysfunctional and we are letting our citizens down. We must stop this incoherence and achieve a clear and assertive EU competence, but that policy must be determined to safeguard our privacy. Can we trust the Commission on that?

  Cem Özdemir, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. –(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the vast majority of us in this House are not opposed to the strengthening of security where that is necessary, nor are they hostile to the United States or to reasonable cooperation with them in those areas in which we and they have cooperated in the past and will need to do so in the future too.

The attacks on major European cities teach us – as they have done before – that the European Union and the United States need to collaborate, not least in security matters, but – and I am sure that this is the fundamental criticism that most in this House would make – what is required of the agreement on the forwarding of passengers’ personal details as part of the war on terror is that it should be rational and coherent. What has been put before this House can certainly not be described in those terms.

Members from various groups have already spoken to address the fundamental problems that there are with it, the first of which is the use to which the data is to be put, and second the legal basis by reference to which the data is to be forwarded. My group is not alone in having fundamental doubts about both of these. The data should be used solely for the purpose of combating terrorism, and not with any other ends in view, and, in the final analysis, it is highly problematic in legal terms that citizens of the European Union should not be on an equal footing with citizens of the United States; it is not acceptable that our citizens should enjoy fewer rights than do their American counterparts.

What is needed is an even-handed and consistent agreement that guarantees the protection of data and deliberately restricts its use to the combating of terror and terrorism. Political ends must not be treated as superior to fundamental rights. That which underpins the rights enjoyed by all the citizens of this European Union of ours is something inalienable, and it is with grave concern that we see them being slowly eroded.

  Giusto Catania, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, talks are beginning tomorrow and the paradoxical thing is that we are not even aware of the basis for them. The European Parliament is excluded from these talks about a problem that involves all of Europe’s citizens. This is the first paradox in the affair. My group strongly endorses what Mrs in’t Veld is proposing, particularly the need to change to a ‘push’ system for an agreement in the short term, and the need to avoid the direct transfer of data to the judicial authorities for an agreement in the medium term.

I understand the need to use the agreement rejected by the Court as a basis, partly because the United States is demanding even more from Europe. We need, however, to consider the absurdity of certain proposals contained in the agreement rejected by the Court. I am thinking of the 34 data items that have to be transferred to the United States, when we know perfectly well that most of these items are useless: the US authorities themselves say that they have only been using seven or eight of them. Then we ought also to consider the need to establish real, legally binding protection for passenger data, because it is a duty of the institutions to safeguard European citizens’ personal data.

Systematically keeping a check on people in the name of the fight against terrorism is an authoritarian distortion of the rule of law and, paradoxically, by doing so we are helping to achieve precisely what the terrorists want. Systematically keeping a check on people is an outcome of the same authoritarian attitude as the CIA’s secret prisons, which President Bush at last decided to announce to the world yesterday rather than continue to hide the evidence. Let us hope that the countries of Europe will also stop trying to outdo the US. We must avoid taking the same stance on this subject and being more extremist than the US in keeping a check on people in the name of this phoney war on terrorism.

(Applause)

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report states that the EU-US agreement in this sphere is going to become ‘the standard, both for European legislation and globally’. Well, what a reference standard to have! It is already an embarrassment. The European Court of Justice has annulled the original agreement, and yet the replacement agreement only differs in its legal basis.

This Parliament challenged the original agreement between the US and the EU because it believed that the legal basis was wrong and disagreed with the substance. However, despite this Parliament appearing to win the case in the European Court of Justice, nothing substantial has changed. The legal basis will be altered, but since the European Court of Justice did not comment on the substance, in real terms nothing has changed except, of course, the fact that the European Court of Justice will not have competence over the new agreement.

It is clear that the Council is going to continue with this agreement in its original form, just changing the legal basis but still ignoring Parliament in the process. So why is this Parliament again indulging in pointless activity by writing, debating and voting on this report? It will be ignored by the Council.

In-fighting within the European institutions brought about the premature termination of the original agreement. This whole process illustrates the chaotic nature of the European Union. This indicates clearly once again why the United Kingdom would be so much better served by organising such international agreements and arrangements on a bilateral basis.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it is of course touching, and also right and proper that there should be – as this debate makes evident – concerns about Europeans’ civil liberties, and so I want to avail myself of this forum in order to say that I do not see much defence of fundamental civil liberties when, for example, in my home country of Belgium, the state’s security services blatantly bug the telephones of democratically elected members of parliament belonging to my party, which is what they did recently with the telephone of Filip De Winter, who heads our group in the Flemish parliament.

It is lamentable that, when the civil liberties and the privacy of elected parliamentarians, no less, in Brussels, in the heart of the European Union, are violated, I hear nothing said by those Members of this House who are jumping at the chance to rap the knuckles of the ‘Great Satan’ in Washington, so let us not act like wronged maidens.

Yes, of course, the rights of Europeans and of travellers must be safeguarded as far as is possible, but those who, in the aftermath of this summer’s foiled terrorist outrages, still doubt the usefulness of much tighter monitoring in international air travel are, in fact, being almost criminally naive. Regrettably, that is the price that has to be paid for greater security and for greater freedom.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, now that we have this ruling from the ECJ, our first priority is to avoid the vacuum that results from the absence of a treaty, for the consequences of this would be negative not only for the airlines but also for their passengers, in that it might even result in planes being banned from landing, and will, in any case, mean longer waiting times for passengers flying to the USA, since they will now have to supply the information at the airport.

It is for that reason that we support – and I personally do – Commissioner Frattini's intervention in these negotiations, which should involve an amended legal basis in accordance with the ECJ’s ruling, but with the substance of the former agreement, covering precisely those things we proposed then and those that have been added.

For the benefit of all those who have not read the agreement, let me say that it includes the reduction of the data units to 34, the restriction on the use to which they are put, the requirement that passengers be informed, the requirement that the data be forwarded to only one department, namely the Department of Homeland Security, the right of review, and also the right to lodge complaints and appeals, not to mention the requirement that the European Union be notified where terrorist involvement is suspected – in short, it brings us greater security, and that, above all, is something we should make use of.

That, I think, is why it is now necessary that Commissioner Frattini be supported, be encouraged to embark on these negotiations, in which he should of course seek a resolution of those matters where our demands have not yet been completely met – that much is clear, but what is fundamental is that we must not end up without any treaty: fundamental, that is, in the interests of our citizens’ security, of those who travel by air, and of the airlines.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the issue of the transfer of the personal data of European citizens via the PNR is an issue which, as is only natural, has greatly preoccupied Parliament. Taking account of the seriousness with which the questions of anti-terrorism and fundamental rights must be addressed, can anyone tell us exactly what this informal meeting was of certain ministers of the Member States in London in the middle of the summer, which was even attended by the European Commission, a meeting during which, it would appear, serious new anti-terrorism measures were proposed? With what jurisdiction was it held? Who convened this meeting? Who authorised the eager participants to then issue a press release, 'allegedly' with the new European measures needed?

Secondly, as regards the PNR agreement itself, please tell us what it contains, Mr Vice-President, as you expressly promised. Are there any material changes and, more importantly, will the USA's voluntary commitments become binding? You said here, ‘they could become binding’, you did not say, ‘they will become binding’.

The United States have given the acute impression over the last few days that they preclude negotiation, that they are threatening not to sign a bilateral agreement and, instead, to conclude even worse bilateral agreements on the PNR with the Member States. In other words, they are blackmailing us. Why do you tolerate this blackmail from a country which admitted a short while ago that it had secret prisons all over the world, in infringement of every concept of international law?

Finally, could you please tell us, Mr Vice-President, the story of the European PNR which, it would appear, you discussed in London? What does it mean? Why is it necessary? Why is it proportionate? Will it be an effective measure when the United States, even today, refuses to tell us if use of the PNR with America was necessary or effective? How would it have prevented the British or Danish citizens now being accused of being presumptive bombers? How would it have prevented September 11 or the attacks in London or Madrid?

The European Parliament therefore needs information immediately. No one here denies that an anti-terrorist policy and cooperation are needed. But the law is clear: in a democracy, measures must be necessary, effective and proportionate. The national parliaments and the European Parliament must have their say.

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE).– (DE) Mr President, I believe that the Council – which is not present, even though the Vice-President is here to represent the Commission – will eventually be aware that this House, all of whose groups have joined together to speak with one voice, certainly does – albeit to varying degrees – see the need for negotiations between us and the United States, as equals, on arrangements relating to data protection, and indeed demands that such negotiations should take place. That should give the other institutions something to think about.

The ruling by the European Court of Justice has not got us much further. While it does tell us that we chose the wrong legal basis, it does not tell us how we could have made a better job of it, although that, indeed, is not what the Court is there to do; it is for us to take care how we go about doing things.

I would like to say something about the things we need to do in order to put this into practice. I think we are going to end up in a whole load of difficulties if we carry on as we are doing. For a start, and quite apart from the fact that we would rather do this at the European level, rather than having the nation states doing it each off their own bat, I would like to express my doubt as to whether we really do have the legal power to do it. I have to say, quite honestly, that I am not sure about this. Even if we do, the question arises of whether we can do it within the time allowed for implementation.

If we in fact do opt for either the third pillar or a combination of second and third pillar as a means of moving this process on, we will meet with problems of implementation, in most Member States at any rate. We will have problems with their constitutions; I can say that in the case of Germany, and I am sure that most of the Member States will find further obstacles in terms of their constitutional law when it comes to implementing this agreement, and so it is in the individual Member States that the necessary conditions must be put in place first of all.

There will also be problems relating to the laws on the protection of data, since the European Union – with the exception of the first pillar – has no really effective means of data protection, which means that it is the Member States who will have to prepare the ground where data protection and the legislative process are concerned.

What I fear, then, is that the entry into force will be delayed for a bit by quite a few cases brought either before the European Court of Human Rights or the ECJ itself – provided that that is a legal possibility, which will depend on the legal position – or before the national constitutional courts, and so we should, leaving considerations of substance to one side for the moment, apply the greatest of care when dealing with the formal aspects in order to save ourselves further embarrassment of the kind that we cannot afford on the international stage, and certainly not in relation to this issue.

By way of conclusion, one has to consider the economic damage that would ensue if the United States were to threaten to prevent our airlines from landing there if we did not sign this agreement, and I would also like to ask why nobody within the European Union has ventured to remind our trans-Atlantic partners of this.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, it needs to be said loud and clear that this House was right to appeal against the agreement on the personal data of flight passengers; the European Court of Justice has already ruled that the legal basis on which it reposed was false, and it is only regrettable that it has not therefore had anything to say about its substance. I might add that I think that the directive on data retention might well end up suffering the same fate.

What is meant – or required – to happen now, following the judges’ ruling, is the conclusion, in a very short space of time, of a new agreement absolving all twenty-five Member States of the need to conclude bilateral agreements with the USA on an individual basis, which would certainly not be in the interests of a high – and above all else uniform – level of protection for the European public.

It will not, of course, be possible, in so short a time, to hammer out a whole new agreement, but there are things that have to be done if we are to have, as intended, a short-term agreement for one year. I believe, then, that the EU must make it its priority to insist on the USA at last doing what it has repeatedly undertaken to do and allow its engagements to be incorporated into the body of the treaty.

After all, the practice adopted over the past two years has shown that the Americans do not take these engagements particularly seriously and, indeed, simply disregard them. That is particularly the case when it comes to the principle that data be used only for a specific purpose, and it is very much in the interests of European citizens that their personal data should not be allowed to be passed on indiscriminately as the American customs and immigration authorities think fit.

  Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, it is unfortunate that the European Court of Justice did not return a ruling on the merits of the question put to it by the European Parliament, thereby putting us in this complicated situation.

We are now being called upon to find a solution under pressure of time, because if no solution is found by 30 September, then more than 100 000 European passengers a week are in danger of being unable to travel to the United States.

I understand that recent events in London have heightened interest, in Member States, about data transfers. However, I should like to emphasise that our common objective, to safeguard public security, is self-evident. However, the method which we apply in order to achieve it will also define the product of our societies and will illustrate the level and maturity of our civilisation.

An effort must be made to ensure that the information which may be requested is limited to what is absolutely necessary, with sensitive personal data clearly excluded. However, in all cases, on such a serious issue, there must be close cooperation between the institutions, with the active – I repeat active – participation of the European Parliament, especially the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, at all levels of negotiation.

We accept Mr Frattini's position that he will keep us informed, although that is not enough. The European Parliament cannot be called on every time to back decisions which have already been taken. The European Parliament has an obligation to take an active part in all these sensitive issues.

With these comments, I think that we shall vote for the opinion expressed in my honourable friend's report.

  Edith Mastenbroek (PSE). – Mr President, I fully endorse the approach of our rapporteur, Mrs in ‘t Veld. It is only normal that we, as Members of the European Parliament, seek the protection of our citizens’ rights as we fight against terrorism. These two things do not exclude each other; on the contrary, they are complementary. But I also endorse our other criticisms. Of course, we need full parliamentary involvement and a free, open and transparent debate. If we cannot even honour the principles of democracy when we decide on the fundamental rights of our citizens, then when can we?

But let us face it, even though all these things are, as we say in Holland, ‘completely open doors that do not need to be kicked in’, the PNR case is becoming a bit of a farce. It somehow seems incredibly difficult to solve the problems and make sure that the rights of our citizens are adequately protected. Why is this? Is it Mr Frattini’s fault? Is it due to the Council? After PNR, Swift, the CIA scandal and various other recent problems, I believe that it is highly unlikely that the current United States Government can be persuaded to be sensitive to our very simple and logical demands.

Maybe we, as a parliament, should change our tactics. Maybe we should take up the issue directly with the United States Congress – I have much more faith in our democratic counterparts on the other side of the pond. I hope for a joint session of the European Parliament and the United States Congress, as I am sure that American parliamentarians are more subject to reason than the Bush Government.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I am rather pessimistic about the outcome of this agreement. I support what has been said, particularly by the rapporteur, Mrs in ’t Veld, but the problem is that we – the European Union and the European Commission – have given up our negotiating power: that is why we should feel pessimistic.

We gave up our negotiating power four years ago, when for a year and a half passenger data were being transferred to the United States completely illegally. An agreement was reached, which later proved to be unlawful and in fact served merely to acknowledge the illegality and remedy just a tiny part of it. We should actually have enormous negotiating power, but it is a question of deciding whether, as Europe, we want our law to be observed on our own territory, which is a principle of the rule of law. On the strength of that, we can then negotiate with the United States. If, instead, we give in, the United States will clearly be in a position to say, ‘Well, if no agreement is reached within a month, we shall do as we like.’ The small detail is that, if we are determined, they cannot do as they like.

The reasoning of people who say, ‘What is at risk here is that US airlines will be prevented from flying’ is completely false from a legal point of view: our privacy laws do not protect according to an airline’s nationality, but according to the country where the personal data are gathered. Data gathered for commercial purposes cannot be systematically used for security purposes either in the United States or even in Europe, not even if we wanted our data to be used in that way.

Therefore, if we begin to enforce our law, we shall succeed in having the negotiating power to conclude an agreement with the United States. An agreement of this kind means that only data relevant to security should be transmitted, and not absolutely irrelevant data as happens today.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the debate on the protection of personal data reminds us every time of the theatre of the absurd. Why? The decision was cancelled by the European Court of Justice and the report and the Commission are basically proposing the same agreement, exactly the same as the cancelled agreement.

Secondly, the provision of details of the SWIFT transactions of millions of citizens is denounced while, at the same time, in plenary at the European Parliament, a report is being voted on which legalises this provision.

Thirdly, the existence of secret prisons is denounced by those who were members of the governments and signed agreements with the United States of America and who then come here to the European Parliament and protest.

Fourthly, the protection of personal data and democratic rights is discussed while, at the same time, Parliament is approving the setting up of a mammoth electronic database with biometric data known as the Schengen II system, and so forth.

To conclude, the more you talk about protecting individual rights and individual freedoms, the more the European Union massacres them. It is a mockery of the people. The so-called 'anti-terrorism campaign' has one objective: to terrorise the people and subjugate them, but we believe that it will not ultimately succeed in doing so.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, the fight against terrorism has been stepped up. After what has happened, this has of course been necessary, but we must engage successfully in that fight without undermining fundamental democratic ideas and values. It is important to have rigorous security procedures, but to overstep the line and forgo the balance between combating terrorism and respecting fundamental rights would benefit none of us in the long run.

Following the decision by the European Court of Justice in May to cancel the Passenger Name Record agreement, we are now to have a new agreement with the same content. Unfortunately, there will be no input from Parliament, meaning that citizens will be unable to influence issues concerning the way in which they are kept track of and their behaviour systematically monitored.

The freedoms of the individual should be protected better in the new agreement. Under the PUSH system, American authorities should, I would emphasise, make requests on a case-by-case basis. The legal protection afforded Europeans is inferior to that enjoyed by Americans. I would therefore call on Mr Frattini to make political innovation his goal in the necessary cross-border dialogue. Otherwise, we are unlikely ever to make any progress on this matter.

The EU and the United States are able to reduce the gap between their respective positions. This has already been shown by the discussion between the parliamentary groups – or interparliamentary dialogue - and by the discussion between our delegation for relations with the United States and the Americans’ corresponding delegation. This dialogue should progressively contribute to an increase in quality, including where content is concerned. It is important for Parliament to participate in this process.

In conclusion, I wish to congratulate Mrs in't Veld on her clear and unambiguous message. She has said what had to be said. I really do support her call to the Member States to stick together and not to conclude bilateral agreements. Europe must speak with one voice.

  Michael Cashman (PSE). – Mr President, it has been an interesting debate and I should just like perhaps to add a note of realism. We must remember that we are not talking about travel within the EU: we are talking about travel to the United States. We are talking about travel through US air space.

I believe an agreement is essential if we want to protect the fundamental rights of the EU. But if we are to have this agreement we have to be willing to negotiate, we have to move. We have to recognise that in the absence of any agreement, the Americans will do quite legally what they have done in other instances: they will say to every passenger travelling to the United States of America, ‘we wish you to sign a data waiver, i.e. that your data can be transferred to the United States’. Let me tell colleagues now that if that happens, any notion of EU-wide data protection is absolutely and fundamentally lost.

Furthermore, let me say that America is not the problem. An attack upon the United States, an attack in Germany, an attack in Denmark, an attack in Madrid, an attack in the United Kingdom, or attempted attacks, are attacks upon every single one of us because we have common values. The United States wants to make the world a safer place. We need to work with the United States to make that a reality. America is not the problem: terrorism and extremism are the problem. My colleague Mr Coelho cited some brilliant examples of negotiations and agreements currently in place. We should look at those agreements, we should emulate them and we should give our citizens their fundamental rights and their fundamental freedoms.

  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the issue of the onward transmission of flight passengers’ personal details is one of the most tricky that we in the European Union have to face up to, for how do we protect people from terrorist violence without jeopardising their fundamental rights or their private lives? What that means in this specific case is that if the EU concludes an agreement on the forwarding of air travellers’ personal details, any such agreement must include adequate protection for those details as an essential component. The agreement we reached did not do this, and it appears to me that the new version does not do so either.

That information has to be exchanged as part of the fight against crime and terrorism is not, of course, a matter of doubt, but there need to be binding legal provisions governing who may have access to the data, where they may do so, and in what manner. That is why this agreement with the USA needs to be completely renegotiated over the coming year.

Something else that is plain to see is that if the forwarding of passengers’ personal details really is intended to result in better protection against terrorist attacks, this measure cannot be restricted to flights to the United States, Canada or Australia. An international agreement will be needed to improve air transport safety worldwide and, in so doing, regulate the protection of data; this is where the European Union can be a front runner. Only in this way can we secure freedom to travel as an outstanding characteristic of our society without imposing needless restrictions on it.

I will conclude with another observation for the Council’s benefit. Following the Council’s, and the Commission’s, embarrassing performances before our Committee on Monday, I think it highly lamentable that the Council should not be present today, for it is under its presidency that these things are meant to be negotiated. For this, the Council is in disgrace.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to all those who have made important contributions to this debate, but first there is a matter to which I should like to draw everyone’s attention, with all the frankness that this Parliament deserves.

In some speeches I heard a plainly mistaken interpretation of the Court of Justice ruling, which in fact made the agreement an issue. I heard some Members refer to that ruling as if it were a victory. That ruling rejected the agreement: someone said exactly that.

Ladies and gentlemen, that ruling was a major setback for Community interests; it was a major setback for this Parliament and for the European Commission. That ruling established that the matter is not a Community matter; it is not a matter that can be negotiated by the Commission, so much so that the negotiations are being conducted by the Presidency; it is not a matter to which the privacy directive applies, Mr Cappato – it does not apply, whether we like it or not; yet we have to abide by the ruling even though it was a setback for us all. To be quite frank, we cannot be grateful for a ruling that rejected the agreement. That ruling, as Mr Alvaro said, was a backward step for Community interests.

That is our starting point and we move on from there. Clearly, when we are talking about having to reach an agreement in a hurry, by 30 September, and then negotiating another agreement with the United States by 2007, we need to take the realistic, accurate, pragmatic view expounded just now by Mr Cashman.

The real problem is that, if this agreement does not come about, millions of European citizens will accept lower guarantees of protection for their personal data in order to continue flying to the United States. They will be forced to do so in individual declarations, and Europe will have lost any power to protect them to a suitable degree. The real problem is this: each of us who has tried to do his or her duty cannot even think of challenging the United States.

There is an interpretation handed down by the Court; I personally do not like its interpretation, but it is my duty to abide by it and to enforce it. I must also say quite frankly that, if an agreement is reached, the protection of our citizens’ individual rights will at least not be left just to the discretion of a particular airline: bilateral negotiations between the United States and the individual airlines will reduce protection levels, and certainly not raise them. That is the realistic view that we must accept as a starting point.

The second consideration – again, I agree with Mr Cashman and Mr Coelho – is that our problem is certainly due not to the United States but to the terrorists. The terrorist threat is real: what happened this summer in London did not constitute a half-secret or semi-informal meeting of ministers of internal affairs with the European Commission.

We were informed about what could happen in the United Kingdom – I shall say this later in my information for Parliament – and we were concerned to realise that there was a clear and current threat. Obviously, having seen a major operation by the police and security services in Denmark only a few days ago, we are sure that the danger and threat are real and are hanging over the European Union’s territory.

What do we need? We need more cooperation among ourselves, among the European Union Member States; we need more cooperation among the Union’s institutions. That is why I said in my introduction that Parliament will be kept informed, politically informed, even though institutionally and legally it cannot take part in the decision because of the ‘legal basis’ (and I use inverted commas on purpose). In any case, Parliament will be kept politically informed by the European Commission. We also need stronger cooperation with the United States.

At this juncture we must cooperate more, not less, but on a clearly equal footing of course. The European Union proudly insists on this principle. I also agree with Mrs Roure in particular, who mentioned the national parliaments.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in concluding the agreement – the talks are taking place in two parts and we start tomorrow; I cannot say whether an agreement will be reached, but I hope it will – we shall in any case need it to enter into force straight away, even while we wait for certain ratification procedures, which in some countries will take time, as Mr Alvaro pointed out. Since we shall invoke a rule in the treaties that provides for the agreement to enter into force straight away – otherwise it would be totally pointless – it is right that the national parliaments be kept informed from now on, in the same way as we shall be keeping the European Parliament informed, since many of them will be called upon to act once the immediate transitional implementation of the agreement has already begun. It is also a question of cooperation and, as you know, the European Commission agrees with that in principle.

The third and last consideration is: what points need to be worked on in the next few days, say, if not in the coming weeks?

The first point is to persuade the Council – we shall make a start during next month’s Council – to approve the framework decision on personal data protection. This is a commitment that I have made and one that Parliament supported. I am making a further appeal to the Council for certain countries to tone down their reservations when the framework decision issue is discussed again at the next Council of Ministers in the coming weeks, so that a document can finally be put forward that really shows the European Union’s determination to guarantee the protection of people’s personal data.

The second goal to achieve within a very short time is the implementation of what was termed the ‘push’ system by the rapporteur, to whom I am grateful. I can supply some detailed information about this. Some companies providing technical services for the major European airlines have already presented the technical solutions available for implementing the ‘push’ system. Some of them – I can mention just a few: British Airways, Air France, Iberia, Lufthansa, Alitalia and KLM, nearly all of them, in fact – have submitted concrete proposals to the relevant offices of the US Administration. Under the agreements that we had reached with the United States, the ‘push’ system could start operating without any need for changes within just a few weeks. Technically, there is already a proposal on the table and, in some cases, it has also been formalised. This is recent information that I have been given, showing how things are moving precisely in the direction that we all want.

The other point is positive profiling. Mrs Roure has asked for general information about the London meeting: I shall be pleased to provide it to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs next week, when I shall go into much more detail. Positive profiling is an initiative that was not started today or yesterday, but rather a few months ago. It is an initiative aimed at identifying accelerated border control procedures at airports. There are two elements: firstly, as it is reserved just for international flights, it does not concern data exchange for European internal flights, where we would have insurmountable problems with freedom of movement, the Schengen area, etc. The system covers international flights from the European Union, to the European Union and across the European Union. It is just for passengers who, on a voluntary, individual basis, agree to supply their data, particularly biometric data, and in exchange they benefit from using an automatic identification channel, which will evidently take less time at passport control. This is on an individual and voluntary basis, using biometric data.

Why are we considering such a system? To avoid what has been said about ‘negative profiling’, which is profiling on an ethnic or religious basis. Clearly, we could not accept any system of that kind, whereas we can imagine – since the Council has called for it – that each of us may agree to supply our biometric data to a database that guarantees privacy, in exchange for faster departure procedures. Think about frequent fliers. This is a system that we are examining, and we expect to table a proposal within a few months, perhaps by the end of the year.

To conclude, I shall be pleased to inform the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs about what was said in London regarding procedures to enhance methods for detecting explosives, particularly liquid explosives, as well as on Internet use, positive profiling and everything else.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

President. – The joint debate is closed. The vote will take place today, at 12 noon.

5. European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0260/2006) by Mr Sifunakis, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on the protection of the European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions (2006/2050(INI).

  Nikolaos Sifunakis (PSE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important day for me personally and, at the same time, for my colleagues and for the Committee on Culture and Education because, following an entire project lasting about one year, I have the pleasure today of presenting to plenary my report on the protection of the European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions.

For centuries, with simple materials and means, people living in the countryside and islands of Europe, obeying the basic rules of the human scale and the mildness of the natural environment, have managed to create a man-made heritage of huge aesthetic value.

This humble heritage, the protection and promotion of which is not only a cultural obligation but also a development need, has in many countries of Europe, at the responsibility of the governments, been altered considerably as a result of social and technological developments, unbridled economic exploitation and overdevelopment, which has, on the one hand, altered the place and destroyed – especially on the small scale of the islands – the wonderful balance between the natural and man-made environment and, on the other hand, destroyed highly-productive farmland.

The purpose of my report is to formulate specific proposals for the protection, promotion and long-term management of this rich heritage in rural and island regions in Europe, for the benefit of the quality of life of all European citizens.

My proposals contained in the report are directed at the European Union, the Member States, local and regional authorities and European citizens, who are called upon to take specific measures to maintain and promote it. Due to limited time, I shall comment on just a few of them:

First of all, the Union needs to acquire a comprehensive cultural heritage strategy. This will be achieved provided that the European Commission, when preparing its legislative proposals, examines in detail the repercussions of the proposals on culture, on the cultural heritage and, most importantly, on the popular architectural heritage which artisans have created by hand over the centuries. In this way, action beneficial to the heritage will be integrated into every Union policy.

Given that Community programmes in the culture sector do not offer adequate funding, additional funds to maintain the heritage must be found, together with other Community resources: within the framework of the common agricultural policy, in the Structural Funds and in the LEADER, URBAN and INTERREG Community initiatives, which are to be incorporated in the next financial period into the new political cohesion and CAP financing instruments.

Similarly, in using the Community funds, the Member States should encourage sustainable, alternative tourism, which can help to protect and promote the architectural heritage of communities, most of which have retained their physiognomy.

The 'Culture' programme, with its limited budget, has also given considerable support to cultural heritage projects, but has, nonetheless, excluded restoration projects.

However, there are other actions which could be financed under the new 'Culture 2007' programme.

In particular, within the framework of multiannual cooperation projects under the programme, a network could be created of important architectural communities in various Member States with a population of up to 1 000 inhabitants.

These communities will carry out activities of a cultural nature depending on the traditions of each area, in order to strengthen cooperation between important architectural and cultural communities in Europe and give them the facility to develop their local characteristics, habits, customs and traditions.

Over and above that, however, the European Commission is also called upon to create a new European institution for important small traditional communities, along the lines of that instituting the cultural capitals, whereby one or two interesting communities would be selected each year, in which restoration and renovation interventions would be carried out and cultural events would be held throughout the year.

Taking the development of architecturally important communities in Europe as our criterion, we also propose that a new category of award be created within the framework of the 'European Union Cultural Heritage Prize' for the best overall restoration of a traditional community.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the man-made environment of Europe, which consists of sub-sets of various architectural forms and eras, is changing considerably due to unbridled overdevelopment and the existence of incompatible structures which are out of tune with the particular historical and architectural characteristics of their locality.

Consequently, the Member States must provide incentives for the whole or partial demolition of such buildings; at the same time, projects which demonstrably destroy and alter important elements of the cultural heritage must not be supported from Community funds.

Finally, the report also proposes the introduction in the European Union of a 'European Cultural Heritage Year', the purpose of which will be to raise the awareness of European citizens about the importance of the cultural heritage, irrespective of its European, national or local dimension.

To close, I should like in particular to thank the secretariat of the Committee on Culture, the experts who worked with me and, of course, my colleagues in the Committee on Culture.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by expressing my gratitude and that of my colleague, Mr Figel', to the rapporteur and the Committee on Culture and Education for their constructive efforts in producing this excellent report. This report highlights concerns over the importance attached to cultural heritage. They are concerns which the Commission fully shares.

Much remains to be done in this area. However, the Commission’s involvement has already been demonstrated both through the present Culture 2000 Programme and through other European programmes and financial instruments. Several points raised in the report have already been taken into account by the Commission. However, it is a very helpful report, which gives us the opportunity to stress once more the need to use all the existing possibilities to protect natural and architectural heritage.

Within the framework of the Treaty, the Commission encourages Member States to use all the opportunities offered by European financial instruments – the structural funds, for example – for investment in cultural heritage projects. Such investments are clearly important means for the creation of new employment opportunities and for economic growth. They therefore contribute to regional development and regeneration.

In this respect, the European Commission, and the services of my colleague Mr Figel' in particular, are monitoring all European programmes and ensuring that the financial instruments incorporate cultural aspects into their objectives. As a result, over the last few years, we have witnessed a marked improvement. I am very pleased at this development and could give you examples of Member States, such as Greece or Portugal, that have grasped the opportunities offered by Community support frameworks and have introduced operational programmes for cultural heritage.

The Commission also encourages cooperation between Member States in the field of culture and cultural heritage through the Culture 2000 Programme. In the near future, these efforts will continue through the newly proposed Culture Programme 2007-2013.

Thanks to the sound cooperation between the three institutions – and I should like to take this opportunity to thank, again on behalf of Mr Figel', the rapporteur, Mr Graça Moura – this new programme for 2007-2013 will hopefully be adopted before the end of the year. In this context, partnerships such as those proposed in the report could be considered for funding in the near future.

As the report also recognises, the European Commission is very active in its efforts to increase awareness of the importance of cultural heritage through actions such as the European Prize for Cultural Heritage and the joint action undertaken with the Council of Europe on European Heritage Days. In the future, we could consider ways of enlarging the scope and having the European Parliament’s concerns better reflected in these actions.

In conclusion, I would stress that this report is being discussed at precisely the right time. We are at a juncture when our new culture programme is about to be adopted, when the Commission is reflecting on its actions for the coming years and when many points are up for discussion. This report will certainly be of major interest in that context.

  Vasco Graça Moura, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if the importance of cultural heritage in Europe’s rural and island regions is to be recognised, we must go beyond the mere statements of principle on which politicians are so often keen, and urgently adopt a complete range of measures aimed at protecting, restoring and promoting it.

In addition to the cultural interests at stake, it must be highlighted that there is a human, social and economic interest agenda involved in taking these ideas seriously. The Sifunakis report does the right thing by proposing a range of political priorities in order to reach those goals. For example, a systematic survey and study of this heritage and the recognition of its variety and versatility, the creation of a legislative framework to guarantee its protection, incorporating incentives for the conservation of traditional buildings, financial assistance, the continuation of traditional activities such as farming and arts and crafts, the conservation of traditional professions and local know-how, the restoration of natural habitats and architecture, the training of craftsmen, the adoption of new methods and techniques, the promotion of initiatives as part of the framework of Community programmes aimed at creating a European heritage inventory, and, lastly, the promotion of all the tangible and intangible elements that make up this heritage. The document before us is an extremely broad tapestry, and covers many more points than I have mentioned.

Defending the heritage of rural and island areas in this way is also a means of reversing the trend towards the abandonment of many of the places concerned and of creating focal points for attracting jobs and generating wealth and sustainable development. The authorities in my country have emphasised that the policy of the heritage of the rural world should be based on three main axes: sustainable balance between the population and the surrounding area; integrated action, meaning genuine cooperation between the various levels of authority and the local populations; and constant dialogue with local people, interested parties who actually know their own needs.

Some of the points mentioned have already been proposed by the Commission for the period 2007 to 2013 and it is hoped that a well-balanced policy on rural and island heritage can help to reverse current negative trends. The Krakow Charter of 2000 promotes principles that are entirely applicable in this area based on the plurality of values and the diversity of interests of heritage; for example, historic cities and settlements represent, within their context, a vital part of our universal heritage and should be viewed as a whole, with the structures, spaces and human factors normally present in the process of continuing evolution and change.

  Christa Prets, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, that the maintenance and protection of Europe’s cultural heritage is of major importance and also constitutes a major task is not a matter for doubt, and it is not irrelevant that there are various agreements, such as for example those of UNESCO and the Council of Europe, that record these efforts and highlight the positive developments achieved.

Even so, when discussing the protection of our cultural heritage, which focuses primarily on preserving the cultural achievements of the past, what should be borne in mind is that culture is a dynamic and diverse process, so, while cultural policy has to be concerned with the maintenance and conservation of our cultural heritage, it must also take responsibility for the creation of cultural networks for contemporary culture and artistic trends that serve as a basis for the cultural heritage of the future.

It is very important that people’s awareness of the cultural treasures of their own country and of Europe be fostered, and a European Cultural Heritage Year will certainly be able to highlight a number of them and make them more aware of their importance. More use can and should be made of the resources that the European Union makes available – in the shape of the Structural Fund, URBAN, LEADER, INTERREG and so on – in the service of cultural heritage, but responsibility for this lies with the Member States, and it is they that need to be made aware of the fact that investments in cultural heritage have beneficial effects on the quality of life in the regions and, of course, on tourism. It is, then, with the interests of these in mind that we need to get to work.

What I do not agree with is the way we are drawing very heavily on the budgets for Culture 2000, or its successor, Culture 2007, for the sum of EUR 400 million, spread over 27 countries and a period of seven years, does not provide sufficient scope for contemporary art alongside structural investment. What we should be using these resources for, though, is the raising of awareness through seminars and the award of research contracts, through clarifying the degree to which experience and information are being exchanged, and how matters stand in the other countries, as well as planning projects on the protection of the regions. That is what this programme can – and should – do.

We are urged to think of our cultural heritage as an indivisible whole, and that we can do, but it must, in future, go hand in hand with that which is contemporary.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, will begin by saying that I see it as fundamental that European cultural policy means not only protecting our cultural heritage and emphasising our cultural diversity, but, of course, also promoting – and in a pro-active manner too – the cause of contemporary art, and that the strength of European cultural policy must inevitably lie in considering all these things as a whole.

I do nevertheless regard this report as important, in that it attempts to raise awareness of the diversity of European culture and of Europe’s cultural heritage. Anyone who has had the opportunity to travel through Europe, whether to islands such as Madeira, the Canaries, Cyprus or Malta, or to visit rural areas in Tuscany, Scotland, Latvia, Finland, Poland or Provence, knows the beauty and diversity of this European cultural heritage and how readily people can be persuaded to take a stand in its defence.

That is why the defence of this cultural treasure is a matter of political obligation – and I am talking here not only about the making of policy at European level, with its various programmes, but about the national level too. I also think it very important that we should, in working for the cultural diversity of Europe, consider more than just the 2007 culture programme and understand this as a real horizontal task and as a network policy including also agricultural policy and structural policy, that we should make use of the various programmes such as URBAN, LEADER, and INTERREG, since it has to be made clear that this is not only an important task in terms of cultural policy, it also has to do with preparing people to do jobs – as restaurateurs, for example – and with new developments in rural areas. It is, then, in the best sense, a truly multifaceted policy for the various European programmes.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Sifunakis’ report is highly significant, as it draws attention to the need to deal with the basis of national culture, that is with traditional culture that still lives on, particularly in rural and island communities.

To date, the main thrust of the efforts made by the European Union, including this House and the European Commission has been towards establishing a universal European culture – a culture for all. As yet nobody has succeeded in implementing this doctrine and nobody will, because cultures arises from the collection of values developed by people coming together to form national groups. Culture binds a nation together, but also serves to distinguish it from other nations through its beauty, richness, cultural individuality and traditions that bind a people together and which are often known as its heritage.

We in the European Union must therefore foster linguistic diversity, because language is the basis of culture, and also popular culture, which is the basis of national culture. In addition, we must protect the cultural monuments and spiritual values that are disappearing, including folklore, handicrafts and trades which are dying out as civilisation and technology advance and mass production takes over.

Preserving the richness of individual cultures along with the beauty of the landscape and human beings’ natural environment, provides an opportunity for the intellectual development of people and a better awareness of the world around us. It is an opportunity for understanding, mutual respect and natural integration through values, rather than through the clout of the dominant economic and cultural power.

  Thomas Wise, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I have not met many people who are not in favour of the protection of natural, architectural or cultural heritage. Indeed, much of my constituency, the East of England, fits the bill as a rural area. That is, of course, as long as some of the misguided, unsustainable development plans from Mr John Prescott, our Deputy Prime Minister, can be halted.

Great Britain is an island with its own extensive natural and architectural heritage. However, although at face value this report has noble intentions, it serves to threaten Britain’s heritage. The proposals in the report have the specific aim of subsuming Britain’s distinct and diverse culture into the federalist fairytale creation of a common European culture. Sadly, many MEPs see culture purely as a tool for promoting European integration and pursuing a delusional project called ‘a United States of Europe’. Why can people here not understand that there is so such thing as a common European culture, no common history and no common heritage, just as there is no common architecture or common language? Europe is a continent formed of unique nation-states with very different histories and heritage. That is what makes Europe so very interesting and attractive.

The only way to achieve this report’s declared ambition of convincing Europe’s citizens that they share the same culture would be through lies. That is what frightens me. Today’s political elite seems to have no qualms about such deception. We have seen successive British governments seemingly deliberately and successfully keeping the British public in the dark about ‘project Europe’. What must be recognised is that the European Union’s integration agenda is one of the greatest threats to the heritage of every country in Europe that we have seen for decades. Sadly, reports such as these cannot see their own great contradiction.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Sifunakis’s report can certainly be endorsed for its intentions, although in my view what it states in its first paragraph about European identity needs changing to acknowledge the fact that the people of Europe clearly share the same cultural mosaic already. If anything, they do not understand some of the confusing mechanisms of European Union interventions, which are all too often intended just to regulate and to standardise.

Our cultural, natural and architectural heritage could perhaps be more appropriately spoken of as architecture, landscape, and historical and landscape assets, terms that together better describe the integration that can be sought in the synergy between the natural landscape and the human landscape. Even so, it certainly plays a vital part in spreading social, economic and environmental welfare, especially in those areas of our Europe where not just the landscape but also the socioeconomic and demographic fabric is vulnerable. I should also have liked a more precise clarification of the concept of small traditional communities: the term ‘traditional’ is too vague and might lead to a lack of differentiation in the way that resources and commitments are used.

Rural communities are not just part of our collective memory; they are the vital cradle of our values and the fount of social relations that are often considerably more balanced than those of urban communities, as well as being absolutely essential for safeguarding our culture and environment.

This cultural heritage is not only threatened, as the rapporteur warns us, but in a great many places in Europe its functional survival is in danger. In addition to measures for preserving and safeguarding landscape and cultures, the Union – together with the Member States – should draw up suitable policies to prevent rural depopulation, especially in mountainous regions. Otherwise, we risk having to put money into restoring abandoned architectural assemblages, painting old houses that will remain uninhabited, and mending cobbled streets that will no longer be trodden.

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, first I should like to thank my compatriot Nikos Sifunakis on his excellent work. Commissioner, cultural heritage is an important element in the identity and historical development of the peoples of Europe.

Consequently, protecting and maintaining it is particularly important to the education of the new generation and respect for the European identity while, irrespective of its European dimension, its local dimension is a fundamental value for European citizens. We all know that the spotlights are turned towards the big cities where the most well-known monuments are to be found.

Nonetheless, it is a fact that the European countryside, which accounts for 90% of European territory, is being damaged by desertion and economic stagnation. Special attention must therefore be given to protecting and promoting the natural and architectural cultural heritage of island and other rural regions of Europe, given that these areas retain a great many of their characteristics unchanged.

With respect for the traditional rural space and striking a balance between the populace and the environment, all the factors which come to play in the culture sector must ensure that the cultural heritage of Europe is maintained and developed and strengthen awareness-raising among citizens as to its importance.

The restoration and maintenance of forgotten monuments in the outer regions of the Member States could also contribute towards the development of rural tourism and, by extension, to boosting the population in the countryside.

Finally, recognising and maintaining the common cultural heritage are an important bequest to future generations.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Sifunakis, on his work, which stresses the specific nature and importance of European natural, cultural and artistic heritage, which generates many benefits, social and cultural as well as environmental and economic.

Rapid urban growth, social and technological progress, modern methods of farming and economic and urban development present rural and island communities, which, as has been pointed out here, make up the majority of the territory of the enlarged European Union, with important challenges.

At a time, therefore, when, on the one hand, the abandonment of the countryside, depopulation and economic crisis, and, on the other, fires and the proliferation of natural disasters demonstrate the urgent need for agricultural professionals who can work on and look after our environment and ensure the sustainability and the future of our territory and our countryside, this report is very timely, because it stresses the need to implement an effective policy based essentially on a sustainable balance between the population and the environment and on an integrated approach to traditional agricultural areas, particularly rural communities.

Drawing up a legislative framework for preserving cultural heritage, the granting of the funding required for its restoration, the training of nature conservation professionals and support for craftspeople and providers of traditional materials are all proposals along the right lines.

In this regard, I would like to stress that promoting international meetings for describing and exchanging experiences and good practices in the field of countryside conservation and the protection of heritage in the European Union would be a very positive element of this policy at Community level.

  Bernat Joan i Marí (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, firstly I would like to welcome this excellent report and thank the rapporteur for his work. Preserving the natural environment is one of the main goals of the European Union. Our present and future task is to also establish the goal of preserving Europe’s architectural and cultural heritage, and that is especially important for small islands.

It is really important to preserve natural assets, but in small ecosystems, the environment, human settlements and cultural heritage are fully interconnected. I come from Ibiza, an island that is suffering the effects of the construction of two disproportionately large highways. Because of these works, several important elements of cultural heritage have been destroyed. Archaeological sites and traditional homes have been destroyed to enable these highways to be built.

This situation has been repeatedly condemned by civil society organisations and I myself have denounced it before the European Commission and in this very Chamber. If this Parliament and the European institutions as a whole take into account the proposals contained in Mr Sifunakis’ report, this kind of damage could be avoided and small islands, rural sites and cultural heritage could be properly preserved. That is our main goal now.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to express my support and gratitude for Mr Sifunakis’ report and endorse all the words of commendation uttered today regarding this document.

Through the report, the European Parliament has expressed its concern for the architectural heritage of rural Europe. This is an important legacy, but unfortunately it is frequently unappreciated and forgotten. Today we are living in a rapidly-changing world. Rural areas that had changed little over the centuries, have undergone a drastic transformation in recent decades. Farming methods and implements have been transformed, the nature of farm work has changed radically, and rural architecture has also changed.

Until the1960s, the buildings in rural areas of Poland were mainly wooden. Then came a period of rapid redevelopment. The new houses may have been more comfortable, but they were not always more attractive than the old ones. Traditional rural architecture disappeared quickly, and very little of it remains today, which means there is all the more reason for us to make every effort to ensure this heritage is effectively preserved.

Mr Sifunakis’ report emphasises the importance of these matters and indicates specific ways of supporting activities to preserve valuable European rural architecture. It is a step in the right direction and comes just in time, while there is still something left to preserve for future generations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is no secret that we are living in a time of headlong economic and social change, which leaves our minds increasingly in search of stability, security and guidance. One place in which we can find such security is in our intellectual, cultural and architectural heritage, and increased popular interest in this heritage, and increased awareness of it and respect for it, testify to that.

It is that respect that should lead us to prevent any recurrence of the sort of destruction – deliberate destruction – of this intellectual, cultural and architectural heritage that was seen during the inferno of two world wars in the course of the twentieth century, and such as was aimed for and planned in Eastern Europe under ‘really existing Socialism’, Stalinism and Communism, and is, lamentably, practised at the present time by the brutal modernism supported by the political Left.

I also believe that Europe’s historical and cultural heritage, in particular that of rural areas, must not be considered solely in economic terms, nor should it serve only the interests of tourism.

I believe that it is advisable to extend such projects as the ‘European Capital of Culture’ to rural areas. I regard Sibiu, formerly known as Hermannstadt, in Transylvania, about which there was an exhibition of photographs in this House yesterday, as an example of the degree to which the European Union can promote and support our cultural heritage.

  Ljudmila Novak (PPE–DE). – (SL) The preservation of the architectural cultural heritage in rural and island regions also represents the preservation of European cultural diversity and the roots of individual nations. By destroying this heritage, a nation severs its ancestral ties and tears up its roots.

Attempts to achieve ever greater inter–connectedness mean that areas of new growth in European cities are becoming increasingly alike. This is why it is extremely important for each nation to preserve those characteristics which give it its distinct identity.

Certainly, the most genuine cultural and natural heritage is to be found in rural regions. It needs maintenance; otherwise it becomes dilapidated and falls into disrepair. This is our greatest challenge because the restoration of listed buildings and rural core areas is a very expensive and time–consuming business. At the same time, however, the living conditions in these buildings are less than suitable for modern circumstances, which is why many owners see cultural heritage as a burden rather than a source of joy and pride. Similarly, our old crafts are disappearing because they cannot provide a source of income.

If we view cultural and natural heritage solely through the lens of money and profit, then all it brings us is financial loss. We need to continuously seek a balance between conservation and further development.

I agree with the proposal for the Year of European Cultural Heritage as it will raise awareness amongst our citizens of the importance of cultural heritage. But I also support the proposal for us to earmark funding from the structural funds for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage in smaller villages, because by doing so we will rekindle the interest of owners and local communities in restoration. They will then also see the opportunities for development and new jobs.

Pearls are small and hidden. Small communities, too, deserve an opportunity to receive incentives and funding.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Sifunakis, on his wonderful report. Thanks to that report, we are able to hold an extremely interesting debate, because once again it emphasises something that I and many people here present consider to be absolutely crucial in the Union, particularly over recent years: at last, we are becoming aware of the impact on island regions of their island characteristics.

I therefore welcome today’s report’s special reference to the protection and promotion of the natural, architectural and cultural heritage of Europe’s island regions. In this regard, the fact that the rapporteur comes from the Island of Crete, cradle of Minoan civilisation, Europe’s oldest civilisation, and that I come from the Balearic Islands, the location of the Naveta des Tudons, also considered to be Europe’s oldest example of building, from around 1 500 B.C., makes us both particularly sensitive to the need to encourage the European Union to adopt measures to protect and revive Europe’s cultural heritage.

To this end, the Government of the Balearic Islands is working on drawing up and implementing policies of sustainable development based on the convergence of the objectives of sustainability and competitiveness of tourism activities and, in particular, on safeguarding and improving natural, architectural and cultural heritage. That is the direction we must take, which would involve a civil society sensitive to the particular fragility of the island regions and with a high degree of environmental awareness.

This is a good point from which, as the report advocates, to begin immediately to share and exchange experiences in this important field of the protection of European heritage, a subject of huge importance since it does not only involve human beings, but is also an important element of the historic development and identity of the regions of Europe.

  Giuseppe Castiglione (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with the Maastricht Treaty the European Union became the Union of the peoples and endowed itself with its own cultural identity while respecting regional and local differences. These differences, in contrast to the ever-growing globalisation of culture, form the real underlying wealth of our common heritage. The cradle of this heritage lies in our island and rural areas, with their traditions, their architecture, their local crafts and the beauty of their natural and human landscapes.

It is therefore a priority to protect this vast heritage and to prepare a plan for local development aimed at implementing and encouraging the enhancement of culture and environmental resources, to make them a tool for growth in our currently struggling economy. That means first of all improving overall conditions in the countryside, including not only restoring and preserving architecture from both a monumental and a landscape point of view, but also taking into consideration the people who live in and share the reality of small rural villages.

That means combating the rural exodus; providing incentives for youth training; rescuing local crafts and traditional farming practices; giving a boost to old trades and new professionalism, including by funding the development and use of new technologies; and ensuring that the landscape is maintained, not only by preserving green areas but, above all, by using local tree and plant species so as not to change the culture of the place.

The people who live in these areas must be provided with all the means necessary to be able to carry on their traditions in their towns, villages or islands. The programmes designed for these purposes must be strengthened and enhanced. The EU’s global cultural heritage strategy needs to become a real cross-cutting element in other policies, just as environmental sustainability is, and all policies need to be integrated together in this respect.

I am convinced that a balanced, rational, consistent, coordinated and, above all, more effective use of resources, including at a financial level, will enable us to overcome this two-pronged challenge. Safeguarding the local and regional cultural heritage requires us to promote balanced socioeconomic development in the rural world.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by sincerely thanking all those who have made an important contribution to this debate, in the form of ideas and of truly interesting suggestions, and I fully intend to inform Mr Figel' about them. I should like to go back over just two points: that of the funding of the Culture 2000 project and that of the proposal, put forward specifically by the rapporteur, to make 2009 the European Cultural Heritage Year.

With regard to the first point, as you know far better than I do, the Culture 2000 project, which had a budget of EUR 167 million, is now due to be allocated EUR 400 million. The budget has thus been substantially increased thanks to the contribution and the political support of the European Parliament.

As regards the second issue concerning the European year, the Commission is taking the proposal made very seriously, and we will assess it in the context of our objectives and priority plans for the next few years. This proposal deserves to be carefully analysed. I also wish to take advantage of this opportunity to point out to you that my colleague, Mr Figel', recently made an important proposal aimed at making 2008 the Year of Intercultural Dialogue, a proposal that the Commission has adopted. I hope that the opinion to be issued by Parliament will be along the same lines.

That being said, as I stated, I shall inform Mr Figel' of the outcome of this debate, in a spirit of constructive cooperation between the Commission and Parliament.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, at 12 noon.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed for voting time at 12 noon)

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Almost 90% of the enlarged EU is made up of agricultural land, which includes national parks with precious fauna and flora, and also historical remains that belong to Europe’s cultural heritage.

This notwithstanding, many political solutions for rural areas fail to consider their specific features and real needs adequately. For example, the countryside accounts for 85% of Slovakia’s territory and is home to 48% of the population. However, young people are tending to leave the countryside, rural population density has dwindled, our cultural heritage is threatened and high unemployment is a major concern.

I consider this report very topical, as it analyses the current situation and seeks to identify solutions that would support the rural areas and islands of Europe. It also addresses the future of small traditional communities with populations of less than 1 000. It focuses on aid for micro-enterprises, young farmers, traditional handicrafts and trades, local customs and traditions, which will help assure job creation and a better and more attractive life in the countryside.

Cultural heritage needs greater attention and, especially, more funding. The EU should introduce a comprehensive approach to sustaining cultural heritage, ensuring that provisions on aid are included in all policies. I welcome the ‘European Heritage Days’ initiative and the exchange of experience in this field through international conferences.

In discussing this report, the EP has confirmed that it takes seriously the sustainable development of Europe’s rural areas.

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – As Malta and Gozo are the smallest nation in the European Union it is only natural that one refers to their architecture and cultural heritage in a holistic way. With the little available resources and an enormous architectural and cultural heritage it is impossible to preserve same using only our resources. This is why we have to look to the EU to come to our aid. Few know that the earliest free standing buildings in the world have been found in Malta. Notwithstanding, they need immediate attention. Perhaps the most impressive temple complex Ggantija in Gozo is in dire need of immediate professional attention. Valletta, one of the most beautiful cultural capitals in Europe, is still in a disastrous state. Fifty years have passed since the end of World War II yet the capital is still war-scarred – in particular the ruins of the once magnificent Opera House. I appeal to the German and Italian governments to make a gesture of goodwill by rebuilding the Opera House which was destroyed through aerial bombings thus enhancing Valletta architecturally and contributing to its cultural heritage.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MOSCOVICI
Vice-President

6. Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

7. Voting time

  President. – The next item is voting time.

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

7.1. Accession of the EC to the Hague Conference on Private International Law (vote)

7.2. EU-China relations (vote)

- after the vote on paragraph 53:

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to propose the following oral amendment: ‘Calls upon the Chinese authorities to reveal the whereabouts of human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng and to release him unless he is to be charged with a recognised criminal offence; similarly calls for the release of Chen Guangcheng, who has helped citizens in their attempts to sue their local authorities for carrying out forced abortions and sterilisations, and of Bu Dongwei, who has been assigned to two and a half years of “Re-education through Labour” (RTL) and who is detained at an undisclosed location; therefore urges the authorities to ensure that all human rights defenders can carry out peaceful and legitimate activities without fear of arbitrary arrest, torture or ill-treatment and that they be given access to proper legal representation in the event of arrest;’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

- After the vote on Amendment 2

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, we too would have been happy to endorse this important report on China, but, as it does not accept the ‘one China – two systems’ concept, we cannot vote to approve it. Since, however, it does voice many justified concerns about human rights, we will not be voting against it, but will abstain from voting.

  Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, in order to nip a potential myth in the bud, let me say that this House, by a large majority, adopted Amendment 33, which would appear to make reference to that concept, so your justification, Mr Swoboda, is wrong, and you ought to vote for the report.

(Applause)

  President. – We are not going to re-open the debate and we shall proceed with the vote.

- After the vote on the entire motion for a resolution

President. – Mrs Muscardini, in relation to which article of the Rules of Procedure do you wish to take the floor?

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Rules of Procedure say that explanations of vote shall take place after voting and not before. If we must change the Rules of Procedure, I am all for it, but the rule should apply to all the groups and not just to some of them.

  President. – I shall take due note of that, Mrs Muscardini.

7.3. Eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products (vote)

7.4. Situation in the Middle East (vote)

7.5. Forest fires and floods (vote)

- Before the vote

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, before we proceed to vote, I should like to make a point on the basis of Rule 150(6) and to couple it with a question to Mr Poettering. The point I would like to make is that Mr Hatzidakis tabled an amendment – Amendment 5 – in which, as is generally agreed, it mentions the need for us to send a delegation to the areas particularly affected. We are now talking only about the particularly badly affected regions in Spain, although there were fires in Portugal, Greece, France and other countries too.

The question arises of whether this is a mistake, for if it is, we ought to do as we have suggested and delete reference to Spain, so that it then reads ‘Delegation to the areas particularly affected’, or, alternatively, one ought to add to Spain ‘Portugal, Greece, France’. This is on the assumption that there is no underlying political motive, although that possibility cannot be entirely excluded. I would ask, though, that we should not use the plight of the victims in Greece, Portugal and other countries as an occasion for playing party politics, and so either we delete the reference to Spain or we include all those countries that were hit by fires.

I would be grateful if the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats could clarify this before we move to the vote.

  Gerardo Galeote (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Schulz, I was naturally not here on Monday when the European Commission spoke. In his statement, Commissioner Dimas said that the only country in which the European civil protection mechanism was applied this summer was Spain.

That makes sense, because 50% of the fires this summer have unfortunately taken place in my country. Now, Mr Schulz will know that on 6 October in the European Parliament we will hold a public hearing, proposed by our friend the ex-Commissioner Mr Barnier, precisely on the European civil protection corps.

Since we want that delegation to travel before 6 October, therefore, it is physically impossible to visit all of the countries that he has mentioned. I propose that the visit to Spain before 6 October go ahead as planned and, if his group wants us to visit other countries after 6 October, he has my assurance that I will vote in favour of that.

  President. – I have other requests to speak, but I do not wish to re-open the debate.

That being said, if I have understood matters correctly, when the time comes, Mr Schulz will table an oral amendment. The Assembly will thus be able to give its verdict, and each Member will be able to express his or her opinion by voting.

- Before the vote on Amendment 5

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, we had surmised that things would turn out to be the way that Mr Galeote – in his most enlightening statement – has said they were, and so I ask that, following the words ‘in Spain’, the words ‘in Portugal, Greece, France and in the other countries particularly affected’ be added.

(Applause)

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

7.6. Doha Development Agenda (vote)

7.7. Counterfeiting of medicines (vote)

7.8. European contract law (vote)

7.9. Involvement of the European Parliament in the work of the Hague Conference following the accession of the Community (vote)

7.10. Agreement with the USA on the use of Passenger Name Record data (vote)

7.11. European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 19

  Nikolaos Sifunakis (PSE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I should like to propose a change to the second part of paragraph 19 with the following verbal amendment:

‘implementing multiannual projects to promote well-preserved traditional communities, with a population of, say, less than 1000;’

(The oral amendment was accepted)

President. – That concludes voting time.

8. Explanations of vote

– Report: Wallis (A6-0250/2006)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) By acceding to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the remit of which is to work towards ‘the progressive unification’ of the rules of international private law, Parliament is, for once, taking a realistic step towards the harmonisation of the rules of law specific to each Member State.

There are in fact two ways in which to achieve legislative harmonisation. The first, which is advocated by the fanatical Euro-federalists, consists in taking a binding approach to standardising the substantive rules of law of each of the 25 Member States; while the second, which fulfilled both the basic requirement for legal certainty and legal effectiveness, consists in standardising only the conflict-of-laws rules and rules of jurisdiction, that is to say, it consists in determining both the competent court and the national law applicable to a legal relationship. The Member States therefore keep their own legal rules, systems and traditions, but, as a result, the uncertainty that may arise from the application and the confrontation of national laws in different regions of the Union is greatly reduced.

That is why we are in favour of the report and of the accession of the European Community to the Hague Conference.

– Report: Belder (A6-0257/2006)

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I have voted in favour of Mr Belder’s report, and would like to congratulate him on the work he has done. The attitude of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is in fact an argument in itself in favour of voting to adopt this report, since they criticised what they saw as the excessive attention given in it to the human rights situation in China.

Be that as it may, the fact is that the situation in that country has certainly not improved over recent years, not even since the events that took place on Tienanmen Square, and it is clear to us that governments, businesses, and other bodies in the European Union are all too willing simply to do business with a Communist regime in China, without, however, any obligation to improve the human rights situation.

  Jan Andersson, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. (SV) We think it good that the European Parliament should be endeavouring to do more with regard to human rights in China. What, for us, are missing from the report, however, are the references to bilateral efforts and to trade that should be central to it. Because China is the EU’s second largest trading partner, efficient contacts are important.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Mr Belder’s report is meant to be exhaustive in covering the range of violations committed by the People’s Republic of China, both in terms of its international trade commitments at the WTO (dumping in all its guises, counterfeiting and piracy, obstacles faced by China’s trade partners in accessing its market, etc) and of human rights. On this last point, the litany is very long: concentration camps (the Laogai camps), forced labour, the trafficking in organs of executed prisoners, religious persecution - particularly of the Catholic minority - Tibetan martyrs, and so on.

What is surprising is that the Belder report manages to lament these situations without ever mentioning the fact that China is a Communist country, a Marxist dictatorship, which lays claim to having had, in political terms, the most murderous ideology of the 20th century.

Even more surprising – but is it really surprising in this House? – is that the report does not conclude with a call for sanctions, nor even with a condemnation, but with the need for a free, competitive and transparent market in China! There is no doubt that, within the Europe that you have in store for us, money will always be more important than people.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) For the European Union, China is a very important trading partner. The EU and China have had a close trading relationship over the last decade. The report should be seen as a step towards improving social and environmental conditions in China. The June List believes that demands for improvements in these areas are a condition of long and sustainable trade cooperation.

I am thus voting in favour of the report as a whole.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Unsurprisingly, the majority in Parliament has adopted a resolution on EU-China relations, which, in its many paragraphs, barely contains any reference to bilateral relations, opting instead for a policy on China of blatant interference.

Among the many points worthy of comment, I should just like to highlight Parliament’s support for relegating EU-China relations to a position of secondary importance behind the framework of the ‘American initiative of starting a strategic dialogue with Europe on China’s rise – a central new element in the policy of the ‘new’ world towards the ‘old’’, encouraging ‘the European Union and its Member States to develop, together with the USA, a strategic consensus for dealing with China’.

Furthermore, it ‘is concerned about the development of inequality and unfair distribution of wealth, mass unemployment and uncontrolled urbanisation, the rising crime rate and corruption and not least the environmental problems of China’. These concerns reveal the hypocrisy on the part of people who, let us be honest, have no moral right to register those concerns; take, for example, the brutal anti-social onslaught led by the EU and the appalling social decay in the Member States.

Hence our vote against.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The issue of relations with China is one on which, at the very least, questions must be asked to those overseeing the external policy of the EU Member States.

On the one hand, this is a totalitarian State that shows no respect for human rights, nor the slightest concern for humanitarian issues, the environment, integrated development, promoting freedom or respect for the minimum values of the human race. It is also undeniably a significant economy that is growing all the time. Evidence also suggests that economic progress – to which the strengthening of EU-China relations has contributed – has produced the desired effect of the development of an urban middle class, which will hopefully, over the course of time, provide a boost for democracy.

Meanwhile, and this was a point that we proposed, the experience of Macau and Hong Kong, which the EU has followed closely, proves that it is possible to establish a better system than the one in place in mainland China.

Lastly, a word of regret for the attitude of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, which attempted to remove the report, in anticipation of a result that would not suit their interests. This is poor form.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. I oppose China’s one child policy and other human rights abuses. I do not support a one-China policy!

– Report: Fraga Estévez (A6-0219/2006)

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We have today voted in favour of the report on launching a debate on a Community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products. We are in favour of the EU establishing common minimum rules for the eco-labelling of fisheries products and in favour of their complying with current international standards.

In direct contrast to the report, we think it good, however, for there to be various private labels and for all eco-labelling of fisheries products to be done by private actors. Nor do we share the rapporteur’s conviction that the common fisheries policy makes for the most environmentally friendly fishing. On the contrary, we are convinced that the common fisheries policy accounts in large part for overfishing and environmental problems.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Measures designed to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing are to be welcomed. However, I question the need for the EU to introduce centrally an eco-labelling scheme for fisheries products. The launch of a common EU eco-labelling scheme is in danger of creating superfluous bureaucracy and may limit the opportunities of companies, fisheries organisations and the Member States to produce their own eco-labelling schemes.

I am thus voting against this report.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) As the debate has shown, the creation of eco-labelling for fisheries products raises important issues.

The rapporteur says that one kind of criterion could be based on objective factors such as scientific analysis, arising from the implementation of Community standards aimed at ensuring that all fisheries in the EU Member States are sustainable.

That being said, the introduction of other kinds of criteria such as more selective production methods, which would lead to the implementation of an a posteriori criterion. This would run counter to the principle that the effects on resources should be analysed on the basis of the decision on technical measures, and not afterwards.

There is also the introduction of criteria relating to food safety, which would raise the issue of the danger of fisheries products caught in the wild not being fit for human consumption. In which case labelling is not the issue. Such fisheries products must not under any circumstances be captured, let alone put on sale. This is what happens when it is believed that there is some form of marine pollution leading to a ban on fishing.

We therefore stand by what we said in our intervention.

– Situation in the Middle East (B6-0469/2006)

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to point out that, while I supported the resolution on Lebanon, I have all too often heard people in this Chamber, including the High Representative, Mr Solana, use the terms ‘European Union’ and ‘European Union Member States’ as synonyms and say that the European Union is playing and has played an important role in the Lebanon crisis and also in sending UNIFIL troops. That is not the case: some Member States, some countries are playing a role.

The European Union has unfortunately given up using even those modest, feeble foreign policy tools that it could have used. The role that the European Union might play would be to offer the prospect of membership to countries on the other side of the Mediterranean: Turkey, Israel and also other democracies beyond the Mediterranean. The Member States’ policy on Israel and Palestine is, instead, a losing one.

  Romano Maria La Russa (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, notwithstanding my complete approval of UNIFIL 2, I must express my reservations about the actual mobilisation of the countries of Europe: apart from Italy, France and Spain, they will confine themselves to providing a more or less symbolic contribution.

Europe’s appeals so far have been feeble; the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Solana, called for a strong response from all the countries of the Union, but his words have faded away in the air over Brussels. Even if I wanted to gloss over the veiled pro-Palestinian slant that pervades the European institutions and which sometimes seems to slide into anti-Semitism, I should in any case have to stress yet again how incapable Europe is: through trying to be politically correct as usual, it has been unwilling to adopt a clear, precise position.

I wonder, however, how one can talk of equidistance.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Adamos Adamou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) For 34 days, the world watched a military operation by a super-equipped army which, thanks to the ministrations of the USA and the super-modern rockets which it sent right up to the end – flattened and invaded south Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, displacing a third of the population and putting the economy of the country back twenty years. Israel is guilty of a great many war crimes, as confirmed by the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The arrest of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was the pretext to apply a prepared plan. As Cypriots, we have our own particular experience of military intervention and reject the philosophy of sitting on the fence underpinning Parliament's motion for a resolution and any possibility of equating the victims with the perpetrators.

We support the embargo on consignments of military equipment to Israel, in order to interrupt the operation of this military machine and send the message that the international community disagrees with the genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinian and neighbouring peoples. We call for the creation in our region, including Israel, of a nuclear-free zone.

We need to condemn the policy of Israel towards Palestine outright and to decide to return immediately to the negotiating table with a view to quickly finding a final solution.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) It is appalling that Parliament has opted to take the view suggested by this report, namely putting Israel and Palestine – that is, the aggressor and the victim – on an equal footing, when what is required is clear condemnation of both the war crimes committed by Israel in Lebanon, and the attacks and the State terrorism that Israel continues to perpetrate in the Palestinian occupied territories, including Gaza. This is a bad start.

At a particularly complex and dangerous time, what the EU should be doing is, at least, to demand that Israel comply with the UN decisions as regards its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the immediate cessation of Israel’s operation of the occupied Palestinian territories, the immediate lifting of the Gaza blockade, that is to say, by reopening the border with Egypt and allowing the free movement of persons and goods, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria and the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon, the immediate release of elected Palestinian ministers and members of parliament, the opening of negotiations for the exchange of prisoners, the end of settlements, and, lastly, that Israel resume the return of Palestinian tax and customs revenue.

Lasting peace in the Middle East is dependent on respect for the rights of the Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese people to their own sovereignty.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. In this debate on the situation in the Middle East, I want to remind Members that on 31 May 2005, Parliament voted through a resolution entitled ‘The Assyrian community and the situation in Iraqi prisons’.

I am afraid to have to report that the situation of Christians in Iraq, and the Assyrians in particular, continues to deteriorate. We have just learnt that Dr Donny George, Director of the Iraq Museum and one of the most high-profile Assyrians within the country, has fled to Syria with his family.

The outgoing United Kingdom ambassador, William Patey, has indicated that Iraq is already in an undeclared civil war.

What is to be done? We must get fully behind church leaders and the Save the Assyrians campaign, which I support and which supports me, in the campaign they are taking to northern Iraq later this month.

We in Europe and the United Nations need to press for this indigenous Iraqi community, like the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia, to have their own administration area within a united Iraq, as mentioned in the Iraqi constitution. Otherwise, the prospect is that the Middle East Christian community which, at one time, was 20% of the population, will be driven out completely.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) In my speech of 6 September in plenary, I appealed for a balanced assessment of the situation before, during and after the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, of its consequences for the populations concerned and of the future of that region.

The joint motion for a resolution does not seem to me to respond to this concern for balance in view, among other things, of recitals A and B, and of paragraphs 17, 20 and 25.

I therefore voted against this resolution.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List deeply regrets the current situation in Lebanon. In a war, it is always the defenceless and the innocent who have to pay the highest price. The conflict in Lebanon is a text-book example of the way in which violence begets violence, and we strongly repudiate all forms of violence perpetrated by both sides. The report as a whole contains many sound proposals and ideas, but we believe that the UN should be the body with the highest authority in this area. The report also touches on a sensitive foreign policy issue about which the Member States’ governments disagree. We believe that it is up to the government of each Member State to adopt a position on this issue. We believe that the issue as a whole is one for the UN and not for the EU.

The June List is therefore abstaining from voting.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Among other aspects worthy of criticism, by seeking to confuse the aggressor, Israel, and its crimes, with its victims, the Palestinian and Lebanese people and their legitimate resistance fight faced with aggression and occupation, Parliament has, once again, disgracefully, washed its hands of Israel’s responsibility for its crimes.

It also conflates UN Security Council Resolutions 1701 and 1559, emphasising that ‘the ultimate objective should be the disarmament of all militias, including Hezbollah’, and yet pays mere lip-service to Resolutions 242, 338, 426 and 520.

Nevertheless, given the overwhelming evidence of the serious developments in the Middle East, in the face of Israel's brutal aggression towards the Palestinian and Lebanese people and in particular, given the resolute, determined resistance of the people of these countries, Parliament recognises what has long been needed: ‘a fair and lasting solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict is imperative for peace and security to be reinstated throughout the region, a 'global, sustainable and viable solution’ for the region based on ‘pertinent UN Security Council resolutions’.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome the European Parliament’s resolution on the Middle East. Progress towards a lasting peace in the Middle East will only be made when the mutual coexistence of an Israeli and Palestinian State, both with secure and recognised borders, is respected and endorsed by the international community. In light of this, I call on the EU to do everything possible to secure that conclusion.

Whilst the conflict persisted in Lebanon, international attention was ignoring the 250 air strikes, 1000 artillery shells, and more than 200 killings inflicted on the people of Gaza as well as, at the most recent count, around 300 Palestinian child prisoners being held captive in Israeli jails. I believe that there is no military solution to this crisis and that the EU should call on Israel to desist from offensive military action in the region and immediately release the Palestinian child prisoners arrested by the Israeli army.

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. The humanitarian catastrophe witnessed in Lebanon, with hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, damage to vital infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of people displaced has not ended with the ceasefire. It is clear that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to the peace and stability of the entire region.

Strong and positive leadership is required to bring the Middle East peace process back to the top of the international political agenda. The European Union can have a role tin providing some of this leadership, including through rethinking its approach on aid to Palestine and its relations with Hamas.

  Willy Meyer Pleite, (GUE/NGL) in writing. (ES) We are giving our opinion today on a motion for a resolution on the crisis in the Middle East, demonstrating that, unlike the European Council, Parliament is reacting properly to the situation. I am voting in favour because this resolution includes certain elements that are crucial to strengthening the fragile truce between the Israeli Army and the Hezbollah militia. As the text indicates, only political dialogue can resolve this conflict, never military action.

Despite that, certain questions remain on the table, such as, for example, Israel’s impunity following the conflict. The EU should be brave and head the call for Israel to share in the costs of repairing the devastation caused by their bombing of infrastructures and civilian targets.

Particularly because the continuing occupation of, and aggression against, Palestine must not be forgotten, it is essential that there should be an International Conference on resolving the Middle East crisis. Such a conference would seek sanction measures against the State of Israel and its return to respect for international law and would clarify the Road Map aimed at resolving the conflict.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the unacceptable joint motion signed by delegates from all the political parties.

It identifies with the ΕU stand which approved the 'new Middle East' NATO/USA plan, the consequence of which was the war against Lebanon, which it calls a 'conflict', thereby acquitting Israel.

Attempting to present the ΕU as impartial, it puts victims and perpetrators on an equal footing, implicating the resistance of the peoples against the imperialist policy of Israel and the USA.

It approves Resolution 1701, welcomes the despatch of European occupying forces and pushes for the disarmament of grassroots forces which heroically resisted the unfair, aggressive war. In this way it consents to the implementation of the imperialist plans. It ascribes responsibility to the Palestinians without condemning their genocide by Israel.

It does not refer to the recognition of the Palestinian government or to the release of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

It welcomes the occupying presence of the ΕU in the Middle East, which does not guarantee peace for the benefit of the peoples, but will fuel an escalation in the situation in a bid to implement the ΝΑΤΟ plan to control the area.

The political forces which signed bear huge responsibility towards the people and the grassroots forces and organisations which have been fighting for a great many years with rivers of blood.

In this fight, the Greek Communist Party expresses its solidarity, calling on the peoples to step up the fight against Euro-American imperialism.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) The agreement to send troops to the Lebanon betrays ignorance of the rules of engagement.

Although this House’s expression of support for the summoning of a peace conference for the Middle East is to be seen in a positive light, it is regrettable that its Members' vote in favour of sending troops to the Lebanon was on the basis of a mandate lacking in any clarity; they received no briefing or other information on UNIFIL’s rules of engagement, which are still secret.

This House’s resolution speaks in terms of welcoming a ‘strong mandate’ for the force to be sent to the Lebanon; it does not explicitly exclude the possibility of the disarming of Hezbollah being a task for UNIFIL soldiers, and hence also for soldiers from EU Member States. It is recklessly perverse to advocate military action of this kind, and the de facto effect of it is to give the green light to European troops being used to wage war in the Lebanon.

It is shameful that the war in the Lebanon is described in the European Parliament resolution as nothing more than an ‘overreaction’ on the part of Israel to attacks by Hezbollah, and this can be regarded as nothing other than cynical in view of the many civilian victims in the Lebanon.

There are evidently those who can never get enough of them, for, in the resolution, it is claimed that ‘the presence of a multinational force in Lebanon could be taken as an exemplary model to be followed in the negotiation process for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’. On the contrary, what is needed is a political solution rather than the sending of more and more troops.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Sometimes the only thing to talk about is peace. This is not the time for recrimination, confrontation or settling old scores. Peace in the Middle East can only be built between peoples, countries and States that are free and democratic, responsible for their own acts and capable of administering their own territory. Democracy, freedom and development are the best antidote to ideologies under which some unfortunate people become hostages to terrorism and extremism.

It is also necessary at this time to talk about security, without which peace cannot be established. Consequently, sending a significant military force with operational capacity to southern Lebanon is a solution that could change the course of events and that could help prevent a repetition of the attacks and the wars.

We are aware of the risks, however. Not everyone has the best intentions at heart, and not all regimes are inclined towards a conciliatory stance. This will not stand in the way of peace, but will simply stop people from being naïve.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) I endorse the compromise text on the Middle East. There is no military solution to the problems of that region. Not only the gross and deliberately indiscriminate use of force by Israel, in the shape of the bombardment of civilian targets, the use of illegal weapons, the large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure and the serious damage done to the coastline, but also the indiscriminate rocket attacks mounted by Hisbollah, are deserving of our condemnation.

The Member States must prevent a renewed arms race in the region by strictly applying the EU code of conduct on weapons exports to all weapons supplied to it. Now that the USA’s policy in the area has proved a failure, it is vital that a new regional peace conference – a ‘Madrid II’ – be held in order to find a comprehensive, sustainable and attainable solution based on the right of the State of Israel to live within secure and recognised borders and on the right of the Palestinians to a viable state of their own, based on the occupied territories, with a great deal of attention given to security and disarmament.

The EU must revive dialogue with Syria and involve that country in the efforts towards peace, inter alia by signing the joint association agreement as a major step towards addressing human rights there in a more effective way.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) For 34 days, the world watched a military operation by a super-equipped army which, thanks to the ministrations of the USA and the super-modern rockets which it sent right up to the end – flattened and invaded south Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, displacing a third of the population and putting the economy of the country back twenty years. Israel is guilty of a great many war crimes, as confirmed by the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The arrest of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was the pretext to apply a prepared plan. As Cypriots, we have our own particular experience of military intervention and reject the philosophy of sitting on the fence underpinning Parliament's motion for a resolution and any possibility of equating the victims with the perpetrators.

We support the embargo on consignments of military equipment to Israel, in order to interrupt the operation of this military machine and send the message that the international community disagrees with the genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinian and neighbouring peoples. We call for the creation in our region, including Israel, of a nuclear-free zone.

We need to condemn the policy of Israel towards Palestine outright and to decide to return immediately to the negotiating table with a view to quickly finding a final solution.

– Forest fires and floods (B6-0460/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the joint resolution tabled by six political groups on forest fires and floods. Firstly, I am pleased that, as well as fires, floods have been added to the initial text. Essentially, it is clear that, over time, the increasing scale of natural disasters and other disturbances affecting territories and populations sometimes overwhelm certain Member States' capacity to respond, and the European Union’s help is required. The fact is that the European Union does not seem to have enough involvement in the response to these crises, and I regret that the resolution does not clearly and more firmly support the idea of creating a European civil protection force. This would not mean recruiting officials responsible for civil protection, but having chief personnel at European level with the power to coordinate certain civil protection forces within the Union’s territory, and this, at the request of a Member State unable to tackle a specific situation.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We have today voted against the joint resolution on forest fires.

We regret the large number of extensive forest fires and floods that have hit Europe. We believe that, in certain cases, the EU should provide financial aid to affected countries and regions when extreme natural disasters occur. Such aid must not, however, give rise to a situation in which forest fires lead to financial benefit.

We do not, however, believe that the fires and floods that recur each year in the same regions justify either common instruments for combating these events or common funding for compensating those affected. We believe, on the contrary, that the most important work on combating these fires and their causes should be done locally and nationally and also be initiated and funded at those levels.

  Den Dover (PPE-DE), in writing. British Conservatives sympathise with the victims of the summer forest fires. However, this resolution does not sufficiently address the fact that most of these fires seem to have been deliberately started by arsonists. Even the Spanish Government’s own Environment Minister suggested that some of the fires could have been started by forestry workers angry at not being drafted over the summer by the regional firefighting brigades. It is imperative that individual Member States take more preventive action to stop these deliberate acts from re-occurring. For this reason, British Conservatives will not be supporting the joint motion.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We voted in favour of the report, but we are disappointed at the rejection of our proposal to call on the Commission to offer extraordinary Community financial assistance to Portugal, with a view to supporting recovery of the forest areas burnt in the Peneda-Gerês and Serras d’Aire e Candeeiros National Parks, on account of their incalculable ecological, landscape and economic interest.

We welcome, however, the fact that Parliament has once again called on the Commission to apply the European Solidarity Fund flexibly in order to facilitate its application in cases such as the tragedies arising from forest fire disasters. Forest fires do not only bring about huge losses, they also affect people’s way of life, especially in the less wealthy areas that have to confront the adverse effects on infrastructure, on economic potential, on jobs, on the natural and cultural heritage, on the environment and on tourism, which have a knock-on effect on economic and social cohesion.

We also welcome the emphasis on the need for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and Forest Focus to channel their efforts into preventing forest fires in southern countries.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List welcomes international solidarity when a country is hit by forest fires or floods. We regret, however, that the EU institutions are trying to use tragic events of this kind to strengthen the EU’s influence over various policy areas. It is mainly the responsibility of the Member States to take measures to reduce the likelihood of, for example, fires breaking out. Resources can be coordinated and joint action taken outside the context of EU cooperation.

I am thus voting against this resolution.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Unfortunately, Mr President, the motion only contains a limited reference to the possibility of not reforesting privately-owned areas which qualify as forested areas. The reclassification of forests resulting in changed land uses, the legalisation of major infringements are, for Greece at least, the basic cause of the outbreaks of fire which are due in large part to arson.

These crimes are aided and abetted by policies of commercialisation, privatisation and exploitation of forested land for other activities, thereby sacrificing these important lungs of life at the altar of profit and seriously downgrading the environment.

In Greece, they are even proposing amending the relevant article of the Constitution protecting forests, or at least what is left of them, especially around large towns and developed tourist and residential areas, so that there are no obstacles to the implementation of this anti-grassroots, anti-environmental policy.

These criminal policies are being helped by inadequate resources and a lack of personnel, emphasising the political responsibilities of the EU and the governments and the inhumane and anti-environmental consequences of the policies they apply.

There is a serious and immediate need for compensation for the victims. However, there is an even more serious need for a different policy.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) We have just come back from our holidays. Normally we would be feeling refreshed and raring to go.

This year, however, we have returned impoverished, following the fires that have devastated forests, attacked houses and taken away human lives. We are tired of excuses and are feeling decidedly disillusioned.

This scenario of drought, hot summers and fires has been repeated, without fail, in recent years. It is not enough for us to settle for an accurate calculation of when crises will strike. Much more can and must be done.

The Member States are responsible for emergency management on their territory, and they must be held to account when they do not do everything in their power to prevent such disasters. I therefore condemn my government’s failure to carry out brushwood clearance, for which it is responsible in the Peneda-Gerês National Park. This failure is incomprehensible. This failure was incendiary.

I must express my sadness at the loss of human life in various fires in my country and other European countries. If we needed reasons to be more effective, the actions undertaken in our countries and the Union’s aid measures are intertwined with the loss of human life. We must be resolute in the fight against the fires, in the fight against the destruction of property and our forests, and in preserving the future.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, I have reluctantly supported this resolution though do so having voted against the idea within it that a full blown delegation of the Parliament be sent to view fire damage in various places. I do not see that this is proportionate to the issues and that the funds likely to be used in this venture would be better used elsewhere.

– Doha Development Agenda (B6-0465/2006)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. It is a tragedy that this failed over agriculture when it is less than 5% of the GDP for the European Union and the United States and yet so vital for developing countries. While India has made the offer to end farm subsidies by 2013, the US seems hell-bent on increasing agricultural subsidies. We can only hope sanity returns to these negotiations so important and so vital for so many!

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) What comes through from the statements made by UNICE and Mr Mandelson is that those who stand to lose out the most from the suspension of WTO negotiations are the least developed countries. The statements gloss over the content of the Doha Agenda, which seeks to promote the liberalisation of goods and services, the central idea being that development is promoted by means of the free trade of any obstacle to the large multinationals and that there is a contradiction between multilateral and regional bilateral trade agreements. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The WTO is at the beck and call of the large multinationals, providing them with expanding markets, boosting their profits, giving them access to raw materials and paving the way for further exploitation of the capitalist periphery.

With the current restriction on market expansion and the increasing strength of the emerging powers, central rivalries intensify and it becomes more difficult blindly to accept the periphery. Furthermore, resistance has grown to the destructive policies of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO and to the multinationals’ all-consuming domination.

Hence the pressure at the negotiating table for the periphery to accept the Agenda, as happened with the Uruguay Round, which took eight years to conclude.

We therefore voted against.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I hope this resolution on the suspension of the Doha Round will send a clear signal to the negotiating parties of this Parliament's ongoing commitment to multilateralism as a driver of global development.

It is true that countries do not come to the table as equals in international trade. This means we need to honour our Doha commitments to ‘less-than-full reciprocity’ in NAMA, to special and differential treatment and Aid for Trade for the poorest countries. It means especially that we cannot continue to allow agriculture, accountable for only 2% of our economy, to remain the stumbling block of these talks.

I hope that this period of stocktaking at the WTO will enable parties to reflect not only on how that organisation must change, but also on the merits of that organisation – a unique body in international law. Bilateralism – with its unequal terms – is a poor substitute for developing countries who will be forced to accept less favourable terms on market access and intellectual property rights. I voted for a renewed commitment to this WTO round, as an ambitious trade round but also as the development round it was originally intended to be.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) At the Geneva summit in June 2006, Europe showed itself to be flexible until it submitted at the WTO trade negotiations. After having accepted, on 18 December 2005 in Hong Kong, our relinquishing our agricultural export refunds, from 2013 onwards, Mr Mandelson, our Commissioner and chief negotiator, made the magnificent gesture in Geneva of allowing an international agreement to be reached: the reduction of as much as 50% of the customs protection of our agricultural market.

Yet, Brazil, which has forthcoming presidential elections, and the United States, which has forthcoming Congressional elections, have not taken the slightest risk: for the United States to reduce its internal aid, and for Brazil to open its industrial market.

The negotiations will end up being resumed, but we already know that the Commission has yielded with regard to export subsidies and to the protection of our agriculture and our viticulture against the social dumping of third countries, in which multinationals manufacture goods without there being any labour law or social legislation.

The solution for 2007 and for breaking the deadlock is to have the imagination to invent flexible, refundable and discountable customs duties, that is to say, deductible customs duties.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Anyone who believes that trade is one of the driving forces behind economic development, and, no less importantly, bringing people from different countries together, must be bitterly disappointed at the July decision to suspend the Doha Round negotiations indefinitely. The fact that negotiations have reached an impasse is terrible news.

The issue at hand is not one of promoting the total, immediate opening up of all borders or immediately stopping all State aid. In economics, utopias tend to be dangerous and rash behaviour expensive. It is completely desirable, however, for world trade to open up and thus to allow the maximum amount of trade between the north and the south, between countries of the south, and between the most and least developed countries. This must be done in a fair and balanced way, and in such a way as to benefit the most competitive producers, the most hard-working exporters and, that no less important but oft-forgotten player, the consumer.

The EU must be equal to the task of moving forward, reaching a satisfactory agreement among its Member States and playing a leading role at the WTO. A world with freer trade is a freer world.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, trade issues must be dealt with globally, where at all possible, and it is worth the effort of continuing if we presently cannot find agreement. The alternative is a morass of unequal bilateral deals which will in the main disadvantage the developing world, we are already seeing this trend worsening. Agreement will evidently take more time, though in the short term there are other weapons in our armoury. The "Aid for Trade" agenda provides a useful means of working towards effective development and I would like to see it progress, while of course hoping that the Commission will continue to press for substantive progress in the WTO itself.

– Counterfeiting of medicines (B6-0467/2006)

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The French press has on several occasions over the last few months published reports on the damage that the counterfeiting of products and brands causes to the economy. This is the proof that this phenomenon, together with globalisation, is reaching very worrying proportions, of which the public authorities and the citizens are becoming increasingly aware. It is therefore estimated that 100 000 jobs have been lost in Europe as a result of the manufacture and placing on the market of counterfeit products.

Over and above the protection of intellectual property, however, there may also be tragic consequences where health is concerned. Such is the case with regard to the counterfeiting of medicines and vaccines, which endangers the lives of millions of people, particularly in developing countries, and above all in Africa.

Consumer protection is an important duty of the European Union. The Union must therefore harmonise and enhance its legislation aimed at fighting this scourge, which is reaching worrying proportions. It must also help to enhance legislation in third countries.

It was therefore with great interest that I voted in favour of the resolution on the counterfeiting of medicines.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I had no problems in supporting this resolution. The counterfeiting of medicines is the most serious and most amoral form of counterfeiting given that it endangers the health of millions of consumers. This problem is particularly prevalent in developing countries where medicines without essential active ingredients are circulating (in some countries as high as 50% of the medicines available) and are being used to treat fatal conditions such as HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.

There is no reason why counterfeiting of medicines and their distribution within or across borders should not constitute a criminal offence in international law. I and my colleagues would like to see greater coordination of national and transnational bodies involved in the fight against piracy. I also support the EU taking a leading role in strengthening the regulatory and quality-control capacity for medicinal products and medical equipment placed on the market in resource-poor countries.

I would call on the authorities and pharmaceutical companies to continue to guarantee the origin and quality of medicines available, recognising the utmost importance of fighting this dangerous form of piracy.

– European contract law (B6-0464/2006)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, a rather contradictory approach can be observed today in this House. On the one hand, we have a report, by Mrs Wallis, which proposes that we join the Hague Conference in order to unify the conflict-of-laws rules, and that seems an excellent approach to me. On the other hand, we have this tendency to want to unify the substantive rule of European contract law. I believe that the first approach is the right one, while the second approach is far more questionable.

As regards European contract law, it seems to me that it should simply be decided, for example, that the applicable law shall be the one chosen by the parties and, if they have not chosen an applicable law, that the applicable law shall be the one established in the place in which the contract was concluded and, finally, if the contract was concluded between parties located in different places, that the law applicable to the contract shall be the one established in the place in which the contract is enforced. The wording of this very simple rule simply needs to meet the legitimate need for legal certainty without necessarily having to unify in a rather arbitrary and authoritarian way the national law of each of the Member States.

– Report: in 't Veld (A6-0252/2006)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Air carriers that operate passenger flights to the USA supply US security agencies with personal data contained in Passenger Name Records (PNR), at the request of the authorities, on the pretext of the so-called 'war on terror'. Included in these data are 34 categories of information, for example: hotel and travel bookings, telephone numbers, email addresses, private and work addresses, favourite foods, numbers of credit cards, and many others.

Parliament has ruled that this agreement between the EU and the USA is illegal. It criticised the lack of legal clarity and its excessiveness as regards safeguarding the citizens’ rights, freedoms and guarantees and personal data protection enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Justice backed Parliament’s view as regards the legal basis, overturning the Council’s decision, with effect from 1 October 2006.

This is another unacceptable situation that must end, as it undermines rights, freedoms and guarantees, and forms part of the current trend towards securitarianism. It also means that the USA’s sovereignty takes precedence over that of the individual Member States, given that according to the agreement, current and future legislation of the United States in this field would be applicable.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) An agreement between the EU and the USA on the use of passenger name records is urgently required, in light of the impending legal vacuum from 1 October 2006. We must ensure, therefore, that we are clear about the principles we bring to the negotiating table.

The protection of our citizens’ fundamental rights is without question the backbone of any negotiation in this area. Yet we cannot ignore that the world is a terrifying place in which the prevention and fight against terrorism is an increasingly important value and objective.

Whilst globalisation has opened up new worlds and new trade and enabled the citizens to explore new territories, it has also enabled new monsters to show their claws. Terrorism and organised crime being examples of this.

There are measures that must be taken quickly, based on clear, precise principles, to protect our citizens from any attack on their lives, their property and their fundamental rights. I am therefore in no doubt that these are the same principles that will guide our partners at the negotiating table and that the agreement will be negotiated with a view to protecting our citizens.

– Report: Sifunakis (A6-0260/2006)

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I should like to pay tribute to the outstanding work of my colleague, Mr Sifunakis, regarding the protection of the European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions.

As the elected representative of a rural region in which the natural heritage is protected, the architectural heritage is ancient and the cultural heritage is rich, I appreciate the importance of this report.

I also believe that the multifaceted character and strong identity of the heritage of our rural and island regions is what sets them apart and makes them rich.

I fully endorse the report’s recommendations in relation to the measures aimed at suitably protecting, rehabilitating and promoting small traditional communities.

The necessary resources must be harnessed both from the Structural Funds and from the appropriations earmarked for the environment and the national allocations.

All European initiatives such as the ‘European Union Cultural Heritage Prize’ and the ‘European Heritage Days’ must be encouraged and made more widely known in order to promote the diversity and richness of Europe’s heritage, as a factor of social cohesion.

Furthermore, I believe that more importance should be attached to preserving and passing on the regional languages, dialects and patois of our rural and island regions, as these are also part of our heritage.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Sifunakis on the protection of the European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions, because I believe that cultural heritage should be strengthened and incorporated fully into the EU’s policies and financial resources, through the use, for example, of the Structural Funds.

Given that rural areas cover some 90% of the territory of enlarged Europe and constitute a precious reservoir of natural life and cultural capital, it is vital that we invest more in the development of local economies, so as to reverse the trend of dwindling rural populations, encourage and support ‘alternative, sustainable tourism’, and safeguard local know-how and traditional professions.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Sifunakis (Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Greece) on the protection of the European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions, because I believe that the historical and cultural heritage of rural island regions should make a substantial contribution towards enhancing the social and economic development of these regions.

I also believe that the positive aspect of this report lies in the promotion of the concept of sustainable development, capable of striking a vital balance between local communities and the environment, and in the integrated attitude that it proposes for traditional farming areas. As regards the civic participation of civil society, I feel it is important to highlight the emphasis that Mr Sifunakis places on the need to involve local people in preparing and implementing policies, some of which are in the report, as follows: a systematic study of the cultural heritage and the creation of a legal framework for its protection; funding to restore local monuments and traditional farming methods; comprehensive restoration of traditional habitats and traditional forms of architecture; and know-how and traditional professions passed down through the generations.

Accordingly, my vote in favour is based on its quality. I therefore wish to congratulate Mr Sifunakis.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although the report contains some contradictions and one or two points to which we do not subscribe, we voted for the final resolution, because we feel it is important to support the protection and preservation of cultural heritage via the Structural Funds and the existing Community initiatives such as LEADER +, URBAN II and INTERREG III, which are set to be integrated into the new financial instruments of the CAP in the next budgetary period (2007-2013).

We also welcome the idea of calling on the Commission to adopt measures to facilitate greater accessibility and to encourage small companies, traditional crafts and trades and local traditions and customs, by a large-scale campaign to promote villages and communities within the Member States, so as to contribute decisively to developing the local economy and to containing the rural exodus.

The Commission and the Member States are also called upon to cooperate with the Council of Europe with a view to further promoting traditional communities and the architectural heritage in rural and island areas as part of the 'European Cultural Heritage Days' initiative so as to make the European public more aware of the value of local and regional cultural identities.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List believes that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is the Member States, regions and local authorities that can and must protect natural, architectural and cultural heritage.

We decidedly reject the artificial creation of a common EU cultural heritage at EU level. The idea of creating a legal framework at EU level for protecting cultural heritage in rural regions is unrealistic. This is something that must be done at Member State level.

As always, the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education has embarked on flights of fancy in its report. Paragraph 21 of the draft report proposes systematic action in favour of small, traditional communities along the lines of the cultural capitals system. This would add new costs to the EU’s budget.

Paragraph 24 of the draft report proposes efforts to establish a European Cultural Heritage Year. The European Parliament often proposes dedicating particular years to one topic or another. To arrange all of these, however, would in practice be impossible.

I am voting against the report as a whole.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wish to congratulate Mr Sifunakis on his important and timely report on the protection of the European natural and architectural heritage in Europe’s rural and island regions, to which I lend my backing. I especially welcome reference to the need for the EU to take joint measures to protect the heritage, which includes both the architectural and natural heritage of the regions, marked by people’s way of life over the course of time.

The conservation of the numerous elements of cultural heritage provides a foundation for further social and economic development and thereby enhances environmental protection, employment opportunities and European integration, and helps to prevent abandonment and dwindling populations.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

10. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

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

11.1. Sri Lanka

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Sri Lanka.⁽¹⁾

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), author. – Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon, but regret the need to do so because it seems not very long ago that this Parliament adopted a resolution on the situation in Sri Lanka. Since then, we have seen a return to, or a continuation of, the destruction, the deaths, the displacement of people, and indeed the recurrence of bloodshed in a way that all of us in this House would have hoped would have ceased by now.

I am sure that every one of us in this Chamber wants an end to the bloodshed and that we want a peaceful settlement in Sri Lanka. We may disagree about the path we should take, but we are united on that goal as this resolution makes clear. As our resolution says, the fact that there is no peace settlement is due to intransigents on both sides who trample on the aspirations of the majority and who are so concerned with their own role, their own future, their own vision of Sri Lanka that they are unwilling to let forces wanting peace work to that end.

The European Union now has to find its own way forward. For some of us, placing the LTTE on the terrorist list has led to a totally predictable reaction and the SLMM is no longer able to operate at full force or as effectively as we would want. Nevertheless, we still have to move forward. We have to look for the resumption of peace negotiations. We have to participate in those as fully as we are able and with all the contacts that we have in order to find a way forward, so that we can get on with distributing the tsunami aid properly and look to a peaceful future for all.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, this is not the first time we have addressed this issue, and we are aware that Sri Lanka has frequently been the subject of debate in the House.

We have already referred to historical matters, and I have certainly spoken recently on the difficulties related to our need to take a stand on the situation of the parties to the conflict. On the one hand there is the continuing harm befalling all those who are victims of these conflicts, while on the other hand we cannot forget that specific past circumstances are affecting the present. We cannot automatically assume that these people are simply unfortunate and cursed by blind fate.

It is necessary to accept a particular definition as to who in Sri Lanka – and I hesitate to resort to such controversial terms, but here goes – is the original host there, and who is the guest who has become too big for his boots, and whose activity is detrimental to the host. I do not wish to name individuals or refer to any particular side or party, but I would like point out that the present situation cannot be judged without a specific analysis and judgment of earlier events and without some basis for dividing people into aggressors and victims. After all, you cannot just simply label every victim as innocent and anyone who is on top as guilty at that particular moment. Of course, we as an international organisation should obviously ensure first and foremost that the sufferings of ordinary people stop as soon as possible, but we cannot do so without taking account of the historical context, and of a certain understanding of who are the goodies and who are the baddies. It seems to me this House needs to take considerably more action than it has hitherto.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. – (NL) Mr President, after decades of warfare and intensive mediation on the part of the Norwegians, successive Sri Lankan Governments have declared their willingness to work towards an agreement with the rebel Tamil Tigers, with the possibility of a confederation preventing the central government from intervening in the democratic administration of the autonomous north-east around Jaffna. This good intention has, unfortunately, become the subject of political disputes within the Sinhalese population, some of whom believe that the Tamil rebels should be made to content themselves with less, and the divided state of the majority population undermines the minority’s faith in the possibility of a peaceful resolution.

For as long as the Tamil minority cannot rely on political agreement among the Sinhalese majority or on its earlier promises, we cannot expect it to sit patiently and wait for something to be offered to it. In the meantime, both parties have gone back to violence. Europe must be consistent in not taking either side, instead doing everything possible to foster peace and conciliation.

Although the rebel organisation LTTE is not banned within Sri Lanka, it has, since May 2006, been on the European Union’s list of terrorist organisations, and this is something to be regretted in that it makes negotiations more difficult and encourages the perpetuation of violence. Putting an organisation on the list of terrorist organisations is an indication that it is not one to be negotiated with and that every effort is to be made to stamp it out.

We have known for many years that it will not be possible to wipe the LTTE out or exclude them, even if we wanted to do so. That is why talks have been going on with them for so many years. We need them if there is to be reconciliation and peace. That is why we must do everything in our power to bring an end to the despair that has driven them to again resort to violence.

  Neena Gill (PSE), author. – Mr President, I should like to condemn strongly the recent spate of violence in Sri Lanka. At the weekend government patrol boats engaged Tamil Tiger rebels in the northern seas. This marks yet another outbreak of violence between government forces and the rebel movement but, as we know, violence is not the way to resolve complex and sensitive conflicts.

Ever since the Tamil Tigers were classified as terrorists by the Council, the situation in Sri Lanka has worsened. The labelling of this group has undoubtedly driven that movement further away from the negotiating table. My approach as chairwoman of Parliament's Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation is that both parties should be brought together and both held equally responsible for the recent violence. Neither side can be immune from blame, and both must accept responsibility.

The Sri Lankan Government has failed to adopt a measured approach to the rebel threat. It must be careful not to adopt the terrorist approaches currently associated with the rebel movement it so violently pursues.

The targeting of schools and hospitals in northern Sri Lanka is not the action of a responsible, democratic and peace-seeking government. As we all know from other terrorist flashpoints in the world, the root causes of any conflict need to be analysed closely. We need to deal with the causes of the conflict. The heavy-handed approach adopted by the government does not help address these root causes.

Let us not forget that many people have lost their lives, including 17 EU nationals working as aid monitors. No longer can we tolerate violence against innocent people, aid agencies, NGOs and monitors in the region. It is time for good sense and negotiation to prevail in Sri Lanka.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), author. – Mr President, Sri Lanka is a beautiful country, located at a key economic crossroads, with an enterprising and industrious people. What a terrible shame that the hopes and ambitions of a generation of Sri Lankans have been blighted by terrorism. Sri Lanka has made progress in recent years; how much more could have been achieved in terms of rapid economic and social development if there had been stability and security?

I do not want to underestimate the strength of feeling among many Tamil citizens, in particular, that they were not getting a fair deal, but we can be certain that terrorism has not improved their opportunities one iota. The Tamil-speaking population is very mixed. Of a population of four million, one quarter or so are so-called hill Tamils, who have never been associated with the LTTE, while a further quarter are Muslims, who certainly find little attraction in the LTTE. Most of the Tamil peoples of Sri Lanka live in the centre and south of the island, outside areas that have been under LTTE control. Those living in those areas have little opportunity to express their true feelings about the terrorist masters who dominate their lives.

I have no doubt that over the years there have been abuses of Tamils and that on occasion security forces have acted with insufficient regard for ordinary Tamil people in the areas of conflict. I therefore congratulate the Sri Lankan Government on the commitment it has made to investigate atrocities and serious human rights violations and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Of course, the greatest human rights violators are the terrorists.

Successive Sri Lankan Governments have sought to improve the situation of the Tamils and have offered various devolutionary proposals that would give the Tamil population considerable autonomy, while preserving the unity of the country. Each of those proposals has been rejected by that same intransigent leadership at the LTTE.

In our resolution today, we are calling upon all parties to the conflict and troubles in Sri Lanka to pull back from the brink. We are calling for an immediate, comprehensive and verifiable end to hostilities, respect for human rights, unhindered access throughout the country for humanitarian workers, and for the Government and opposition in Sri Lanka to come forward with a bold gesture of reconciliation, including constitutional revision, as a matter of urgency.

Meanwhile, the Council, Commission and Member States must redouble their efforts to help bring a stable and just peace to Sri Lanka and restore security and prosperity, and that includes bearing down hard on the agents of terrorism.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE), author. – Mr President, the end to the violence seems to be further away than ever. One of the reasons for this was the failure to have a second round of the Geneva peace talks, with the LTTE pulling out. Hopes of further talks have been damaged by the Council proscribing the LTTE as a terrorist organisation on 29 May 2006. I am personally pleased that an amendment has been tabled to that effect and I am sorry that it is not in the resolution. The banning of the LTTE only leads to further isolation. They are not permitted to travel, so another Geneva conference is impossible.

We should be realistic here. However much we condemn the terrorist acts by the LTTE – and we do – the government is certainly not blameless. We just have to look at the 17 French aid workers who were killed on 4 August 2006. Evidence points to the government security forces being responsible – we do not know as yet. This incident and all the others perpetrated by the LTTE and the government need further investigation by an independent human rights expert. What I find so reprehensible is that neither the government security forces nor the Tamil Tigers do enough to protect civilians. Persistent uncertainty about what has actually occurred and who is responsible for alleged war crimes and other violations of international law is fuelling fear and panic among the civilian population. We must have a strong, effective monitoring operation, but it must have the support of the government, the LTTE, the United Nations and its members.

  Thomas Mann, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the cease-fire that has been in place in Sri Lanka since 2002 has been broken on repeated occasions; in mid-June, sixty people were killed in the worst attack so far, for which the government declared the LTTE responsible. Workers from the French organisation ‘Action against hunger’ dealing with the damage caused by the tsunami were murdered at the beginning of August, and over 100 people were injured, and 61 killed, in the middle of that month – all of them children and young people – in a massacre suspected to have been carried out by the state's security forces.

This year, 2006, reminds me of 2001, when we were with the SARC delegation in Jaffna and saw the results of the civil war, in the shape of ruined villages, scorched earth, and tens of thousands of bewildered and desperate refugees. In our dialogues with government and opposition, human rights activists, Buddhists and Muslims, we have always put the case for the peace initiative mounted by the Norwegians, who, this year too, tried – and failed – to act as mediators.

It is not acceptable that the fact should be glossed over. It is the LTTE that bears responsibility for the bomb attacks on civilians, for the month-long blockades of drinking water plant and for its own refusal to stop recruiting children as soldiers.

There is, however, good news to report. Two Tamil parties have decided to join the coalition government. The President is willing to allow violations of human rights by the army and police to be investigated, and many people in positions of political responsibility are coming to realise that the Tamil population must be enabled to stop perceiving themselves as second-class citizens. It is to be hoped that there will be more good news of this kind, and less of the horror stories that we heard previously, for that is what Sri Lanka, as one of the oldest democracies in Asia, deserves.

  Robert Evans, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, this item on the agenda, as we know, is about debates on breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The situation in Sri Lanka at the moment is tragic, and there have indeed been many breaches of human rights. This motion refers to the work of the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission. That independent body has blamed the LTTE for the attack on 15 June and, as Mrs Lynne has said, it has blamed the Sri Lankan Government for the murder of the 17 aid workers in Muttur at the beginning of August.

This shows the seriousness of the situation. Regrettably though, some people involved in the debate – not just the one this afternoon, but also others – are trying to assign all the blame to one side or the other. We have to accept that in any conflict situation there is grave fault on both sides, and that the military responses have in many cases been disproportionate. What started out as a little local dispute over water supply has cost hundreds of lives, displaced thousands of people and brought the country to the brink of civil war.

All sides – the LTTE, Colonel Karuna and the Sri Lankan Government – must realise that there can be no military solution and that peace negotiations without preconditions are the only way forward. It is in this spirit that Amendment 5 seeks to keep the negotiations open. Everyone accepts that the LTTE is a player, and yet the EU has effectively washed its hands of negotiations through its proscriptions.

Let me make something clear. Just because I am saying this, and because Mrs Lynne said something similar, as did Mrs Lambert and Mr Meijer, that does not make us terrorists or apologists for terrorism, which we condemn. It just means that we need to keep negotiations open. Equally, we need to do everything we can, as mirrored in Amendment 4, to help the ordinary people of Sri Lanka, who have suffered for so long and need a peaceful solution.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, tragically the incidents of bloodshed in Sri Lanka continue to occur and the responsibility lies with both Government and Tamil forces. Evidence from the SLMM shows that: Government forces have killed 17 aid workers; the LTTE have bombed a bus, killing 64 civilians; and the Sri Lankan Air Force has bombed a campsite in the north, killing 51 young people.

Whilst in the short term there is an urgent need for an independent commission to investigate the recent disappearances, abductions and extra-judicial executions, in the long term we must repeat the call made by this House in the last resolution for a wide-ranging human rights agreement between the parties involved in the civil war and its facilitation by an effective independent international monitoring mission. The lessons learned from the weaknesses of the SLMM demonstrate that for human rights to be a fundamental building block of a just and enduring resolution of the conflict, that body must have real enforcement mechanisms and unhindered access to both Government- and LTTE-controlled areas.

Let us hope that a political solution that would be acceptable to Sri Lanka’s minority communities will soon be found and that lasting peace and prosperity will replace violence and poverty.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Sinhalese and the Tamils have lived together in Sri Lanka – also known as Ceylon – for over two thousand years. Before the rise of Rome, before the Caesars, before the birth of Christ, there were Sinhalese kingdoms in Sri Lanka, along with colonies of Tamil kingdoms in southern India, and that is what makes it all the more tragic that, in the twenty-first century in which we are living, the situation there should be so explosive, although it has to be said that we Europeans, in colonial days, made our own contribution to making matters worse through our settlement policy, through the interests of the plantation owners, and much else.

Today, the most vital thing is that we should help to bring matters to a peaceful resolution, and that will be possible only if a distinction is drawn between the terrorists and what actually matters. The terrorists do not want a solution, any more than do the extremists and the people in positions of power, since they derive their power from the ethnic conflict, which is, in itself, perfectly capable of being resolved.

I would like to use the opportunity afforded by our sitting under an Italian president to say that one tremendous model for this is what has been achieved by the Italians and the people of the South Tyrol working together, which has turned out to be beneficial to both sides. Such a model of autonomy benefits not only the minority, but also the majority.

It is, I believe, high time that we start working towards a similar model of autonomy for Sri Lanka, where the situation is so dangerous, and it is for that reason that I welcome this very even-handed resolution, while of course supporting our group's amendment to it. I do, however, think it regrettable that we are, to some extent, giving ourselves over to inter-group ideological warfare instead of this House coming together to present a united front in dealing with this thorny political issue, which would enable us to carry a great deal more weight in our dealings with the participants in the civil war in Sri Lanka.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE) – (PL) Mr President, in recent weeks violent clashes have again taken place in Sri Lanka between Tamil guerrillas and government forces. Over 800 people have died as a result of these brutal acts of violence this year alone. The weak judicial system in Sri Lanka has not reacted to widespread cases of human rights violations, the murder of representatives of humanitarian organisations and the recruitment of child soldiers.

Both parties – the government in Colombo and the Tamil Tigers – accuse each other of being responsible for breaking the agreement. There is a risk of civil war breaking out as a result of the ever-intensifying clashes. Representatives of the UN peacekeeping mission were forced to withdraw from the country on the first of September because the Tamil Tigers were unable to guarantee security. The fact that the burgeoning conflict is hampering economic development by preventing aid from reaching the tsunami victims is particularly worrying.

Particular support must therefore be given implementation of the UN humanitarian aid plan to supplement the funding already earmarked. In the face of this spreading conflict, the international community must appeal to both sides to lay down their arms and start negotiations towards a settlement. Attacks which take their toll on innocent civilians on a daily basis can no longer be tolerated.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, as a member of our parliament’s delegation of Southern Asian countries, the loss of what has already been achieved in Sri Lanka is an ominous experience for me. The act of terror perpetrated by the Tamil Tigers on 15 June is very regrettable, as is the shooting of aid workers in Muturi by government forces.

In order to be trustworthy partners, the parties must be able to prevent such incidents. Respect for human rights and putting the wellbeing of the population above all else is the only way out of this impasse. The re-establishment of the ceasefire is now the most urgent task, but merely freezing the conflict is not a solution. As the head of parliament’s Moldova delegation, I sense that every day. The frozen conflict there – I refer to the illegal Transnistrian regime – has made Moldova the poorest country in Europe.

Despite the setbacks, the European Union must not lose sight of its long-term objectives. Adding the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) to the list of terror organisations was technically correct, but was the wrong step in practical terms. As a result, the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) lost most of its capability. The European Union must do all in its power to ensure that talks in Sri Lanka are conducted using words, not bullets. This is in our power – it must be.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. The European Commission is deeply concerned at the growing violence which is seriously unravelling the ceasefire agreement and peace process in Sri Lanka. The intensification of hostilities between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan army that has taken place over the last months is a matter of great concern. A full-scale war has to be avoided at all costs and parties must recommit to respecting the ceasefire agreement.

The Commission has repeatedly called on both parties to make the utmost effort to prevent a further escalation of violence and loss of life. The Commission and the co-chairs of the Tokyo Donor Conference on Sri Lanka have stated many times that violence is not the way to resolve the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The suffering inflicted on innocent civilians is intolerable.

The European Commission is very concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation there. We share the concerns expressed in the draft resolution in relation to the recent violations and we are concerned about the climate of impunity and non-respect of human rights by both sides.

The Commission has been particularly shocked by the atrocious killing of 17 aid workers from the NGO 'Action Contre la Faim' and has urged the authorities in Sri Lanka to investigate these killings immediately and thoroughly and to give assurances that they will do everything possible to ensure a safe humanitarian space in the country. The recent call by President Rajapakse for an international independent commission – which we support – is a positive step which will have to be followed up by concrete action.

We continue to follow the situation in Sri Lanka very closely and welcome the interest shown by Parliament in this draft resolution with a view to encouraging both parties to ensure full respect for human rights.

These new developments are important for the European Union in its role as a co-chair of the Tokyo Donor Conference. A co-chairs' meeting will take place in Brussels on 12 September and the European Commission will take an active part in ensuring that a strong message is put across to both parties, urging them to commit to a peaceful negotiated resolution of the conflict and full respect for human rights.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes.

11.2. North Korean asylum seekers, in particular in Thailand

  President. – The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on North Korean asylum seekers, in particular in Thailand.⁽¹⁾

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. – (NL) Mr President, over some 60 years of isolation, North Korea has developed a model of government and a lifestyle that is unlike virtually any other you will come across on this earth. It is also apparent that it thinks more about rocketry and atom bombs than about the production of sufficient food. Those people who have come to find such living conditions intolerable are in a trap, for the border with South Korea is still permanently closed off.

Its neighbour, China, offers them no more of a solution, since it sends all refugees back, no doubt to face severe punishment for their deviancy; of those who are sent back, nothing more is heard. That is why an alternative must be made available to those who want to escape. At present, they end up in poor countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, but increasingly, too, in Thailand, which is much more prosperous and should be able to comfortably accommodate small numbers of people on a temporary basis.

Although their refugee status is recognised by the United Nations agency for refugees, the Thai Government, regrettably, regards them primarily as having crossed the Thai border illegally, the consequence being that, after all the misery they have already endured, they end up with a 30-day prison sentence plus a fine that is considerable in relation to their circumstances. What Thailand must do instead is to accommodate them properly and allow those who so wish passage through to South Korea or to any other country willing to welcome them.

We hope that Thailand will apply the standards that have generally been customary in Europe, at present, it has to be said, applied with little consistency, but nonetheless traditional. If Thailand wants to be a democracy – which, it has to be said, entails quite a few difficulties – then this is how it ought to treat these refugees.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), author. – (DE) Mr President, even before 1989, both Mr Deß and I were campaigners together against the Iron Curtain and against the division of Germany and Europe.

At that time, many thought we were pursuing an illusion, just as they believe today that the idea of Korean reunification is illusory. That does indeed seem to be the case when a firmly entrenched dictatorship – and one, moreover, with nuclear weapons at its disposal – is engaged in the brutal oppression of its people, but we will not desist from speaking up for a free and reunited Korea. Until such time as that comes to pass, however, we must offer protection to the people who are being persecuted there.

This, I believe, is where Thailand should hold fast to its own great tradition, which it first demonstrated decades ago in its handling of millions of Cambodians. People keep losing sight of the fact that most Cambodians were able to survive the Khmer Rouge terror simply because Thailand – albeit with European help, but it was Thailand's doing – afforded them aid and protection, and if it was possible to do that for millions of Cambodians, it also ought to be possible to do the same thing for a few thousand North Koreans persecuted by Communism. It is with this in mind that my group endorses this resolution.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. (PL) Mr President, there is no doubt that there are still two Communist dictatorships in existence. By their very nature, Communist regimes can be nothing other than dictatorships. I refer to Cuba and North Korea. The world must do everything in its power to eliminate both of these Communist regimes.

Today we are discussing the plight of refugees from North Korea. They are not economic migrants. We are perfectly well aware that countries often wish to protect themselves against economic migrants. The return of economic migrants, however painful, just means returning them to their unfortunate economic situation. Returning political refugees, however, exposes them to the worst possible danger. Consequently, the first thing the international community ought to do is to prevent even a single refugee from being returned to North Korea. The fate that awaits them there is so cruel that it defies the imagination. That should be the foremost aim of all of our activities.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE), author. – (PT) This is one of the worst dictatorships in the world, one that threatens the whole world with its nuclear programme, and that has managed to turn the country into one huge concentration camp.

Against this backdrop, I fervently hope, along with Mr Posselt, and the rest of us, of course, that the border will cease to exist and that North Korea will cease to exist in its current form, yet we cannot wait for that to happen before offering the highest expression of our solidarity with the refugees from North Korea.

We therefore urge the Thai authorities to show a minimum of justice, humanity and dignity, not to criminalise the victims of a brutal dictatorship and to offer all the help they can. We also call on the European institutions to cooperate in these efforts to help the North Korean refugees.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE), author. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this in fact concerns a very serious episode, which is a sign of an extremely far-reaching situation, as my fellow Members have already pointed out and as the text of the resolution makes clear. All that remains, therefore, is for me to ask the Commissioner, Vice-President Frattini, for a way, a chance, to raise the issue, in particular at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit.

The problem concerns North Korea, Thailand too of course, obviously ourselves as the European Union, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. I have the impression – I do not know what the Commissioner thinks – that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees tends all too often to be afraid of adopting positions regarding that part of the world, and elsewhere, that might prove to be – how can I put it? – political, as in the case of the montagnard minorities in Vietnam, for instance. In addition, there are many other cases in which the UN seems hesitant to guarantee or provide assurances that refugee status will be effectively respected, because it is afraid that that might be taken badly by governments or regimes in the area.

The European Union can play an important role in this matter to encourage the international institutions and the UN in particular, so as to guarantee, grant and allow refugee status where the conditions for it exist. Obviously, in the case of North Korea, I agree with what my fellow Members said earlier: this migration is clearly not merely economic, but the result or product of one of the worst and most violent dictatorships still remaining on the face of the planet.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, North Korea has rapidly come to be symbol of an anachronistic, backward-looking communist state. The sharp deterioration in standards of living that has ensued and the unbearable repression of its people by the increasingly brutal totalitarian regime have in recent years caused tens of thousands of North Koreans to flee their home country in search of a kinder destiny.

Thailand, in particular, has become a major transit destination for North Korean refugees. Sadly, we have recently seen unacceptable treatment of North Korean asylum seekers by the Thai authorities, with arrests, heavy fines, imprisonment and repatriation. Such conduct runs contrary to the otherwise much-envied Thai tradition of hospitality and violates Thailand’s obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

We call upon the Government of Thailand to show proper respect for the rights of North Korean asylum seekers and to collaborate fully with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In addition, we call upon the Council and Commission to monitor closely the situation of North Korean refugees.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, North Korea has one of the world’s most repressive regimes. This prison state is, as far as we can tell, run in the worst Stalinist tradition, with starvation, terror and indoctrination. We read of horrors of the past regimes of Pol Pot and Stalin and it haunts me to think that the same situation exists in North Korea today.

Understandably, people risk their lives to escape. If thousands have escaped, how many more thousands have died trying? Most people in North Korea qualify for the UN status of ‘persons of special concern’. If they manage to escape they must be given help and given the protection they need. Thailand experienced the world’s solidarity only recently after the tsunami. It must show that same solidarity by not harassing North Koreans who struggle to its borders, but Thailand must be helped to bear this burden by others.

The EU and European nations must be willing to give shelter and resources, too. Might I remind this House that after the Second World War we from the countries of Western Europe allowed Polish soldiers from German prisoner-of-war camps to be returned and fed to Stalin, who consumed them instantly, or slowly in Siberian gulags. In the dire situation of North Korea, we are being given an opportunity to make amends for the terrible wrong done to Poland’s prisoners. In helping the North Korean asylum seekers, by keeping them from being returned to North Korea for imprisonment, forced labour or liquidation, we will be paying an old debt and making the right decision.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, this is not the first time we have dealt with the issue of North Korea, and unfortunately I have to say with regret that in recent years little has changed for the better in that country. Human rights continue to be violated on a large scale.

Today we are debating the issue of refugees, who are forced by hunger and repression in their own country to take the most difficult decision in a person’s life, which is to flee their homeland, often risking their lives. Thailand in particular is becoming a transit centre for many of them, but the authorities there, who have good relations with Korea, wish to apply the law on illegal immigrants to these people, and indeed do so.

I appeal to the government of Thailand, which is known for its hospitality, not to return these refugees to their homeland, thereby exposing them and their families to incommensurable persecution, but to send them to another country.

Do not allow these people to fall prey to the regime.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, you know very well the sad story of the many North Koreans seeking asylum, and the latest case is now in Thailand.

The Commission deeply regrets that these refugees were not treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and urges the Thai authorities to respect the principle of non-refoulement, as they usually do, and to ensure safe passage to a third country where the refugees can be resettled. We hope that ongoing discussions between Thailand, the South Korean authorities and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees will result in the transfer of these persons to South Korea or another third country in the coming days. In this context, I would also like to highlight that the situation of the H’mong refugees from Laos living in Thailand is of great concern.

For North Koreans, asylum-seeking is the symptom and not the cause of an issue which is quite well known, namely, the undemocratic regime in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with widespread poverty, the collapse of the economy and human rights concerns.

The European Union has an engagement policy with North Korea involving humanitarian aid, some EUR 345 million of European assistance since 1995, and people-to-people contacts and director-level Troika contacts, including on human rights. A Human Rights resolution was adopted by the United Nations in November 2005. This dealt, among other things, with the return of North Korean nationals to their country. The resolution angered the North Koreans, who suspended the humanitarian aid, which was only resumed a few months ago.

The European Union will continue with its support for the six-party talks and with its engagement policy in an attempt to obtain practical improvements and treat the cause of the problem.

I can assure you, on behalf of my colleague Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, that the Commission will also continue to follow events involving the refugees in Thailand closely, in the context – as Mr Cappato has just said – of EU-Asia dialogue.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes.

11.3. The situation in Zimbabwe

  President. – The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on Zimbabwe.⁽¹⁾

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), author. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, Zimbabwe is the former Southern Rhodesia. The regime in power in the country is regarded throughout Europe as a hard-line dictatorship. After the handover of power to the current rulers, farmers were quickly driven out of the old farms, and the country is constantly teetering on the brink of famine. The Mugabe Government therefore invited the white descendents of the colonialists back onto the land and returned the farms to them, and the situation improved rapidly. Today people are once again gradually being driven out, and even killed, although the government has not even begun training farm workers how to farm in a rational way. Similarly, there is no support for cooperatives or for buying adequate equipment. These are the main problems facing the economy.

The motion for a resolution addresses the political problems and contains a number of unsatisfactory and somewhat debatable proposals. I strongly object to the ridiculous challenge issued to South Africa to boycott Zimbabwe at the FIFA World Cup. Perhaps this is not intended to be taken seriously? I also fail to understand why, in supporting point D, the authors say that the main political opposition unfortunately split in October 2005 into two factions. If this observation lays the blame for something at Mugabe’s door, I do not understand the substance of the accusation. If we really wish to make fools of ourselves, we can call on the local shamans to dry up the rivers and make the Victoria falls disappear.

I should like to make one further remark, about point 5. In some EU Member States, the turnout for elections has also been extremely low. Do we not acknowledge the legitimacy of the elected representatives, Members of Parliament, senators and some of our fellow MEPs? I must say that I am genuinely shocked by this point in the resolution. The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left will abstain from voting on the adoption of the resolution.

I shall conclude with a question for the Commissioner. Commissioner, how do we support the South African Government, which we are calling on to improve the treatment of refugees from Zimbabwe?

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), author. – Mr President, for over six years, Parliament has consistently called for robust action to effect change for the better in Zimbabwe, but we continue to witness the desperate plight of millions of ordinary Zimbabwean people. They suffer on a daily basis from intense political oppression, a collapsed economy and shortages of vital food, water and medical supplies. The United Nations World Food Programme expects to dispense aid to almost four million malnourished people this year – over one third of the population.

HIV/Aids has had a devastating effect on the country, with one in five adults being HIV positive and over one million children orphaned through the loss of their parents from Aids. Unemployment afflicts 70% of the population. Zimbabwe’s political and economic fortunes are at their lowest point in its 26-year history as an independent nation. Action taken by the international community has been at best lukewarm and lacked the commitment necessary to have a real impact on the situation in Zimbabwe.

South Africa should be at the forefront of international efforts to pressure the Mugabe regime into making democratic concessions, but I am afraid quiet diplomacy by President Mbeke has achieved nothing tangible. Through its provision of electricity, maize and credit, South Africa could exert enormous leverage on the Mugabe regime. It has not done so.

Now we see a resurgence of Chinese interest in many parts of Africa, including Zimbabwe. The Chinese Government seems to have no inhibitions about bolstering tyrannical regimes and supplying them with weapons of oppression in exchange for access to natural resources. I see little evidence of diplomatic effort by the EU or by the governments of Member States to close down those international sources of support that keep Mugabe in power. The EU has been less than robust in strictly implementing its own sanctions regime. No wonder Mugabe takes none of this seriously.

If the international community is serious about tackling the appalling conditions in Zimbabwe, then the United Nations Security Council should urgently investigate the situation in that country. Unless we give greater priority to Zimbabwe, the Mugabe regime will stagger on until the point where Zimbabwe fails completely, unable to revive itself without immense international assistance. Action now by the international community could help avert this situation.

  Karin Scheele (PSE), author. – (DE) Mr President, this is not the first time that we have debated a resolution on Zimbabwe, but I have to admit that there have been those we have discussed, the content of which has been better than this.

Not least in our cooperation with the ACP states, the lack of democracy and the massive violations of human rights in Zimbabwe, along with the grave economic crisis and the food shortages, unemployment and hyperinflation that go hand in hand with it, have frequently occasioned criticism and debate. When one considers all the problems of a country that was once known as the ‘breadbasket of Africa’, one cannot do other than speak of the many courageous people who, in an atmosphere of heavy-handed oppression, are bold enough to keep on denouncing the abuses that go on.

In adopting resolutions, our aim should be to stiffen the sinews of these very people who are fighting for freedom, democracy and development. The impression I get from some parts of today’s resolution is that it will not do that, and I see it as simply wrong-headed to make reference, in a resolution on a matter of urgent importance, to a World Cup that is to be held in 2010.

With effect from 13 September – which really does make this a matter of urgency – widespread, indeed nationwide, demonstrations are to be held, organised by the trade unions and other organisations, to draw attention to the mounting misery of the people and demand minimum wages above poverty level and social responsibility on the part of the government. President Mugabe has already made it known that every one of these demonstrations will be suppressed.

It is important that we should ensure that these peaceful protests, which highlight the dreadful conditions under which the country’s people live, should be allowed to take place without harassment on the part of the police, and I would point out to the Commissioner that we should give some thought to how we, bearing in mind the structures existing in the region, might manage to send observers to guarantee the right to freely express opinions and to demonstrate.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, Zimbabwe is an example of how the ugly side of decolonisation can prevail. As the previous speaker just said, there was a time when Southern Rhodesia or today’s Zimbabwe was the bread-basket of a large part of Africa. Today it is not even in a position to feed its own people.

We have seen these negative sides of decolonisation in many countries, particularly African countries, where the transfer of power into the hands of irresponsible and evil political forces has resulted in the most unfortunate consequences for states that were supposed to rejoice in their freedom from colonial power. Instead, their own inhabitants have been condemned to perdition. The present proposal by the Zimbabwean leader to return farms to their former owners clearly comes too late, and fails to inspire the slightest confidence.

I believe that we should devote all our efforts to providing humanitarian and educational aid, because I really cannot see any other way out of the situation or any other possible course of action.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), author. – (ES) Mr President, the political crisis and human rights situation in Zimbabwe is still a serious and alarming issue. To this we must add the deterioration in living conditions and the growing poverty. I would like to focus in particular, however, on a specific aspect which is also being raised and which furthermore is a topical issue that we often discuss during these urgent debates: freedom of expression.

Just yesterday we were talking about China and lamenting the current high degree of governmental control of the media, in particular the Internet. It appears that Zimbabwe has taken its inspiration from the Chinese formula in drawing up its own law on the blocking of communications, and that is happening within the context of a legislative system that is already highly restrictive in terms of freedoms.

China is a great inspiration in this regard, since, as Human Rights Watch stated in a recent report, the Chinese system of control, known as the ‘Great Firewall’, is the most advanced system of this kind in the world.

According to the Zimbabwean law, the army, the intelligence services, the police and even the office of the President will be able to control and intercept electronic mail, listen to telephone conversations and censor the Internet, all without the need for a legal mandate. This would affect the relationship between doctors and their patients, for example, between lawyers and their clients and between journalists and their sources, and it would undoubtedly pose a huge risk to privacy, to NGOs and to people working to promote human rights.

For all of these reasons, I believe that it is our duty to call for the withdrawal of that law. I would like, however, to make it very clear that my concern in this regard does not relate solely to Zimbabwe, nor exclusively to China. We must see this concern as a universal one and we must be alert, both with regard to the countries I have mentioned and, for example, with regard to the United States and the European Union itself.

Respect for freedom of expression and the right to privacy must be fundamental elements of any modern society. Today we are talking about Zimbabwe but, I would emphasise, this is an issue that we must not consider solely in relation to that country.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, a grave and long-standing humanitarian, political and economic crisis sadly continues to torment this former British colony, with no sign or hope of an early improvement forthcoming. The inefficient and corrupt governing regime led by Robert Mugabe continues to oppress the people, and harassment of political opponents, trade union activists, farmers, human rights organisations, journalists and the judiciary is still widespread.

We call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to start demonstrating the necessary respect of international conventions and human rights and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that an important step towards saving the country from an even worse future is for Mr Mugabe finally to relinquish power as soon as possible. Such an action, facilitated by the opening of positive transitional negotiations between Zanu-PF, MDC parties and other opposition movements will, we feel, bring about the much-needed revival of the society, politics and economy of Zimbabwe and bring peace and prosperity to its people in their traumatic transition from British colonisation to independence and freedom.

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, one thing that has remained constant in this House throughout all the years that I have been a Member of it has been the debates on Zimbabwe and its constantly worsening social, economic and political conditions. Appeals to Mugabe have proved no more effective than calling on his country’s neighbours – South Africa in particular – to commit themselves more to doing something about it, and the action we in the EU have taken has not made much of an impact on those it was meant to affect.

How do things stand? According to estimates, some two million people have fled to neighbouring countries, and most are living in them illegally. The so-called ‘Operation Restore Order’ alone had the effect of – in the truest sense of the word – uprooting 700 000 people; four million people do not have enough to eat; unemployment stands at 70%, and the inflation rate is the highest in the world. One effect of the forced resettlements is that the fight against AIDS is being made more difficult, with 3 200 people a week dying of it. There is now as much legislation on the control and oppression of the people as there was before independence.

What can we do? We can see to it that the international agencies operating on the ground on behalf of the UN give aid directly to the people wherever possible; we can ensure that the Red Cross can continue its work with the minimum of interference.

What I want – and I say this to the Commission in particular – is for us also to give aid under the Budget heading of the European initiative for democracy and human rights to Zimbabwean civil society, to the many courageous people there, be it in the trade unions, in the human rights organisations, in the churches or in the independent media. Let us ask the Chinese with whom in Zimbabwe they want to have long-term dealings – with the government or with the people? – and let us take every opportunity to tell our South African partners in dialogue that they, through their failure to act, are neither making things easier for themselves nor doing the people of Zimbabwe any kind of service.

  Józef Pinior, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, in recent years we have witnessed the deterioration of the political, social and health situation in Zimbabwe.

Mr Mugabe’s political dictatorship has gone hand in hand with social disaster in Zimbabwe. The Muramba-tsvina operation has left some 700 000 individuals homeless. About four million people in Zimbabwe are currently threatened by starvation and increasing numbers are being affected by AIDS. The result is a situation where over 3 000 people are dying every week in that country. Recent moves by Mr Mugabe’s regime to try and control the Red Cross are a particular cause for concern.

At this juncture, the House should focus on the activities of trade unions in Zimbabwe, and in particular on the protests that the trade unions will be holding in the coming weeks. The trade unions in Zimbabwe deserve our particular support.

  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the dreadful self-inflicted situation in Zimbabwe needs no reiteration in this House. It shows the limits of our power. To cut off aid would hit only the most vulnerable and yet that is the only real leverage we have in this House over the Zimbabwe regime.

Can we find other means? With regard to that I would refer to paragraph 8 of the motion for resolution, suggesting excluding Zimbabwe from the 2010 World Cup. I would suggest, unlike my colleagues, that it is a good idea. I would be grateful to hear the Commission’s views on that.

We saw this week the fraternity and friendship that emanates from international football. My team – Scotland – was in Lithuania recently and I have no doubt a number of friendships were made. However, participation is a privilege, not a right. Exclusion from the 2010 World Cup would underline international disgust with Mr Mugabe’s regime without hurting the people of Zimbabwe, and yet it would be noticed throughout that football-mad country. It strikes me as a positive and useful idea. I would be grateful to hear the Commissioner’s view on it.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the harrowing state of human rights in Zimbabwe has been, as we all are aware, for some time an issue of pressing concern and this is not the first time that it has been on this House’s agenda. For how many years now has the Marxist dictator Mugabe been carrying on with his racist policies against his country’s white farmers? He is getting away with a policy of ethnic cleansing, the principal victims of which are the overwhelming majority of Zimbabwe’s black population.

Zimbabwe was, after all, an agricultural country at one stage, and one that was among the few south of the Sahara capable of exporting its agricultural produce. Mugabe, in his madness, has reduced his people to a state of misery. Agriculture is collapsing and famine is becoming widespread.

It is high time for effective action to be taken against him. In the same way as was Liberia’s Charles Taylor, Mugabe must be treated by the international community as one who has committed crimes against humanity and must be called to account for them. Africa is another place where policy must not be carried on with double standards.

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – Mr President, it appears that, as time goes by, the European Union is becoming more and more ineffectual where certain dictatorships are concerned.

It is a great pity that a wonderful country like Zimbabwe has been allowed to deteriorate into its current state while, except for the few measures we have taken to combat the dictatorship of Mr Mugabe, we look on. We talk about what is happening and perhaps restrict the travel arrangements of the perpetrators and their immediate families, and then think we are doing something to help those who are feeling the brunt: not only the whites but also a sizeable faction of native black Zimbabweans. It is about time we stood up and really started to act rather than just talk.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI). – (PL) Mr President, our Austrian colleague is right in saying this is not the first time we are discussing Zimbabwe in this House. It has become something of a never-ending story, and in many respects Zimbabwe is a world record-beater with 70% unemployment, the highest rate of inflation in the world, 3 200 deaths from AIDS each week, and the lowest voter turnout in the world, namely 15%.

Four million people in that country are threatened with starvation. The situation is a challenge for the whole world, including the European Union. I hope that this time we will go beyond mere words, and I agree with what Mr Rueda, our Spanish colleague, said recently about not applying double standards. By all means refer to Zimbabwe, but go further than that because fundamental human rights are also being violated in other countries and we have to constantly avoid such double standards. It is a good thing that the House is debating this issue again, but let us hope it is for the last time.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission is following events in Zimbabwe very closely and we are increasingly concerned at the deterioration of the political situation and, above all, the economic and social situation, which affects the people: civilians, citizens.

Based on the situation that we see today, since the Zimbabwe Government has taken no suitable measures – no measures at all – to seriously address the democratic crisis, the protection of rights and the tragic economic crisis, any possible easing or lifting of the measures adopted by the EU in relation to Zimbabwe is out of the question. In other words, we will not discuss it at all.

The European Union is not changing its attitude towards Zimbabwe, and its firm stance has recently been reasserted by my colleague Louis Michel in his contacts with the government authorities in Zimbabwe. He emphasised that the Commission remains absolutely committed to playing an active role in trying to break the stalemate. At the same time, we cannot waive any of the conditions that we have imposed, especially the resumption of democratic rules for the citizens’ daily lives. What was said confirms our concerns.

I listened carefully and with great interest to the idea of excluding Zimbabwe from the football World Cup in 2010. You all know that a similar decision is being adopted by FIFA but, having said that, I personally think it is an idea worth taking seriously and discussing with the Member States and the International Federation. I cannot say today whether the outcome will be what certain Members here are hoping, but I can say that I shall inform my fellow Commissioners Louis Michel and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner of this idea: the matter deserves to be taken very seriously.

There is certainly another aspect: as I said earlier, Europe hopes that Zimbabwe will return to a path of restoring the conditions for democratic life and economic progress. We are of course ready to point out certain routes to follow, in the context of the priorities of the 10th European Development Fund programme, for instance, within which there are specific possibilities, but we must not fail at this point to impose a very clear condition on Zimbabwe: unless it seriously embarks on the road to democracy, we cannot alter our firm stance.

At the same time, the Commission is maintaining a very close dialogue with Zimbabwe’s neighbours, particularly the members of the Southern African Development Community and the South African Government. I agree with what I have heard: we shall be increasingly active in calling on these neighbouring countries to do even more.

We support the United Nations initiatives and, in my view, it is very important for respected African Heads of State or Government to put pressure on the Zimbabwe Government to improve the political and humanitarian situation at last and to pave the way for national reconciliation.

In the meantime, we are worried about the people. Obviously, while our attitude towards the Zimbabwe Government is one of absolute firmness, we need to worry about providing direct assistance to the people, who are not to blame for a regime that deprives them of their freedom and also of their livelihoods. I can confirm that Louis Michel intends to continue supporting and also funding projects concerning socio-economic sectors, medical assistance and the role of organisations on the ground. I would point out that the role of the Red Cross must certainly be facilitated and encouraged, as must projects promoting governance, democratisation, respect for human rights and the rule of law. In our opinion, direct assistance to the people of Zimbabwe needs to continue in all these areas.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place immediately.

(1) See Minutes.

12. Voting time

  President. – The next item is voting time.

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

12.1. Sri Lanka (vote)

– Before the vote on paragraph 5:

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to move a substitute wording, namely:

To replace ‘commission to inquire into recent killings, disappearances and abductions’ by the correct wording ‘independent group of eminent persons as observers of investigations into abductions, disappearances and extrajudicial killings’.

I believe that is the correct technical term that should be used at this point.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

– Before the vote on paragraph 15:

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) I believe that the text expresses it wrongly when it says: ‘delete two times the words and INGO’. This is actually no more than an editorial amendment.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

– Before the vote on Amendment 1:

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to change the last phrase of our amendment to read as follows: 'Consideration can be given to lifting proscription if there is an effective cease-fire, an end to terrorism and resumption of serious negotiations on a constructive basis.' That would replace the last phrase that appears in the amendment at the moment.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

– Before the vote on Amendment 5:

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, this is a technical amendment. I am advised that the final part of Amendment 5, which refers to the fact that ‘… Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner shares this concern’ would read better as ‘… this is a view shared by many international bodies’.

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

12.2. North Korean asylum seekers, in particular in Thailand (vote)

12.3. The situation in Zimbabwe (vote)

Before the vote:

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, it has just come to my notice that, although the Chairman of the Executive Council of the African Union – in other words, the executive or governmental side – is listed among those to whom the resolution on Zimbabwe is addressed, we have omitted to include the Pan-African Parliament among them. Since we are currently seeking to establish contact with them, I would like to move an oral amendment to the effect that the Pan-African Parliament be added to the list.

  President. – That concludes voting time.

13. Membership of Parliament: see Minutes

14. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

15. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

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

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

18. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

19. Adjournment of the session

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

(The sitting was closed at 4.20 p.m.)

The Presidency-in-Office of the Council replied to my question in June (H-0462/06)⁽¹⁾ that the experienced police officers who are being drawn from the G-6 EU Member States and formed into back-up teams ready to assist in the case of serious terrorist attacks (the EU Commission was represented at the G-6 lunch) will be empowered to be active in any of the six G-6 territories whatever their own nationality – but will not be able to assist in a Member State which is not a member of the G-6.

Who will exercise political control over the police teams? What will their powers be? Will they wear the same uniforms? Will they have power of arrest?

(FI) This answer drawn up by the Presidency, which is not in itself binding on the Council or its members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the September I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The police teams mentioned by the Honourable Member are set up within the G6 group and so do not operate in an EU framework.

However, on the basis of experience gained in cross-border policing, the following answer of a general nature can be given.

The police teams are under the control of the state on whose territory they operate. This is true both of joint investigation teams and of the Member States’ mutual assistance in police matters.

That being so, the state in which the police team operates in principle bears political responsibility for the team’s activities.

The team's powers are defined by the national legislation of the state in which they operate. As regards joint investigation teams, the legal framework for cross-border surveillance and for cross-border hot pursuit is laid down in EU law.

Whether the team wears the same uniforms is decided jointly in accordance with both the national law of the state in which they operate and the legislation of the state sending the police officers.

For example, in combating football hooliganism, it is customary practice for foreign support teams to wear the uniform of their own country.

Members of the team operating in their own country have the same power of arrest as national police officers.

Whether the foreign members of the team have the power of arrest is determined by the legislation of the state in which the team is operating.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been ratified by the European Community and forms part of the Community acquis. By virtue of Article 6 of the act laying down the conditions of accession of the new Member States, the ten new Member States ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, as required. All the Member States of the Community have in fact taken advantage of the provisions of the Convention by extending their territorial waters to the limits set by that Convention. Greece, however, is being prevented from implementing the Convention because Turkey has officially declared that, should Greece implement it, that would constitute grounds for war (casus belli). The 'paradoxical' situation has thus arisen in which a Member State of the EU is threatened with war by an applicant Member State in the event that it implements the Community acquis.

Will the Council point out to Turkey that the threat of war against a Member State in the event of its implementing the Community acquis relating to the Law of the Sea constitutes an intolerable situation? What measures will it take to ensure that Turkey revokes the threat of war immediately?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The honourable Member alludes to the matter of Turkish relations with its neighbouring country, Greece. With regard to this, I would like to remind everyone of the relevant conclusions of the Helsinki European Council in 1999 and the one in Brussels in December 2004. As a candidate country, Turkey must comply with the values and objectives of the European Union described in the Treaties. It must show unconditional commitment to the aim of good neighbourly relations and solving border disputes, adhering to the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This being the case, all action that could have a negative impact on the peaceful resolution of disputes must be avoided, as stated in the conclusions of the European Council of 15 and 16 June.

These matters, which are also included in the negotiation framework, are short-term key areas in the amended Accession Partnership, and the EU will be systematically raising them at the meetings with Turkey that form part of the political dialogue. That was also the case at the last meeting of the EU-Turkey Association Council in Luxembourg on 12 June 2006, when the EU specifically said it deplored the fairly recent incident that had taken place in the Aegean Sea, especially as it had led to loss of human lives, and stated that cases such as these only had a negative effect on good neighbourly relations.

The Council can therefore assure the honourable Member that these matters will continue to be followed closely and will be raised if necessary at all levels, because good neighbourly relations are one of the criteria by which Turkey’s progress towards EU membership are measured. Obviously, progress in this area will also enhance the negotiation process.

Does the President-in-Office believe that the EU should revisit its support for Russian membership of the WTO?

(FI) This answer drawn up by the Presidency, which is not in itself binding on the Council or its members, was not delivered orally at Question Time to the Council at the September I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The President thanks the Honourable Member for this question.

In my opinion the EU has no reason to reconsider its support for membership of the WTO for Russia. Its membership would be advantageous to both sides - both the EU and Russia would benefit from it. It would create more open and stronger preconditions for trade and investment and give the EU a favourable forum for the resolution of trade disputes with Russia. The possibility of WTO membership also gave Russia an additional reason to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, the negotiating process gives the EU influence over Russia with regard to problematic issues relating to Russia's relations with the EU, which include issues of health and plant health, charges for flying over Siberia, freedom from discrimination for railway transport to or from foreign countries and customs clearance charges.

It would therefore be contrary to the EU's economic and commercial interests to withdraw its support for Russian membership of the WTO.

In May 2001 the European Court ruled on controversial state killings, including the killing of Sinn Féin member Patrick Shanaghan killed by loyalists in the north of Ireland, that the British Government was not compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Given that, the office of the Public Prosecution Service, formerly the DPP, remains unaccountable for its decision-making process regarding non-prosecutions in cases where prima-facie evidence exists, up to 40 inquests into controversial state killings have been delayed, in some cases for more than ten years, and the Inquiries Act has been introduced to protect state interests and to suppress information that might emerge regarding the killing of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane in 1989. The office of the Police Ombudsman has not been granted the legislative authority or adequate resources to conduct effective investigations into the conduct of police officers, and the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) fails to meet the requirements of Article 2 in so far as it is subject to the PSNI, the NIO and the former RUC Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan in his capacity as a member of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.

Does the Council accept that Britain is still not Article 2 compliant in this regard? What actions can the Council take to ensure that Britain complies with Article 2 as soon as possible?

(FI) This answer drawn up by the Presidency, which is not in itself binding on the Council or its members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the September I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The Council has not debated this issue because the Council has no powers in relation to it.

In July Parliament approved at first reading a proposal for the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI – COM(2004)0628 final). Over the period 2007 to 2013 approximately €700 million a year will be released from the European Regional Development Fund. Cross-border programmes will be eligible for support as from 1 January 2007.

The decentralised approach used earlier in the Interreg programmes is being applied to cross-border cooperation. I understand from the border regions of the European Union that the Member States involved in drawing up programmes still have great difficulty in preparing bottom-up programmes. In the past building up and training the staff required for joint management of projects at the internal borders has always proved to be a determining factor in the ultimate success of programmes.

What measures does the Presidency envisage for building human capacity for cross-border projects in the ENPI?

What arrangements for monitoring progress have been put in place for the period 2007-2013?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The Council admits that the use of just one instrument to support cross-border and local cooperation is challenging, especially for countries which are not members of the European Union and which have less experience of the programme plan. In the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the experience gained from the implementation of the neighbourhood programmes based on the rules for the period 2004–2006 will largely apply. Staff training and the exchange of experience have enabled the programmes to develop in terms of how well they function.

When the arrangements for the monitoring process are finalised for the period 2007-2013, the results of the evaluation of programmes for cross-border cooperation will be discussed by the committees, in accordance with Article 24 of the proposal for a Regulation on the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Their opinions will influence the programme plan and the allocation of appropriations.

Every time travellers cross the border between two EU Member States they are allowed to take with them, for personal use, a total of 230 litres of alcohol made up of beer, wine and spirits. The quantity of alcohol is so large that it would almost fill a small lorry and is equivalent to 2.5 years' consumption. A comparison with tobacco shows that only 800 cigarettes may be taken in, which is equivalent to 40 days' consumption.

According to the World Health Organisation, 600 000 Europeans died in 2002 of alcohol-related harm, which was an increase of 15% in two years. 7.7 million children are growing up in families where alcohol abuse takes place and a high percentage of road accident injuries are caused by alcohol. There is no doubt at all that alcohol is not a normal product.

I am aware that the Council intends to consider the matter of minimum taxes on alcohol. Will the Presidency also consider carrying out a review of the import quotas during its term of office?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

As the honourable Member says, the question of raising the minimum for excise duty on alcohol is one of the Finnish Presidency’s key themes in the area of taxation.

Since the minimum for excise duty on alcoholic beverages was established in 1992, it has not been altered while the internal market has been in force. When you consider that the average inflation rate in the EU for the same period has been in excess of 25%, the minimum excise tax has decreased when measured proportionately.

The permitted volumes mentioned by the honourable Member are the guide levels specified in Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products.

These guide levels were only laid down because the tax authorities in the Member States could state with reference to them that the products in question were for personal use and not for sale.

The Commission had proposed to the Council that the directive should be amended. Under the proposal, Member States would no longer be able, among other things, to make use of the limits in question.

The Commission’s proposal was discussed by the Council’s competent bodies, with no agreement being reached.

With regard to other aspects of the subject, may I point out that one of the health issues mentioned in the Council’s action programme for 2006, as drawn up by Austria and Finland, is alcohol consumption.

At the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council to be held on 30 November 2006, the Finnish Presidency proposes to hold an interministerial debate with reference to a Commission communication on an EU strategy on alcohol, which pays special attention to the increased use of alcohol among the young. The strategy will aim to lessen the harm to health and the social harm caused by alcohol and impact on the Lisbon objectives.

In the same connection, the Council intends to note the Commission’s report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation⁽¹⁾ of 5 June 2006 on the drinking of alcohol by young people, in particular children and adolescents, both in the Member States and at Community level.

In its work programme on energy policy, the Finnish Presidency of the Council intends to concentrate mainly on relations with third countries and EU-Russia dialogue. This is understandable in view of the EU’s reliance on imported energy supplies. The programme provides for the implementation of an effective internal market for electricity and gas, which would help the EU to become more competitive and more secure.

However, is Finland aware that, with a view to creating an internal market for energy, the advisory group of electricity and natural gas regulatory bodies, which advises the Commission, decided to create four Regional Energy Market projects (North-East, North, South and South-East)? Not one of these projects includes the four Baltic countries Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland itself. What steps does the Presidency intend to take in order to stimulate the genuine creation of a single, rather than a fragmented, energy market?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

Developing the EU’s energy market and improving the reliability of supply are among the Council’s key areas of action during the Finnish Presidency. Regional cooperation on energy is a useful step towards a fully integrated EU single market. We have to stress that these Regional Markets should be regarded as an interim stage.

In its conclusions of 9 June 2006 on the single market in energy, the Council clearly stated that the coordinated development of regional energy cooperation should be accelerated while facilitating the integration of the regional energy markets into, and the further development of, the EU internal market. This should be done particularly through adequate and coherent interconnection and access to interconnection capacity, paying particular attention to countries and regions with energy networks that are largely isolated from the EU energy network. This would therefore also cover the area referred to by the honourable Member in her question.

The Council would also refer the honourable Member to the decision recently taken on the endorsement of guidelines relating to the Trans-European Energy Networks. These energy networks include, as one example of electric power projects that are in Europe’s interests, the connection of Poland and Lithuania, which includes the upgrading of the Polish electricity network and the PL-DE section as necessary to allow participation in the internal energy market.

The Council would like to remind everyone that it is the private sector that is mainly responsible for investment in the network. There needs to be more effective cooperation between companies, governments, international financial institutions and the Commission in the area of realising investments. The Commission has started to draft a communication to be presented in January 2007 on a priority plan for interconnection of the networks. It is the Presidency’s opinion that the work should focus on the links which are most important for the Union as a whole, including those from energy sources located outside the EU. The Presidency also considers as priorities those links to regions which lie outside the common European network.

One point mentioned in the Council’s conclusions of 2006 is, furthermore, enhanced cooperation and coordination, particularly between regulators, system operators, energy exchanges and governments.

The Council will aim to implement these principles and objectives in collaboration with the Commission in the months to come.

In its first reading on FP7 the EP showed support for Commission plans on future EU RD and passed an amendment to bring the budget of FP7 in line with the Financial Perspective agreement: € 50.521 billion for 2007-2013. FP7 is to be the main programme of the EU RD and the expectations in the EU research community on the issue are very high. Unfortunately, the Commission has not managed to prepare new financial regulations for the FP7 yet, but the EU cannot implement FP7 using old financial regulations. All this could delay the announcement of calls for proposals remarkably even until the end of 2007 and will inevitably create obstacles for the development of science and research in the EU as well as contradict with the goals foreseen in the Lisbon strategy.

What is the Council's position concerning this situation? What measures does the Council plan to take in order to make the FP7 effective, progressive and timely?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The concern expressed by the honourable Member that “the Commission has not yet managed to prepare new financial regulations for the FP7” and that this might result in considerable delays in the implementation of the framework programme should be put in the right perspective.

The honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s proposal to the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2005 for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No. 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, which is the report on the application of the provisions of the new Financial Regulation COM(2005) 181 final – 2005/0090 (CNS). On 18 May 2006, the Commission presented its modified proposal COM(2006) 213 final – 2005/0090 (CNS), which mainly included the opinions of other institutions and which took account of the concerns voiced by civil society. The Commission pointed out that, before the Council could adopt the Amending Regulation (within the meaning of the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975), the Council and the European Parliament should negotiate the changes, with the active assistance of the Commission, in accordance with Article 184 of the Financial Regulation, if Parliament so requires.

The honourable Member is also referred to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission made in May 2006 on Budgetary Discipline and Sound Financial Management. Under the Declaration on the Revision of the Financial Regulation contained in the Agreement, the European Parliament and the Council are firmly committed to concluding the negotiations on the Financial Regulation so as to allow its entry into force, if possible, on 1 January 2007.

After six rounds of negotiations between the Serbian and Kosovan delegations, how does the Council assess and evaluate the outcome? Does it believe that the time is now ripe to begin substantive political negotiations on the final status of Kosovo? Does it believe that the deadline set by the international community for the completion of negotiations, namely the end of 2006, is realistic? To what extent have the standards provided for in the UN Security Council Resolutions (Resolution 1244/99) been implemented?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

In its conclusions of 17 July 2006, the Council confirmed its full support for UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his efforts to head the political process to determine Kosovo’s eventual status. The Council also considered his intention to start direct political discussions on status to be a positive sign, and urged both sides to take a constructive role in this stage of the talks. The Council noted the report on the implementation of norms determined for Kosovo, which the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations presented to the UN Security Council on 20 June 2006. The Council noted that there had been conspicuous progress and stressed once again that the implementation of norms was a major priority and should be accelerated and realised more effectively. The Council urged Belgrade to encourage the Serbs in Kosovo to participate in the work of Kosovo’s institutions, as it was here that they could best promote their own interests.

Gun proliferation is a global problem that requires a binding global solution. Around 640 million small arms and light weapons already exist, and eight million are produced every year. These are estimated to kill half a million people each year, the weapons of mass destruction in the developing world. Their long-term impact on sustainable development is undeniable. The October 2005 Council agreed on the need for an International Arms Trade Treaty. The December 2005 Council adopted an EU Strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition. Since the UN Review Conference on the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects and towards the establishment of an International Arms Trade Treaty failed to agree an outcome document, due to the instransigence of a small number of countries, what initiatives is the Council taking to ensure EU objectives are realised?

(FI) This answer drawn up by the Presidency, which is not in itself binding on the Council or its members, was not delivered orally at Question Time to the Council at the September I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The European Union is committed to effective multilateralism, and it was very disappointed that better results were not achieved at the Review Conference in New York from 26 June to 7 July 2006, which reviewed progress in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. This disappointment was expressed to the conference in the closing address delivered by the EU Presidency on behalf of the EU and the Accession States.

The EU recognises the importance of the Review Conference insofar as it reaffirmed the EU's commitment to the principles, measures and objectives of the action programme. This commitment must now be converted into practical action at national and regional level, as well as worldwide.

Despite the limited results, the EU intends to remain at the forefront of work to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including at practical level.

With this in mind, the preparation of a joint action has begun relating to EU participation in measures to combat illicit concentration of and trade in small arms and light weapons and munitions for them in sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of the joint action is to combat illicit concentration of and trade in small arms and light weapons and munitions for them in sub-Saharan Africa on both the supply and demand sides. This will deliver a powerful political message to the part of the world most affected by illegal supplies of small arms and light weapons and their excessive concentration.

In addition to this, the EU intends to further promote among third countries recognition of the fact that there is a need for worldwide guidelines concerning transfers of weapons based on the consensus reached at the Review Conference. Other prime fields for action by the EU are marking and tracing, arms brokering, munitions, mainstreaming issues relating to small arms and light weapons in development programmes and anti-poverty programmes, weapons held by civilians, gender issues, non-State actors, administration of surplus stores, portable anti-aircraft systems and human rights issues.

Finally, the Honourable Member is reminded that the EU has from the outset supported the initiative for a convention on the international arms trade, although drafting such a convention was not among the aims of the Review Conference. The EU will also play an active role in the drafting and adoption of a resolution on an arms trade convention. This resolution will be considered at a future meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly.

For years now, Member States have been failing to take up all of the structural funding available to them.

In an answer which I received from the Council, I was told that the Council is not planning to set up a special fund with heading 1b monies not taken up. In view of this, what does the Council recommend be done to improve the take-up of monies available under the Structural Funds which go unused year after year? What steps is it planning to take in order to ensure that the funds not taken up are duly used for regional development?

(FI) This answer drafted by the Presidency, which is not binding as such on the Council or its members, was not given orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s first September 2006 part-session in Strasbourg.

In addition to the fact that the present rules on automatic decommitment of appropriations (Articles 11 and 157 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities) are still being applied, the Council would draw the questioner’s attention to the new arrangement, that is to say, Point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1), whereby the proportion of expenditure not taken up under sub-heading 1 B may be used to cover the effects of adjustments in amounts allocated from funds supporting cohesion to any Member State recording a difference of more than +/-5% from the cumulated gross domestic product estimated at the time when the agreement was drawn up.

Furthermore, the Council has accepted Parliament’s request to improve the take-up of appropriations by allowing the implementation of budget commitments entered annually during the first three years of the next programming period (2007-2010) to continue beyond year n+2 into year n+3. This arrangement will be applied to Member States with particularly weak economies whose per capita GDP is less than 85% of the EU average. The rise in the co-financing rate for these Member States is also likely to reduce problems related to the capacity to make use of funding (Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006, Articles 93 and 53).

Why does Finland, which holds the Council Presidency, not wish to call a referendum on the European constitution, but merely to adopt it through a decision of the Finnish Parliament? Is this not contrary to the 'D' for Democracy Plan announced by the Commission?

(FI) This answer drawn up by the Presidency, which is not in itself binding on the Council or its members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the September I part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

Under Article 48(3) of the Treaty on European Union, amendments to that Treaty shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe similarly lays down in its Article IV-447 that the Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Each Member State takes a decision on the holding of a referendum on the Constitution on the basis of the requirements of its national law. This applies to the state currently holding the Presidency as well as to the other Member States. That being so, the matter raised in the Honourable Member's question is an internal matter for the Member State in question. The Presidency cannot answer the question, because it does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Council.

On 28 June 2006, the Commission proposed that criminal law and police matters should be subject to qualified-majority decision-making. The Commission justified its proposal by stating that Member States' present power of veto renders the decision-making process sluggish and results in decisions which have been watered down. Qualified-majority decision-making would be a 'more effective' decision-making process, it is argued.

The criminal law is at the very heart of a country's sovereignty, and the proposal is therefore extremely federalist.

The proposal which the Commission has submitted was a controversial element in the proposed European Constitution. The people of France and the Netherlands have rejected that Constitution in referendums.

Does the Council consider it democratically defensible to implement significant parts of the European Constitution which citizens of two EU Member States have rejected by a substantial majority? How can the Presidency regard it as democratically legitimate to actively pursue this policy?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

Pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission or a Member State has the right to propose that action in areas referred to by the honourable Member should fall under Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Such a decision requires the unanimous agreement of the Council and a recommendation to the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with each Member State’s constitutional requirements.

As the procedure is based on the current Treaty, it does not mean that the Constitutional Treaty is being implemented. The Article 42 in question was included in the Treaty on European Union in the Maastricht Treaty, and it was extended in the Treaty of Amsterdam to cover police cooperation and criminal justice. All the Member States have ratified both Treaties in their parliaments after democratic debates or referendums.

The Presidency would like to state that the European Council of 15-16 June 2006 asked the incoming Finnish Presidency “to explore, in close collaboration with the Commission, the possibilities of improving decision-making and action in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice on the basis of existing treaties.”

Two weeks later, the Commission released its communication ‘Implementing the Hague Programme: the way forward’. In that, the Commission proposes using the passarelle in Article 42 TEU, allowing the transfer of policing and judicial cooperation on criminal matters from Title VI in the Treaty on European Union to Title IV in the Treaty establishing the European Community.

The Presidency is committed to fulfilling its mandate from the European Council and proposes to act on the basis of this Commission proposal.

Moreover, the Presidency would like to point out that the use of the ‘gateway’ clause does not in itself signify that consensus would no longer need to apply. The Council may decide that some sensitive policies should still be decided upon by a unanimous vote among the members of the Council. Even if the principle of unanimity remains in force, transferring Title VI of the Treaty on European Union to Title IV would have several advantages, one of which is the European Parliament’s closer involvement in the decision-making process. This would promote the acceptability of decision-making with regard to issues which are important for EU citizens everywhere.

Against the background of the incessant armed conflicts in the Middle East, the issue of neutrality and non-alignment has again become the subject of intensive debate in the Member States.

Does the Finnish Presidency of the Council continue to view Austrian neutrality as real? What is the Finnish Presidency’s assessment of Austrian neutrality if the current EU constitution enters into force? Will Austria’s neutrality to be strengthened or weakened by the new EU constitution?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The current provisions on security and defence policy in the Treaties entered into force under the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. They state inter alia that Union policy does not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe contains several sections devoted to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) (for example, structured cooperation and the European Defence Agency), which all the Member States have adopted. The Treaty repeats the current provisions under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CFSP), which does not adopt a position on the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

It is not appropriate for the Council to comment on this specific character or to what extent it will be affected by any commitments made within the framework of different agreements in the European Union in the future.

The annual conference of the IAEA is due to be held in Vienna in September 2006 together with a special event on assurances of nuclear supply and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons within the framework of which a number of IAEA Member States have submitted proposals to create a safe global nuclear fuel cycle under the aegis of the IAEA (including the United States with its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Russia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The responsibilities of EURATOM include nuclear assurances based on IAEA guarantees and within the framework of trilateral agreements between Member States, the Community and the IAEA.

Does the Council have a common position on the international initiatives for the creation of a safe global nuclear fuel cycle which are currently being developed within the IAEA?

Is it considering in future establishing a uniform negotiating position of the EU within the IAEA on matters falling within the remit of the EURATOM Treaty?

What is the Council's position on the review of the EURATOM Treaty mooted by a number of Member States and also by the Commission with the aim of adapting the Treaty to present energy and geopolitical realities?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

Initiatives to promote multilateral assurances on nuclear fuels may be vitally important in the creation of incentives which may help try and prevent the continued spread of sensitive nuclear technology. The Council is following developments in this area closely, especially within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency. All the Member States of the EU will attend a special event organised in connection with the IAEA General Conference this year, at which the subject of multilateral assurances on nuclear fuels will be discussed. The High Representative has been invited to be one of the keynote speakers, but his personal representative will stand in for him.

Discussions between the Member States and the Commission and within the relevant Council working groups have already been initiated so as to establish a common approach by the EU to the question of multilateral assurances on nuclear fuels. Whatever the approach ultimately adopted, it must in any case be consistent with the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, and it must guarantee the viability of commercial nuclear energy markets both in the EU and outside it.

Under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, the government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded. As at present there are no proposals to discuss an amendment to the Euratom Treaty, the Council has not adopted a position on this issue.

President Putin and his government have launched an operation to violently repress and terrorise workers in view of the G8 summit meeting of leaders of the eight most powerful capitalist countries in St. Petersburg so as to prevent the anti-imperialist demonstrations by workers and young people from Russia and other countries against exploitation and imperialist wars and for peace and prosperity for the people. The Putin government's reactionary decision to ban meetings and demonstrations in St. Petersburg during the G8 summit from 15 to 17 July 2006 together with the mobilisation of special anti-riot forces, the arrest of 21 young people in St. Petersburg and 60 others in other cities of the region constitute a flagrant violation of the freedoms and rights of workers. All the leaders of the G8 are directly involved in and responsible for this unacceptable situation.

What is the Council's position on these unacceptable acts of state violence and terror taken by the government against workers and young people?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

Although the Council does not have a definitive opinion on the individual events referred to by the honourable Member, it regularly expresses its concern with the Russian authorities regarding evident shortcomings in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in the talks on human rights held twice a year and in political dialogue. Furthermore, meetings of NGOs have been held in conjunction with these talks, and at these events representatives of civil society have had the opportunity to voice their concern and express their views. During the Finnish presidential term, the talks on human rights issues between the EU and Russia will be held in November. The Presidency has regularly reiterated that a successful civil society and a pluralist democracy are essential elements in a nation’s prosperity and welfare.

A report by the American administration on the transition to democracy in Cuba, some parts of which have been published, provide for the overthrow of Cuba's socialist government, immediate measures in the event of the death of Fidel Castro, the funding of subversive actions to the tune of 80 million dollars, the elimination of thousands of Cuban Communist Party officials and supporters and assistance for the orphans created as a result.

Does the Council intend to condemn this fresh act of provocation by the USA against Cuba and the Cuban people which constitutes a flagrant intervention in the internal affairs of that country?

(FI) This answer, which has been drafted by the Presidency, and which in itself is not binding on the Council or its members, was not presented orally in question time in the first part-session held by the European Parliament in Strasbourg in September 2006.

The matter raised by the honourable Member concerns bilateral relations between the United States of America and Cuba. The European Union is well aware of the EU’s common position on Cuba, and there is no need for me to repeat it here.

There have been frequent calls in the Member States for vehicles used by the security and emergency services (police, Fire service, civil protection and so on) to have uniform logos/markings, as has been the case for the ambulance service (Red Cross) for some time.

Does the Commission consider it would be possible to bring forward proposals and/or introduce legislative measures to this effect?

(EN) Community law does not include provisions aimed at standardising vehicle identification markings and logos intended for emergency service vehicles.

The situation within the various Member States differs significantly. Only few Member States have legislation dealing with these issues. Generally, each corps has its own identification markings, which is determined under the control of the supervision authorities.

In these conditions, harmonising the laws of the Member States would seem very difficult while providing little added value. Laying down harmonisation measures would create significant problems:

it would be necessary to require that existing markings and logos be replaced on all emergency service vehicles;

then, it would be necessary to ‘re-train’ the public to react to the new signals;

finally, it would be necessary to remove lettering in the language of the Member State, intended specifically to make the identification of most of the emergency service vehicles easier.

The added value of harmonised markings and logos seems limited by the fact that the Vienna Convention of 1968 on Road Traffic lays down the conditions for use of special warning lights. Emergency service vehicles are equipped with light systems emitting a blue light, which must be illuminated when the vehicle is on a priority mission. This has led to a uniform practice, ensuring full understanding of such emergency services in priority missions, throughout the entire Community even if markings and logos of different corps are not harmonised.

Thus, under the better regulation principle there does not seem any justification for the Commission to bring forward proposals and/or introduce legislative measures in this area.

The junior minister for the Environment, Consumer Protection and Public Works announced to the Hellenic Parliament on 8 June 2006 the beginning of the transportation by sea to Germany of sewage sludge from Psyttalia in watertight sacks so as to minimize the risk of marine pollution. However, the Prefecture of Piraeus has alleged that the transporting vessel entered a Perama shipyard with its cargo for refitting. The Prefecture of Piraeus has described the vessel as a time bomb, posing a threat to the entire of the Saronic Gulf region.

Will the Commission say what is the present situation as regards the management and transportation of the sewage sludge? Given that means chosen to transport the sewage sludge appears unsafe and is unlikely to provide a lasting solution to the problem of the management of the sewage sludge, what actions does the Commission intend to take to ensure both the proper implementation of Community legislation, in particular the regulation on the transport of waste and the Basel Convention, and the effective protection of the environment and public health?

(EN) The operation of the Psyttalia waste water treatment plant creates substantial amounts of sewage sludge that were disposed onto the Ano Liosia landfill site on the mainland, contrary to Directives 2006/12/EC⁽¹⁾ and 91/271⁽²⁾.

The Commission invited the Greek government to submit its observations on the measures taken to ensure that the treatment of sludge complies with EC environmental legislation. Greece explained, to resolve the problem a drying plant will be constructed and is expected to be operational in July 2007.

As an intermediate solution the Greek authorities have finally decided to transfer the sludge out of the country for recovery or incineration in authorised installations in Germany. A contractor has started the shipping of sludge to Germany. 10.000 tonnes have been sent to Magdeburg and further shipments are under way. There is no evidence of technical problems.

The shipment of sewage sludge for recovery or disposal between Member States falls under the Waste Shipment Regulation N° 259/1993⁽³⁾. The Regulation transposes the Basel Convention and it is based on the principle of prior informed consent, following the prescribed notification and authorization procedure. In their reply to the Commission's letter of formal notice the Greek authorities have stated that the shipment of sewage sludge would be carried out in accordance with the Waste Shipment Regulation. This is also a specific clause of the contract signed.

The Commission will continue monitoring the situation and will take all necessary measures, including the continuation of the infringement procedure to ensure that the EC environmental legislation is complied with.

Can the Commission confirm that the procedure for scientific substantiation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which are the subject of applications for market authorisation, are sufficiently rigorous to categorically and unequivocally reassure the public that the crops in question pose no threat to human health or the environment, in line with the ‘precautionary principle’ of environmental law?

(EN) The commission thanks the Honourable Member for this pertinent question, at a time when the Commission is taking action to improve the way the legislative framework on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is implemented, which should reassure the general public, stakeholders and Member States that Community decisions on GMOs are based on rigorous scientific assessments which deliver a high level of protection of both human health and the environment.

The view of the Commission is that the scientific assessment of GMOs should be beyond reproach and that we all have the necessary confidence in the relevant risk assessment procedures to underpin our decision-making. It is in this spirit that the Commission has developed a package of measures to effectively improve the scientific consistency and transparency for risk assessment procedures, actively engaging European Food Security Agency (EFSA), Member States and notifiers in related discussions on scientific issues.

EFSA and Member States have reacted very constructively to the proposed package during a technical meeting on 19 June 2006 as well as at the Environment Council of 26 June. Notably, EFSA has announced a number of actions for immediate application, which include convening regular meetings with Member States on specific risk assessment issues, including long-term effects, environmental impact assessment and allerginicity. Strengthened collaboration in the risk assessment process should contribute to building greater consensus and confidence on the strict EU regulatory framework on GMOs. The precautionary principle is a central piece of this legal framework, notably in the case-by-case assessment prior to any release. A GMO would certainly not be authorised if a potential risk to human health or the environment was identified during the risk assessment procedure. Potential long-term effects on the environment and biodiversity are importantly accounted for in our legislation, both during the risk assessment phase and as part of risk management, through post-marketing monitoring plans.

The Commission is thus duly engaged to making sure that market authorisations follow a very rigorous risk assessment procedure and that any authorising decision includes the appropriate risk management measures.

The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted seas in the world. What kind of actions does the Commission envisage to avoid further pollution of the sea by the Member States and by Russia? How is the Commission participating in the drafting of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission's (HELCOM) Baltic Sea Action Plan? What expectations and aims does the Commission have concerning the plan?

(EN) The marine environment of the Baltic is indeed under significant pressure. In spite of some important improvements in certain areas under the leadership of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the evidence of the deteriorating status of the Baltic Sea has unfortunately continued to accumulate over the past years.

The Commission adopted last autumn an EU Marine Strategy. For the first time, the European Union is putting in place a policy framework – including a proposal for a Directive currently being discussed in the Council and in the Parliament - which specifically addresses the vital issue of protecting Europe’s seas and oceans in an integrated manner, looking at all pressures and impacts. The objective of the Strategy is to achieve good environmental status of the EU’s marine environment by 2021. The Strategy promotes cooperation within regional seas conventions – including the HELCOM. HELCOM’s long track record of scientific and technical competence and expertise combined with its Baltic-wide coverage and its demonstrated ability to work effectively at regional level makes it an invaluable partner in delivering the Strategy. Cooperation between all countries is indeed a precondition for successful protection of the marine environment.

The EU Marine Strategy is fully complementary with the work of HELCOM, in particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) under preparation. The Strategy will complement and bolster ongoing efforts to protect the Baltic Sea under the aegis of HELCOM by providing a legally enforceable framework at EU level. The BSAP is the cornerstone for further action in the Baltic region.

The BSAP makes HELCOM a front-runner and a model to follow among regional seas conventions in Europe. The Commission strongly backs the BSAP process and is taking an active part in its development.

Studies into the potential consequences of the construction and operation of two gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste and the adjacent coastal area clearly show that these planned projects in Italy will have numerous transboundary effects.

The Slovenian Government has established that Italy has failed to comply with the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 2001/42/EC⁽¹⁾ on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Article 3 of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context and Article 7 of Directive 85/337/EEC⁽²⁾, amended by Directive 97/11/EC⁽³⁾, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Italy has also failed to comply with Article 4 of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.

How does the Commission normally react to such infringements of EU directives? What measures does it intend to take in this case of gas terminals being constructed in the Gulf of Trieste without any cross-border consultation, without a preliminary environmental impact assessment and in breach of international law?

(EN) As already indicated in the reply to the Written Question P-2700/06 on the same issue by Mr Drčar Murko in July 2006, the Commission is aware of the projects of two gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste, although it does not possess detailed information on these projects and the current stage of the relevant authorisation procedure. The Commission also knows that there is a direct contact between the Ministries of the Environment in Slovenia and Italy, even at the Minister level, in order to solve this issue in the most appropriate way.

While there are in fact as the Honourable Member explains, several international conventions that might apply –each of these with its own mechanism for settling the differences between signatories, certain EC environmental Directives may be of application to this case, namely Council Directive 85/337/EEC⁽⁴⁾ of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC⁽⁵⁾, and Council Directive 96/82/EC⁽⁶⁾of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, - so called Seveso II Directive as modified by Directive 2003/105/EC⁽⁷⁾of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003.

The above mentioned Directives include mechanisms for the information of neighbouring Member States likely to be affected by certain projects.

It is useful to recall here that Member States are entitled to bring issues as the one at stake here before the European Court of Justice, pursuant to article 227 of the Treaty, after submitting the issue to the Commission.

The Commission is currently examining information received from the Italian authorities. However additional information is needed in order to fully assess the situation with respect to the obligations of the Italian authorities on the basis of EU legislation. Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law has been breached, it will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including as the case may be the initiation of formal proceedings pursuant to article 226 of the Treaty to ensure full compliance with EC law in the present case.

On the Island of Iziba (Baleares, Spain) a motorway construction scheme developed and funded by the Government of the Balearic Islands in conjunction with the Island Council of Ibiza and Formentera is encountering massive rejection from local society, due its unjustifiability, irrationality and entirely inappropriate scale. Various civic associations have complained to the Commission about infringing Community environmental legislation.

What stage has been reached with processing this complaint?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that EU environmental and public works contract legislation is respected?

In reply to Question P-2048/06 concerning the serious incidents which are occurring in Ibiza (Balearic Islands - Spain) as a consequence of the implementation of a major motorway project which could infringe Community environment law, the Commission said that it would instruct the Spanish authorities to carry out a thorough investigation into what is going on. A number of citizens' associations have also reported the infringements to the Commission and have been told that an official procedure has been launched.

Has the Commission received any reply yet from the Spanish Government? What exactly is an 'official procedure' and when will the outcome thereof be known?

(EN) The Commission was made aware of the projects by means of written question P-2048/06, tabled by Mrs Miguélez Ramos. An investigation was launched shortly afterwards with the intention to gather all necessary information in order to assess whether EC Environmental Law had been respected in this case. Several EC environmental –mainly on Nature Protection and Environmental Impact Assessment directives may be relevant for this case.

The Commission is currently investigating the case and will address in early September 2006 a formal request to the Spanish authorities to provide the relevant information in order to ensure a proper assessment of the environmental issues raised by the Honourable Members.

As regards EC public procurement rules, the Commission does not have any information on the project leading it to suspect that these rules are not being respected. If the Honourable Members have information suggesting otherwise, the Commission will be happy to examine it.

In any case, should the Commission's investigation bring to the light that EC laws have not been fully complied with, the Commission will take all necessary measures to ensure such full compliance, including as the case may be, the initiation of formal infringement procedures pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

Pesticides are among the most toxic chemicals with which human beings come into contact. These toxic substances act on not just harmful organisms but also useful organisms.

Because of improved analytical capabilities, it can be seen that human beings and all living organisms in general are exposed to the effects of pesticides in various concentrations. The decomposition of pesticides occurs mainly as a result of biochemical action (bacterial activity), but can also be caused by photochemical reactions (exposure to sunlight) and chemical reactions. Furthermore, the products of decomposition can be more toxic than the original compounds. There is a particularly pressing need swiftly to destroy old, obsolete pesticides, which are a threat to human beings and animals and might contaminate groundwater, in the new Member States.

What steps is the Commission taking with a view to speeding up the destruction of old stockpiles of these extremely toxic substances?

(EN) Old stockpiles of pesticides are considered as waste and Community waste legislation is fully applicable. In accordance with their hazardous properties they must be closely controlled from their generation until final disposal. Member States must draw up waste management plans which include suitable disposal sites or installations.

In addition, Regulation 2004/850/EC on Persistent Organic Pollutants addresses the most malignant obsolete pesticides. Very recently concentration limits have been adopted under the Regulation, above which Persistent Organic Pollutants have to be destroyed via incineration or physical-chemical treatment.

The Commission is of the opinion that the existing Community legislation is sufficient in order to safely manage old stockpiles of pesticides. In addition, activities related to the disposal of stockpiled obsolete pesticides may be eligible for Community funding. The Member States also play an important role to ensure that the stockpiles are properly disposed of in practice. The disposal costs should be allocated in accordance with the "polluter-pays" principle as laid down in article 174(2) of the EC Treaty.

The Greeks of Cyprus have stretched their good faith to the limit and have agreed to export goods from the occupied sector on the obvious condition that they are exported via internationally recognised ports, in particular Limassol. However, the so-called 'Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce' and the occupying authorities systematically mislead the Commission and the European Parliament by accusing the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus when it is they themselves who are obstructing the implementation of the 'Green Line Regulation', as charged by the Turkish Cypriot 'Cyprus-EU Association' and its representative Ali Erel in a statement distributed to MEPs on 24 June 2006. The statement points out that 7 500 tonnes of lemons are rotting on trees in the occupied sector and that Turkish Cypriot potato-growers are losing large sums of money because of the tactics of the 'Chamber' and the occupying authorities.

Why does the Commission insist that there is supposedly an 'embargo' against the Turkish Cypriots when the Turkish Cypriots themselves blame the tactics of the occupying authorities?

(EN) The Commission has been asked by the Council to develop measures aiming at putting an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification and economic integration of the island by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Commission has never used the term "embargo" when describing the situation of the Turkish Cypriot community.

The Commission regrets that the recently planned trade in potatoes across the "Green Line" for onward export was cancelled. It does note however that some smaller trade in potatoes took place for the first time in August 2006 for consumption in the government-controlled areas of the island.

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of Regulation No 866/2004 ("Green Line Regulation") and undertake efforts to put conditions in place allowing economic operators to benefit from the trade opportunities under the green line regulation.

Would the Commission comment on its expectations in relation to the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania, should these two countries proceed to become full members of the EU in January next?

Given that only Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom have granted full access for the citizens of all 25 Member States to their respective labour markets, is the Commission expecting these countries to extend their welcome to citizens of Romania and Bulgaria? What about those Member States whose borders remain closed?

What indications does the Commission have from the 25 Member States about what they plan to do in January when the two new countries join, as expected?

(EN) As a matter of principle, the Commission is in favour of the full application of the four freedoms in the EU, including freedom of movement for workers. This freedom is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome.

The Commission adopted a report on the functioning of the transitional arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty on 8 February 2006. The available data in this report as well as the results of the extensive consultations with Member States’ authorities and social partners show that there is no real risk of unbalance in the labour market. Quite on the contrary, Member States that have not imposed such measures have enjoyed a positive result for their labour market and economies. Some non-desirable side-effects, such as undeclared work, are to a large extent a consequence of the restrictive measures.

As regards the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the transitional arrangement on free movement of workers agreed for these two countries follows the same principles as in the previous enlargement. In principle, all EU–25 Member States will apply national measures as regards movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. The Member States do not need to notify their decision to the Commission in advance.

So far, the only position that is known to the Commission is from Finland which has indicated its decision not to use the transitional arrangement vis-à-vis Bulgaria and Romania. As regards other countries, United Kingdom and Ireland have expressed their possible intention to use the transitional arrangement this time unlike in the case of EU–8, as well as the Czech Republic among the new Member States.

The Commission expects the other Member States than Finland to make their position known once the accession date of Bulgaria and Romania is clear. However, even then, the Member States have time until the eve of accession to formulate their position.

Is it true, as reported in the press this summer, that Croatia has jumped ahead before Turkey in the queue for EU membership?

(EN) Negotiations formally began with Croatia and Turkey on 3 October 2005. The first stage of negotiations got underway on 20 October 2005 when the Commission launched the so-called screening process with both countries. This process covers all 33 thematic negotiating chapters and will last until October 2006. So far 29 chapters have been screened.

Actual negotiations will start on each chapter once the candidate country concerned is sufficiently prepared in that area of the acquis. Overall progress will be based on each country's own merits and their ability to meet the requirements for membership. Different speeds will be the result of the pace of political and economic reforms in candidate countries themselves, the progress in aligning with the acquis and the capacity to implement it.

The Commission has submitted to the Council a number of screening reports on specific chapters recommending either a) the opening of negotiations or b) the setting of benchmarks that would need to be met first. As of 31 July 2006, this has led in the case of Croatia to an invitation to submit a negotiating position in 2 cases and for Turkey in 1 case. In addition, the Council has set opening benchmarks for Croatia in 4 cases and for Turkey in 1 case.

Actual negotiations have been opened so far on one chapter with each country (science and research). In both cases, progress was deemed to be sufficient also for provisional closure of this chapter.

Does the Commission intend to contribute, together with the Finnish Presidency, to the withdrawal of the Turkish army from the encircled city of Ammochostos (Famagusta) and to ensure the return of this city to its legitimate inhabitants as part of the settlement under the rules governing trade between the Turkish Cypriot community and the European Union?

(EN) The proposed Direct Trade Regulation submitted by the Commission in July 2004 remains on the table of the Council and therefore the Presidency has a leading role in talks which may pave the way to its prompt adoption. The Commission supports efforts of the Finnish Presidency to that end.

The return of Varosha has been linked in the past to the United Nations (UN)-led talks on a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. Therefore, it is up to the parties involved to decide whether to keep this issue within the framework of the comprehensive settlement or to discuss it separately.

Why do the Commission's electoral observation missions prohibit observers over the age of 70 from participating? Is this not discriminatory, and does it fail to take into account the fact that many people over the age of 70 are rich in experience and would be ideal observers? Regardless of perhaps increased insurance costs, will the Commission agree to relax this policy, and choose observers on their skills and experience, rather than age?

(EN) In the past, the Commission applied an age limit of 70 years to its EU Election Observation Missions (EOM) in line with restrictions of the insurance policy undertaken for EU Election Observation Missions.

Upon the Commission's request, its insurance provider has agreed to relax its policy and the Commission has decided therefore to lift the age limit, introducing however - in line with the Council Decision 8728/99 - medical examinations required to become an election observer.

In line with above Council Decision and in particular point 4 "appropriate physical condition", the Commission will in the future determine for each EU EOM a medical examination necessary (for example fit to work in tropical country, fit to work in very high altitudes, fit to work under strenuous conditions, such as specific climatic conditions, long work hours, need for extended travel, and high level of psychological stress to ensure that all observers deployed are fit for deployment in the specific EU EOM context).

Member States proposing observers must obtain the corresponding medical certificate by a medical officer from the concerned observer and declare, whether the observer has submitted to them the required medical certificate.

The Commission will therefore not use any age limit for the deployment of observers.

Evidence from the United Kingdom suggests that 500 000 older people are being abused at any one time; most of this takes place within older people's own homes, although private care homes are also of concern. A significant proportion of this abuse is perpetrated by paid carers, family or friends of the older person.

Can the Commission provide information from other EU states as to the nature and prevalence of abuse of older people?

What measures would the Commission propose, both under the DAPHNE stream and within its wider remit, to address this violation of human rights within the Member States?

(EN) Combating violence in all its forms, against all citizens of Europe, is an important priority for the Commission. The Daphne II Programme (2004-2008) to combat violence against women, young people and children is a key element of the Commission's commitment to combat violence, and elderly women is an important group of the programme’s beneficiaries. The programme supports trans-national partnerships of Non-Governmental Organisations (ONGs) and local public bodies to tackle all forms of gender-based violence comprehensively from the angles of prevention, protection, support and rehabilitation.

In the area of elder abuse, the Daphne Programme has financed several projects dealing with this problem, and has recently put more emphasis on this topic. In fact, 3 out of the 57 projects selected under the 2005 call for proposal covered the abuse of elderly women. Projects dealing with the abuse of elderly women are also included in the proposed selection of 2006 (award decision still to be adopted).

Daphne projects on elder abuse confirm that:

There is a real gap in the services to support older women with very little information available in the EU on the problem or how victims can receive help.

There is no EU, national or local legal framework to deal with the problem of abuse or violence against older women or the protection of older persons who are vulnerable or with dementia.

Existing crime statistics often do not record the age or the sex of the victim, so data on the older population tends to be merged with general statistics about crime.

Older women are at particularly high risk of abuse and older women with cognitive impairments are at especially high risk.

The research found that there are no specific services accessible to older women victims of violence, so they tend to access other support agencies.

No systematic recording of information relating to the service users, such as age, reasons for accessing the service means that there are no concrete figures on how many older women access such support services as a result of experiencing some form of violence.

The Daphne Programme funded a research project in 2000 that looked at the recognition, prevention and treatment of abuse of older women⁽¹⁾. The study reviewed existing prevalence data and concluded that the prevalence of mistreatment among the elderly population may be estimated at approximately 4% (which has later been confirmed by World Health Organisation data published in 2002, suggesting that 4-6% of elderly people have experienced some form of abuse in the home). The prevalence rates for sub-types of elderly mistreatment within all cases of mistreatment were crudely estimated by the project as follows: 31% prevalence rate for physical abuse; 40% prevalence for psychological abuse; 31% for neglect; and 27% for financial abuse. As many as 19% victims may be exposed to more than one sub-type of elder mistreatment. The project also confirmed that elderly women are in general more at risk of all forms of mistreatment than their male counterparts, with women accounting for perhaps as many as 70% of elderly victims.

Community statistics on crime and criminal justice are currently being developed within the framework of a 5-year Action Plan which will be the subject of a Commission Communication to the Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee in the next few weeks. During the period of the Action Plan, the coverage of specific types of crime – including violence against women and domestic violence - will be examined.

Pursuant to Article 152 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has adopted a Communication on Actions for a safer Europe and a proposal for a Council Recommendation on injury prevention and safety promotion in June 2006. In both documents intentional injuries in form of interpersonal violence to which abuse of elderly people belongs are identified as a key priority area. Together with the Member States, the Commission foresees in the Community action plan to establish arrangements for a sound data collection in this sensible area and to develop joint prevention actions based on available data and identified models of good practice in the future.

On 12 May 2006 DBA (Dim Branded Apparel) informed its European Works Committee of its intention of cutting 950 jobs in Europe. France (450 redundancies), Spain (300) and Italy (140) would be the countries worst affected. The trade unions have condemned a (first) series of measures the main aim of which is to lower costs by means of the greater use of outsourcing and of plant relocations. According to the information in my possession, it would appear that DBA or some of the firms it took over in 2006 have received European aid. Could the Commission tell me what forms of aid the company has received and, should DBA decide to relocate its activities, state whether it intends to recover that aid if such a procedure is feasible on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999⁽¹⁾ of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds?

(FR) The Commission is making enquiries amongst the national authorities responsible for managing the Structural Funds with a view to finding out whether the DBA group or the companies belonging to it have received Community aid. According to the incomplete information already received, the company DIM S.A., located in Bourgogne, received European Social Fund (ESF) support in the sum of EUR 95 012 relating to a 2004-2005 project involving basic skills acquisition and training. Furthermore, according to the information received from the Lazio Region authorities, the Commission can confirm that DBA did not receive any European Social Funds (ESF) contribution under the Operational Programme 2000-2006.

The Commission will inform Parliament of any further information it receives from the national authorities.

If it transpires that DBA or its subsidiaries have in fact received Structural Fund aid and have not then abided by the conditions linked to the granting or implementation of that aid, the Commission may ask the competent national authorities to take the necessary steps to make the appropriate financial corrections or to recover the improperly paid sums.

We would point out that the provisions relating to relocations of undertakings have been reinforced for the 2007-2013 Structural and Cohesion Fund programming period. On the proposal of the Commission, companies will have to guarantee that the investments or jobs created are maintained for a period of five years from the date that the co-funded operation is completed, which is sometimes several years after the decision to grant the aid⁽²⁾, thus guaranteeing a minimum period during which the region receiving the aid should be able to benefit from the economic returns from the investments in question.

It is also laid down that companies that relocate an activity within a Member State or to another Member State may be obliged to reimburse European aid received in connection with that activity and that, in this case, they will no longer be able to receive contributions from the Funds.

Commercial links between the Balearic Islands and China have been consolidated in recent years, as in the case of trade in footwear made in the islands.

Despite the evolution of EU-China bilateral links, businesses in Majorca still have to struggle with red tape when opening businesses or hotels in China: the Chinese government is still placing numerous obstacles in the path of foreign investors establishing businesses there.

What measures will the Commission take in order to consolidate and facilitate EU-China business links and relations between companies in the Member States and China?

In what ways could such measures favour the Balearic hotel industry and improve its business relations with China while facilitating access to the Chinese market in the areas concerned?

What will be the nature of the new strategy to be announced by the Commission for EU-China trade and investment relations?

Given that, in addition to trade, tourism in both directions between China and Europe is exhibiting substantial annual growth and offers an enormous business potential to both sides, does the Commission intend to promote measures to encourage such tourism?

(EN) The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's assessment that tourism in both directions between China and Europe is exhibiting substantial annual growth and offers further business potential on both sides.

Generally speaking, EC service suppliers benefit from China's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments since China's World Trade Oraganisation accession in November 2001. As regards hotels and restaurant services, EC companies have had access to the Chinese market from the date of accession, although in partnership with Chinese companies. Since November 2005 this requirement of Chinese partners is not applicable any more, and EC hotels and restaurants can own 100% of their subsidiaries in China. EC travel agencies and tour operators also benefit from Chinese GATS commitments in services related to foreign tourists travelling into China, under certain conditions. These restrictions will be removed in November 2007, when 100% foreign ownership will be fully authorised. It goes without saying that the Balearic Islands and their tourist industry as part of the EU can take profit of these developments.

In addition, the EC is also seeking new measures of liberalisation from China in tourism and travel-related services, among other services sectors, in the context of the on going negotiations on GATS within the current round of WTO talks, the so called Doha Development Agenda.

Furthermore, EC service suppliers benefit from significant growth of Chinese tourism in Europe since the implementation in 2004 of the Approved Destination Status Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Chinese National Tourism Administration (ADS).

As the Honourable Member mentioned, the Commission is currently working on a Communication to the Parliament and the Council on EU-China trade and investment relations. This Communication is a strategic review and shall guide the Commission in this relationship for the years to come. The adoption is foreseen for autumn 2006. In this context, the Commission undertook on-line and two public consultations as well as a large scale Conference. The Parliament will be held fully informed on all new developments in this regard.

Before May 2004, under regularly updated bilateral agreements with the Kingdom of Norway, Poland enjoyed access to that country's exclusive economic zone, where it fished mainly for coley. Can Poland continue to enjoy these traditional rights in the maritime area concerned? What stage has been reached in the negotiations between the EU and the Kingdom of Norway and will they include the possibility of Poland continuing to fish in this area?

(EN) The Commission is aware that there was a bilateral agreement on fisheries between Norway and Poland.

This agreement has been denounced by Norway in 2004 just before the accession of Poland to the EU.

The Commission had in the recent past raised the issue of the follow up of this agreement with Norway. The official position of Norway remains unchanged. They consider that such an agreement is not valid anymore because they had already denounced it.

The Commission, when negotiating every year with the Norwegians authorities, tries to take into account the demands for fishing opportunities of the Member states. This exercise takes place before the annual negotiations with Norway.

The next negotiations are scheduled in November 2006: 1st round: 6-10 November 2006, 2nd round: 27 November-1 December 2006.

The announcement by the New York Stock Exchange concerning a takeover of Euronext's trans-European stock exchange platform which is likely to create a vast transatlantic stock exchange market represents a new departure as far as takeovers and mergers in the financial markets are concerned.

The trend towards an excessive concentration of international stock exchanges - which first became apparent with the purchase by the American NASDAQ of a 25.1% share in the London Stock Exchange - is being driven by a need to cut costs. Alongside this over-concentration, there is a danger that investment activity will be concentrated in specific markets, to the detriment not only of so-called regional, small markets which are likely to be harmed, but also of major ones.

Given this new situation, does the Commission intend to promote Community measures to supervise and ensure the transparency of the operations of the stock exchange giants which are likely to be created? Does it consider it prudent to provide for measures to protect the European investment market from possible movements of intense investment activity towards specific markets?

(EN) The Commission and the Member States have in place robust competition regulation so as to prevent concentrations that would significantly impede effective competition. Any international exchange merger or acquisition that meets the thresholds for notification under the EC Merger Control Regulation or national competition laws would need to satisfy these competition rules.

The Commission believes that market forces should determine the optimal shape of European exchanges, subject to competition and regulatory questions being adequately addressed. The European stock and derivatives exchange landscape is at present highly fragmented despite the developments of the last several years. The Commission is not convinced that further concentration of exchanges would lead to detrimental outcomes for users of exchanges, including investors and issuers. Indeed, the Commission believes that in the single market there may be significant efficiency gains to be reaped from exchange consolidation which, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, can be expected to benefit exchange users by providing liquidity, low transaction costs and advisory services, and thus be beneficial to the European economy. Moreover, access to deeper and more liquid capital markets is very much in the interests of expanding firms located in the smaller markets – and, accordingly, also of the smaller economies themselves.

The Commission has just completed a massive program of legislative change which addresses among other matters the transparency of share trading and the transparency obligations of issuers of securities that are admitted to trading on a regulated market. According to the parties it is intended that the merged NYSE/Euronext entity would be dual listed in New York and on Euronext, so these transparency obligations would apply to it. The Commission remains prepared to consider possible changes to the supervisory architecture that might be necessary in order to cope with tomorrow’s challenges.

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 Commission 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?

(EN) The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concern with regard to the violent repression of the peaceful demonstration in favour of women’s rights in Tehran on 12 June 2006.

The Commission believes that such crackdowns run counter to Iran’s international legal obligations, including the right to peaceful assembly as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As the Honourable Member points out, some 70 demonstrators - both women and men – were arrested on this occasion. It has been reported that a specially trained female police force was particularly violent against the demonstrating women.

In the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) conclusions of 17 July 2006, the EU drew particular attention to the 12 June 2006 events and the continued discrimination of women in Iran under the Ahmadinejad Government.

Thus, the EU and the Commission remain acutely aware of the situation and monitor with great care the developments. Indeed, in May 2006 and just prior to the demonstrations in question, the GAERC pointed to “….. the increasing violations on freedom of speech and religion […] as well as the intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders, lawyers and minority groups”.

Monitoring is not enough, and the EU has therefore continued to raise its concern regarding human rights and the deterioration of freedom of expression via its diplomatic channels in Tehran. In this regard, a range of individual cases have been and continue to be raised with Iranian authorities. The Commission is actively involved in this, and it keeps reminding the Iranian Ambassador to the EC about its strong disapproval. At the same time, international human rights Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi and her network keep working tirelessly, against a regrettably very negative overall trend in Iran in the field of human rights.

Since December 2002, the EU Troika has – nonetheless – conducted a direct Human Rights Dialogue with Iranian authorities, with the participation of civil society representatives from both the European and Iranian side. As part of this Dialogue also women's rights have been discussed. Regrettably, and although we have kept insisting on its continuation, this dialogue has not been able to take place since summer 2004, due to the reluctance of Iranian authorities. Despite Iran's failure to engage constructively, the EU remains open to discussing human rights, including by means of the Dialogue process.

The EU ban on veal crates comes into operation in 2007, when veal crates will be replaced by group housing, but scientific evidence shows that these standards are still too low and would be rendered illegal in the UK. There is also clear evidence that British calves are being exported to countries such as the Netherlands in appalling conditions through the back door.

Will the Commission look into this situation and into changing the standards for veal calves to a more acceptable level?

(EN) Council Directive 91/629/EEC⁽¹⁾ lays down minimum standards for the protection of calves. This Directive provides that the Commission shall submit to the Council and the Parliament a report on intensive calf farming systems. This report will be based on a scientific opinion and take account of relevant socio-economic implications.

Upon a request from the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted on 7 June 2006 a scientific opinion on this issue⁽²⁾.

The Commission is currently analysing the EFSA opinion and plans to collect further data on relevant socio-economic aspects and receive stakeholder input.

These elements will be very important in order to address this sensitive issue in a comprehensive manner and always aiming at achieving the necessary animal welfare standards.

According to Article 6 of the Directive (amended by Council Directive 97/2/EC) this report was due for 2006. However because of the need for EFSA contribution and the necessity to proceed to a proper impact assessment, the Commission decided in the Community Action Plan for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010⁽³⁾ to submit this report to the Council and the Parliament not before 2008. In addition this will allow the Commission to further consider in its proposal the use of appropriate standardised welfare indicators to ensure in the future the direct monitoring of the different welfare standards for the animals in the farm.

Over recent weeks the German customs police have again taken action clearly aimed at forcing Polish building firms off the German market. On the pretext of combating dumping, all documents and computers are taken away from companies, so as to make it impossible for them to operate normally. Company accounts are very often distrained against payment of any future fines, which means that the companies have no cash flow and can result in them going bankrupt even if the accusations do not prove to be founded. What is more, despite the fact that the accusations cover only pay-related matters, company employees are treated as if they were dangerous criminals, being subjected, among other things, to the humiliation of being strip-searched as if they were likely to be carrying weapons, as is borne out by reports in the German newspaper 'Braunschweiger Zeitung'. I insist that the Commission immediately take steps to put an end to the above practice.

Polish building firms lawfully operating in Germany have recently been subjected to discriminatory - and often humiliating - action by the German authorities, including the police. The measures taken violate German law, Polish-German building regulations and EU freedoms. What is the Commission going to do about this situation?

(EN) The Commission has received several letters and parliamentary questions citing alleged violations of the EC Treaty's provisions on the freedom to provide services during checks and inspections carried out by the German authorities of, inter alia, Polish firms in Germany. In this context, the Commissioner in charge of Internal Market and Services would like to refer the Honourable Member to his most recent answer given on behalf of the Commission to the written question by Mr Szymanski (E-4639/05) at the end of 2005.

The Commission is concerned by the manner in which companies from certain Member States encounter difficulties when providing their services in Germany. It is essential that businesses from all Member States are able to enjoy the same fundamental rights as their competitors established in the other Member States, and in particular the right to provide services.

The Commission has therefore contacted the German authorities. In their reply, they referred to the derogations they enjoy under the transitional provisions in the Accession Treaties regarding the free movement of services involving the posting of workers in some sectors. The German authorities, moreover, insisted that all supervisory measures are carried out in a non-discriminatory and proportionate way. In the absence of any concrete evidence of systematic discriminations or violations of the Accession Treaty, the businesses concerned can submit any problems of discriminatory treatment they may encounter in specific cases to SOLVIT or bring the matter before the national Courts. The Commission will monitor the situation closely and undertake every effort to ensure that Community law is correctly applied.

The consultations which take place on a regular basis with the relevant authorities responsible for issues concerning cross border provision of services inter alia in Poland could also provide a good opportunity to discuss and come to grips with the alleged problems.

The European Commission states that, due to a lack of resources, there has been a change in the priorities of the 'Programme of Community action in the field of Health and Consumer protection (2007-2013)' and mention of major diseases in the European Union has been dropped. How does the Commission intend to tackle the most common diseases in the EU if they are not included in the action programme? On what basis did the Commission decide in favour of a policy of so-called 'health determinants' rather than a policy of 'major diseases', and why does the Commission believe that the former approach will be more effective?

(EN) The Commission has no intention to ignore diseases in future Community health action. Promoting health to help prevent disease remains a key area of our programme proposal.

The Commission had to scale down the programme in the light of a much smaller overall budget agreed by the Council and the Parliament. In doing so, it did not want to disrupt on-going action. Instead, it is proposed not to start completely new action strands on diseases and on health systems.

This does not mean diseases are not acted on. The programme will contribute to reducing diseases:

First, by tackling determinants; if acting on smoking under the promotion objective will help reduce cancer;

and secondly, with action on information and exchange of best practice under the knowledge objective.

In the new Member States, the realisation of environmental protection projects financed by the coherence fund is making slow progress. In some countries, the allocated funds are being used effectively; in others, less so. Lithuania is no exception – the absorption of funds is sluggish there, too, and the main reason given for this is unfavourable technical circumstances: the projects are large and complex, there is a shortage of experts in Lithuania able to draw up environmental protection projects, the system of fund absorption itself is not running smoothly and, in addition, certain local authorities are hindering the process.

It is interesting that, in comparison with other projects, EU funding allocated to environmental protection projects is being absorbed with the most difficulty. Can the Commission indicate which new Member States are making effective use of the funds allocated to environmental protection and which are having less success in doing so? Can the Commission also comment on why such differences exist? Why has such a situation arisen specifically in the area of environmental protection? What would the Commission propose be changed, and how, in order that funds might be used more effectively?

(EN) Under the Cohesion Fund all of the new Member States have been equally successful in presenting sufficient environment projects to absorb the budget commitment credits available to the environment sector under both Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) and, since 2004, the Cohesion Fund. In all cases the policy objective of having broadly equal shares committed to the Transport and the Environment sectors is expected to be achieved by end-2006.

In relation to absorption of the ISPA and Cohesion Fund commitment credits through payments (advances or interim payment reimbursements based on expenditure on the ground) the progress varies from Member State to Member State. A recent comparison of the absorption of the available commitment credits by the new Member States is expressed in the table below in terms of the percentage paid by the Commission. These figures can sometimes change significantly over a short period, particularly for small Member States, depending on the presentation and treatment of payment claims.

Percentage absorption of ISPA / Cohesion Fund commitment credits 2000-2006 by sector:

Environment

Transport

Cyprus

0%

29%

Czech Republic

25%

55%

Estonia

29%

38%

Hungary

25%

35%

Latvia

20%

45%

Lithuania

19%

43%

Malta

0%

48%

Poland

17%

42%

Slovakia

20%

58%

Slovenia

20%

45%

Differences in the absorption of commitment credits through project expenditure on the ground can vary for many reasons. In relation to past experience, the Commission made available in 2005 an ex-post evaluation report that looked in detail at the experience with 200 Cohesion Fund projects assisted in the period 1993-2002 in the four Cohesion Fund Member States. The report is available on the internet⁽¹⁾

The reasons for delays and difficulties in project implementation identified in the report and by the Commission include the following: weaknesses in project planning and design, national planning and environmental assessment legislation and procedures, technical weakness in the implementing bodies, procurement difficulties, budgetary or institutional uncertainty or technical difficulties in the physical realisation of the project. A number of these factors vary with the specific national legal, administrative and institutional context and / or according to specific weaknesses in individual beneficiaries.

The potential weaknesses in project implementation mentioned above apply equally to both the transport and environmental sectors. However in the environmental sector there is a marked tendency across many Member States for the division of responsibility for environmental services across a wider number of implementing bodies leading to smaller projects, more diffuse coordination, the fragmentation of expertise and widely different competencies between implementing bodies. This is particular so compared to the relative concentration of implementing bodies and technical expertise in the main transport sectors.

Where responsibilities are diffused in such a way technical expertise is more thinly spread, the spread of good practice is more difficult and, as a result, the incidence of those failings mentioned is higher. Also, there has traditionally been longer experience in most Member States in the construction of transport infrastructures.

The Commission is concerned that the commitment credits made available should be used promptly. The relative lag in absorption of the environmental credits is a matter for concern. Through ongoing dialogues with the Member States the Commission promotes, on both the political and technical levels, a critical appraisal of project generation, identification, selection and monitoring systems. However, it is the Member States responsibility in the first instance to use the opportunity of EU financing to the best effect and to ensure the optimal allocation or responsibilities at national, regional and local levels.

To promote efficient project management the Commission in 2004 presented a document to all Cohesion Fund beneficiaries on Quality Assurance Capability in the project preparation stage. The purpose of that document was to launch a dialogue with each Member State and raise awareness of the importance of pipelines of quality projects to lead to more predictable absorption. Bilaterally the Commission has drawn the attention of the Member States to potential changes that might improve project delivery and absorption.

The 2005 ex-post Synthesis Study makes a number of general recommendations arising from past experience to improve national project management. These conclusions were shared and discussed with all Member States during 2005.

With a view to the Period 2007-2013 the Commission has recently launched the JASPERS initiative (Joint Assistance for Supporting Projects in European Regions) in close cooperation with the European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Its objective is to provide technical assistance support to national managing authorities to prepare high-quality projects eligible for EU support, have a multiplier effect through the spread of best practice and provide models which the beneficiary countries can replicate themselves. The Commission expects that the environment sector shall receive particular attention in those Member States identified as priorities for JASPERS support.

At the moment there is no legal obligation on EU Member States or European TV stations to provide TV subtitling which would greatly enhance access to television services for people who are hard of hearing.

Accordingly, will the European Commission review the decision not to demand that European broadcasters provide subtitling services under the provisions of the revised EU Television without Frontiers directive?

(EN) There is no requirement in European law for broadcasters in Member States to provide services like subtitling and audio description. In fact, provision of assistive services falls under content regulation which is handled at Member State level, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. In essence, the “Television Without Frontiers” Directive (hereinafter: “the Directive”) is an Internal Market Directive. The objective of the Directive is to facilitate the free movement of television broadcasts within the European Community. The Directive seeks to attain this objective by laying down minimum standards which must be complied with by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of a Member State and generally prohibiting Member States from subjecting broadcasts from another Member State to any further control before reception or transmission. Equal access to television programmes or audiovisual services is extremely important. However, equal access is not an issue which has implications for the functioning of the Internal Market and therefore the Directive would not be an appropriate instrument for addressing this problem.

The Commission’s aim is to promote dialogue in regulatory and industry groups in order to spread best practices. The Commission has discussed accessibility matters within the Contact Committee of the Directive. In particular enriching content with audio description, audio subtitling, subtitling and sign language were discussed. The Commission has also submitted a questionnaire with regard to “Measures concerning access of visually and hearing-impaired people to television programmes” to the Member States within the Contact Committee. The answers from the Member States can be found on the Commission’s website:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/contact_comm/index_en.htm

.

The Commission will continue to address the issues within the Contact Committee.

Promoting equal access for people with disabilities to the information Society is the goal of the actions proposed in the eAccessibility Communication⁽¹⁾. This goal includes, inter alia, access for visually impaired and hearing impaired people to television programmes. Several ongoing actions are specifically addressing this issue. The Commission has been supporting standardisation work on accessibility to television through the European standardisation organisations. Within the Information Society programme, the Commission has supported several Research and Technological Development (RTD) projects that addressed accessibility to television programmes. For example with the automatic generation of subtitles for TV programmes, the development of avatars for automatic sign language for deaf persons and the development and trials of audio description services for blind persons.

The Commission, as stated in the eAccessibility Communication, will also continue to promote a consistent approach to eAccessibility initiatives in the Member States on a voluntary basis and to foster industry self-regulation. Two years after the publication of the Communication an assessment of the eAccessibility situation is foreseen. The Commission may then consider additional measures, including new legislation if deemed necessary.

The Commission is currently working with Member States and consulting stakeholders with a view to define further the European eInclusion agenda that also contains an eAccessibility component.

Can the European Commission make a comprehensive statement as to the state of play of Brazilian beef imports into the European Union in light of the fact that the EU has found that Brazilian beef is fundamentally unsafe, and could the latest figures accounting for the amount of Brazilian beef imports into the European Union be given?

(EN) The Commission takes these concerns raised by the Honourable Member very seriously and its priority is the protection of the health of European consumers and the animal health status of the Community. The Commission has undertaken everything necessary to ensure that imports of beef from Brazil do not place the EU at unnecessary risk.

The Commission constantly applies the principle of regionalisation recognised at the international level by the world organisation for animal health (OIE) as the most appropriate response to such threats. It is on the basis of this same principle that it requires third countries to react in relation to similar cases emerging in the EU.

In this context, following a Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak reported in Brazil in October 2005, the Commission immediately suspended imports of all kinds of beef (except heat treated meat) from the Brazilian States of Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná and Sao Paulo. The disease initially affected the State of Mato Grosso do Sul and extended further to Paraná. The State of Sao Paulo was not affected by FMD, but taking into account the movement pattern of livestock and the epidemiological links between these three states, the Commission together with the Member States decided, as a precautionary measure, to also suspend the imports from this latter State. Only heat treated (>80°C) meat products are still authorised as this treatment ensures the inactivation of the virus. The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that no FMD outbreak has occurred within the regions approved by the EU for imports into the EU.

Only imports from the non-infected areas of Brazil continue but subject to the standing import conditions that apply to Brazil. Considering that these limit imports to de-boned and maturated bovine meat (this ensures the inactivation of the FMD virus) without offal, it is considered at this stage that the measure is sufficient and proportionate to maintain our level of protection. Furthermore, the EC has requested from Brazil additional guarantees within the health certificate in relation to vaccination and contact with animals of lower status due to the deficiencies found in the latest mission inspections carried out in this country. The Commission wishes to point out that it is determined to see the Brazilian authorities fully complying with these guarantees. Failure to do so will trigger further Commission action.

The Commission is very closely monitoring the evolution of the animal health situation in Brazil and a further mission inspection has recently taken place. The outcome of this mission will be of the utmost importance in order to further assess the situation in Brazil. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will take all necessary measures to ensure that the EU market is fully protected against any risk likely to emerge in this context.

The latest figures accounting for the amount of imports of meat of bovine animals from Brazil into the European Union (EU25) are 168,004 tonnes in 2004 and 175,833 tonnes in 2005.

The European Commission has taken three principled decisions on media rights for football matches. Firstly, the European Commission has allowed clubs to sell broadcasting rights jointly, despite running the risk that football clubs will raise prices excessively. Secondly, the European Commission has intervened to limit the extent to which all the valuable rights to a given competition can be bought by a single buyer. Thirdly, the European Commission has insisted that broadcasting rights should be divided and sold separately to different buyers.

Can the European Commission state what the economic impact of these decisions actually is, and if not, will the European Commission give an undertaking that it will carry out a comprehensive economic analysis into the implementation, consequences and effects of these three policy decisions?

(EN) In the first part of the question, the Honourable Member lists three principles concerning football media rights that the Honourable Member extracted from Commission decisions and on which the Commission will briefly comment.

First, it is correct that the Commission has allowed clubs to jointly sell broadcasting rights under certain conditions. The reasons why the Commission considered this to be in compliance with EC competition law (and beneficial for consumers) can be found, e.g., in the Commission decision concerning the joint selling of UEFA Champions League rights⁽¹⁾. The Commission would also like to note that the risk that “football clubs raise prices excessively” referred to by the Honourable Member, also exists where football clubs market their rights individually (e.g., in Spain), in particular for football media rights of the top clubs.

Second, the “no single buyer rule” referred to by the Honourable Member was to date only imposed by the Commission in the FA Premier League case (and not, e.g., in the UEFA Champions League case) due to the specific circumstances of the case. This rule therefore does not constitute a general principle.

Third, it is correct that the Commission insists to split up football media rights into several separate packages in order to allow a larger number of competitors to acquire the rights.

In the second part of the question, the Honourable Member inquires about the economic impact of the Commission decisions on football media rights and asks whether the Commission undertakes to carry out an economic analysis of these decisions. The Commission believes that the economic impact of the decisions has been significant. While the Commission cannot, at this stage, undertake to carry out further ex post economic analyses of the decisions, it is important to note that the Commission took into account the economic impact of the decisions prior to their adoption. Also, the Commission and the national competition authorities will continue to closely monitor the sector of football media rights and may intervene where it is deemed necessary. Finally, the Commission is committed to put increasing emphasis on economic analysis in its decision-making process in EC competition law cases as is reflected, e.g., in the creation of the office of the Chief Economist in 2003.

A large number of refugee organisations have sent an open letter (27 June 2006) to the Commission, criticising the Dublin Convention. The organisations consider that the present arrangements in the EU endanger refugees' lives and cause unnecessary suffering. Four requests are made to the Commission regarding guarantees of an equitable asylum procedure for all asylum-seekers, better guarantees of family reunification, avoiding the necessity for unaccompanied children to move from one EU Member State to another where no clear reason exists, and guaranteeing that all asylum-seekers will be received under reasonable conditions.

How will the Commission deal with the major shortcomings of the Dublin Convention rules and meet the organisations' demands?

(EN) The Commission is currently working on a comprehensive assessment of the Dublin system, which will comprise the evaluation of both the Dublin Regulations and the Eurodac Regulations. This examination will be completed by the end of 2006. The evaluation will also contain considerations and recommendations for possible improvement of the system. In this respect, particular attention will be paid to the issues mentioned in the letter sent to the Commission by a series of organizations which are active in the defence of asylum seekers and refugees rights which has been mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Some of those issues might be addressed in the short term as they can be solved by specific clarifications concerning the correct application of the current system or the introduction of technical improvements in its operation. This is true in particular with regard to the issues of family's reunification and unaccompanied minors.

Other matters, however, need to be considered in the wider context of the evaluation and development of the whole of the European Asylum Policy. The evaluation of the Dublin system represents the first step of a larger debate on the future of the Common European Asylum Policy which will be the object of a comprehensive Green Paper to be issued in 2007.

Will the Commission outline the successes so far of the new pilot scheme on Home State taxation, announced by the Commission last January?

(EN) Home State Taxation (HST) can only be implemented by bilateral or multilateral agreements between Member States. The Commission has provided the outline for HST agreements, and it is now up to Member States to take the initiative to actually enter into any such agreements. To date the Commission is not aware of the implementation of any such scheme. However the Commission understands that one Member State is currently considering taking an initiative in order to implement this pilot scheme with its neighbouring EU States.

With ever-increasing numbers of visits by EU citizens to other Member States in their motor cars, both short-term and long-term, there is an equally rising incidence of parking fines, and of road taxes, which are left unpaid by the visitors and therefore cost local citizens extra taxes instead. Will the Commission propose a mechanism for recovering these unpaid debts, which would surely be received with joy and unanimously by the Council of Ministers?

(EN) The Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA⁽¹⁾ of 24 February 2005, on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, applies the principle of Mutual Recognition to the enforcement of financial penalties in a Member State other than the one in which such a financial penalty has been imposed. In other words, it aims to facilitate the cross-border recognition and enforcement in the EU of decisions, within the scope of article I of the Framework Decision, which impose a financial penalty upon conviction for an offence.

Therefore, parking fines and/or road taxes which can not be executed in the Member State in which they were imposed can be executed in the Member State where the person against whom a decision has been passed has property or income, is normally resident, or in the case of a legal person has its registered seat, if they fall within the scope of article I of the Framework Decision.

However, the obligation to execute a financial penalty which falls within the scope of the Framework Decision is not an absolute one, as it contains optional grounds of non- execution or non-recognition for the executing Member States. Finally, Article 20 contains possibilities for temporarily limiting the scope of the instrument as regards decisions and as regards the applicability to legal persons.

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that the Member States have to transpose the obligations of the Framework Decision in their internal legal order by 22 March 2007. In view of this, the Commission will be in a better position to consider whether there is need for proposing further legislative measures for dealing with the problem of unpaid fines in the EU after the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties has been transposed by the Member States.

Sport is a key area not only for health and physical development but also for the education and development of children, young people and adults. It therefore performs a social function and its social and pedagogical values play a crucial role. Among the values that sport needs to transmit are equality - with regard to race, origin, religion or gender - and non-discrimination, particularly at major sporting events that are at the centre of attention for public opinion.

The Wimbledon tennis tournament is a grand slam event where there is no equality between men and women. This is the only tournament where there is still a difference in the prize money awarded to men and to women and where women are discriminated against, winning EUR 42 000 less than the men.

In accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty on gender mainstreaming, together with Article 141 on equality between men and women in the area of work and employment and Article 13 on discrimination based on sex at the workplace and elsewhere, does the Commission not believe that the EU should take steps to put an end to this inequality in an EU Member State, bearing in mind that it reflects a form of discrimination which does not deserve to be socially perpetuated?

(FR) Article 2 of the Treaty states that one of the Community’s objectives is to promote equality between men and women. Article 3 enshrines the principle of equality between men and women in all of the Community’s fields of action. These principles are also enshrined in Articles 21 and 23 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

According to the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC), sport falls within Community law when it is an economic activity within the meaning of the economic freedoms of the Treaty⁽¹⁾ and pursuant to Article 2 thereof. According to the CJEC⁽²⁾, therefore, the participation of a high-level sports person in an international competition is likely to involve the provision of several different services which may fall within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty, even if some of those services are not paid for by those receiving them.

Furthermore, Article 141 of the EC Treaty obliges the Member States to ensure ‘that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied’. Community law also includes a number of directives aimed at implementing the principle of equal treatment for male and female workers⁽³⁾.

Nevertheless, the situation mentioned by the honourable Member does not appear to fall within the scope of Article 141 and the law deriving from it, given that tennis players do not have an employment relationship with the tournament organisers, but rather their activity is more one of service provider.

Finally, on 13 December 2004, the Council adopted Directive 2004/113 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. This directive is aimed at establishing a framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of gender in the access to goods and services and the supply of goods and services, with a view to implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the Member States.

According to Article 4 of the directive, the principle of equal treatment between men and women means: a) there shall be no direct discrimination based on sex, including less favourable treatment of women for reasons of pregnancy and maternity; b) there shall be no indirect discrimination based on sex. Recital 16 of the directive states that differences in treatment may be accepted only if they are justified by a legitimate aim. Directive 2004/113/EC must be transposed into Member States’ legislation by no later than 21 December 2007.

In conclusion, the situation raised by the honourable Member is not liable to be covered by Article 141 of the Treaty and the law deriving from it, but only by Directive 2004/113/EC. Nevertheless, given that the time limits for transposition of the said directive have not yet come to an end, the situation in question must be considered in accordance with the applicable national law.

Every time travellers cross the border between two EU Member States they are allowed to take with them, for personal use, a total of 230 litres of alcohol made up of beer, wine and spirits. The quantity of alcohol is so large that it would almost fill a small lorry and is equivalent to 2.5 years' consumption. A comparison with tobacco shows that only 800 cigarettes may be taken in, which is equivalent to 40 days' consumption.

According to the World Health Organisation, 600 000 Europeans died in 2002 of alcohol-related harm, which was an increase of 15% in two years. 7.7 million children are growing up in families where alcohol abuse takes place and a high percentage of road accident injuries are caused by alcohol. There is no doubt at all that alcohol is not a normal product.

Does the Commission see any grounds for reviewing the import quotas and reducing them for alcohol?

(EN) In her question the Honourable Member refers to the movement within the Community of excise products by travellers on which excise duty has been paid in one Member State. This type of movement is regulated by Directive 92/12/EEC⁽¹⁾ which, for tax purposes, makes a distinction between the movement of excise goods by private individuals purchasing excise products for their personal use, and movement for commercial purposes. Under the principles of the internal market, private individuals who acquire excise products in a Member State for their own use, and transport these products to another Member State, shall only have to pay the excise duty in the Member State where the products were purchased.

Certain criteria, including guide levels for each type of excise product are laid down with a view to distinguishing between commercial movements and transactions for personal use. These guide levels, however, should not be compared with import quota as referred to by the Honourable Member, and are solely used as a form of evidence or 'indicative limits' to make the above distinction. For movements within the Community, no import quotas apply as any person is free to buy, possess or move alcohol products without any restriction as long as they are for his personal use

As no import quotas exist between Member States, the Commission can not comment on the possibility to either review, or reduce such quotas specifically for alcohol. However, the Commission has put forward a proposal to simplify and liberalise the rules on intra-EU movements of products (mainly alcohol) on which excise duty has already been paid in a Member State⁽²⁾ providing for abolition of the guide levels referred to above. In the view of the Commission, such levels, on their own, can not be used as evidence that excisable products are being held for commercial purposes, nor should they be interpreted as tax-free 'threshold' (or import quota). It is simply within the jurisdiction of the Member States to establish the guidelines given to officers to determine the situation when checks should be carried out on excise movements.

As to the health issue related to the consumption of alcohol, the Commission in 2004 presented its Report on the rates of excise duty applied on alcohol and alcoholic beverages⁽³⁾, which concluded that the majority of Member States usually do not take into account health policy considerations when they fix their rates, even though the present EC legislation, fixing only minimum rates, offers them substantial room for manoeuvre to integrate public health considerations in their tax policies.

The Commission takes the harm caused by alcohol abuse very seriously. Later in 2006, the Commission is to adopt a Communication on Alcohol and Health, which will establish an EU strategy to support Member States to reduce alcohol related harm. This Communication will address the adverse health effects related to harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption, as well as the related social and economic consequences. It is expected to focus on the following main issues: protection of young people, children and the unborn child; reduction of injuries and death from alcohol-related road accidents; prevention of alcohol-related harm among adults; information and education on the impact of alcohol; developing a common evidence base at EU level.

There is increasing evidence that smoking is a causal factor for Age Related Macular Degeneration, the principal cause of blindness. In Australia warnings are posted on cigarette packages saying 'smoking causes blindness.'

Does the Commission intend to add such a warning to the list of graphic warnings which are now permitted in the EU?

Does anything in EU law prevent a Member State 'going it alone' in implementing such a warning in its territory?

(EN) The Commission is well aware of the research on links between smoking and blindness. It agrees that a warning on sight loss due to smoking is a powerful message to fight tobacco

Much of the value of health warnings stems from their visibility and novelty. The Tobacco Products Directive did that in 2002 by introducing many new messages and dramatically increasing the size of the warnings.

Now the Commission again seeks the novelty effect from a radical change: from text warnings to picture warnings as adopted in 2005. Belgium will be the first Member State to introduce the warning pictures as from June 2007. The United Kingdom is set to follow in autumn. A number of Member States are reflecting on the measure.

The Commission is aware that the revision of the warnings will be necessary in the future in order to maintain and increase their effectiveness, and to take account of new scientific developments.

When reviewing the warnings, a warning on blindness will certainly be among the first new messages to be considered.

Until that time, Member States are obliged to use the 14 health warnings as set out in the Tobacco Products Directive.

The Commission hopes that Parliament will work with it to promote the adoption of pictorial warnings in all Member States.

‘The European Community must respect international law in the exercise of its powers’⁽¹⁾. Those powers include the conclusion and enforcement of external agreements and the financing of actions carried out by third parties outside the EU.

As proposals for regulations authorising the establishment of several new external relations instruments have come before this Parliament, questions have been raised concerning the appropriateness of introducing provisions that would specifically prevent agreements concluded and measures financed under those instruments from being implemented by third parties in a manner that violates norms and rules of general international law recognised by the Community as customary and binding.

Does the Commission consider that Community law already requires the Community to prevent third parties from implementing Community agreements and Community-financed measures in a manner that violates such norms and rules when it has also been determined that the operation of the agreements or the execution of the measures in question is enabling the systematic commission of particular internationally wrongful acts by a third party?

(EN) When the Community concludes an international agreement or adopts a financial instrument it is bound to respect international law, including norms of customary international law. The Commission sees to it that its proposals for such Community instruments are in conformity with the applicable rules of international law; this is inherent in the legal vetting all Commission proposals go through before being sent to Council and Parliament. In the implementation phase, the Commission can only finance projects the purposes of which are in line with the agreement or financial instrument in question. If a third country implements such projects in a manner that violates international law and thereby the agreement or financial instrument on which it is based, the Commission has the full right under Community law to suspend the project and to recover those expenses which have been spent in contravention of the project conditions.

This is why the general conditions of the financing agreements signed with third countries in the framework of the external aid financed from the general budget of the European Community expressly mentions that the Commission may suspend the financing agreement if the Beneficiary breaches an obligation relating to respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law and in serious cases of corruption. Consequently, the Commission may decide to terminate the financing agreement.

The situation related to projects financed from the European Development Fund is directly addressed in the Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement which foresees a special consultation procedure and appropriate measures as regards human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law.

The Commission’s priorities for the second half of 2006 include reform of the anti-dumping system. It is intended that anti-dumping investigations will take into account the interests of firms that have relocated production outside the EU.

Does the Commission not consider that doing so would contradict the provisions on regulating the single market laid down in the Commission communication ‘Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing – towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy’ as regards competition?

Has the Commission conducted studies into how reforming anti-dumping investigations would affect producers, particularly in the textile, leather, footwear, furniture and electronics sectors?

Could the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take in order to increase the competitiveness of EU industry?

(EN) No decision on a reform of the trade defence system has been taken, only a reflection process has been launched. The aim of the reflection process on trade defence instruments is to check that these instruments produce overall the most efficient results in terms of competitiveness for the EU, including for EC producers having relocated outside Europe. Another aim is to check that they do not disproportionably affect economic operators and people who are not engaged in unfair trade practices, such as poor families in developing countries.

The Commission Communication on "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing - towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy"⁽¹⁾ states that "international relocations of EU jobs to low cost countries have … been limited in most manufacturing sectors." Therefore, the Commission does not consider that addressing the question of relocation in the framework of the reflection process on trade defence instrument is in any way in contradiction with the above mentioned Communication.

As the Commission is in the middle of a reflection process, it is not clear if and which reform measures for the trade defence system will be proposed. No studies on the impact of such possible measures on economic sectors have been conducted yet.

It has emerged from a report by the EU Food and Veterinary Office that Brazil is exporting agricultural products to Europe illegally.

According to the EU veterinary office, Brazil has been exporting pork to Europe since the beginning of 2005, even though there is not a single firm that is authorised for export. In the case of honey, large quantities of which are imported into the EU, the Brazilian authorities are unable to guarantee safety with regard to residues because no checks are carried out. Many of the problems noted by the veterinary office were detected as long ago as 2003.

What action has the Commission taken to stop these illegal imports of agricultural products? Will the Commission take the initiative in order to ensure that EU standards finally apply to imported food products as well?

(EN) As far as honey is concerned, at the time of the relevant inspection of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), import into the EU was still allowed. Following the deficiencies identified, namely as far as residue limits are concerned, imports of honey have been prohibited as from 17 March 2006.

As regards pig meat, the FVO found that this meat was intended for supplying ships sailing international waters and this is not forbidden by Community legislation. The FVO did not find evidence that pork was illegally imported from Brazil into the EU. As a consequence, no action has been necessary to this date. In this regard it is worth mentioning that Community legislation obliges Member States to collect and destroy catering waste from international means of transport such as ships or planes.

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that EU food safety rules currently into force are designed to ensure that imported products meet the same standards as those produced in the EU and are also in line with relevant international standards.

Any failure to respect these rules will trigger further Commission action as appropriate.

On 14-15 December 2005 the European Council decided to accept the proposal put forward by Commission President Mr Barroso and establish a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. However, the economic and social importance of this decision to address the adverse consequences of globalisation for employment is diminished by the proposal for a regulation submitted by the Commission (COM(2006)0091 final), in particular Article 2 (Intervention Criteria).

On the basis of the proposed criteria, which specific regions of Member States meet the criteria set out in Article 2, in the light of the present economic and social data? Given the size of Greek enterprises, in terms of employee numbers, under which specific circumstances could Greece benefit from the Fund? Is the Commission examining the possibility of redefining the criteria and making them less strict, so that all Member States and their regions are able to enjoy equal access to the fund resources?

(EN) Article 2 of the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation for a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, sets out the Intervention Criteria for the Fund. Under Art. 2a, Greece, like any other EU Member State could benefit from the Fund in cases where due to structural changes in world trade patterns 1000 workers are made redundant in a company, including upstream suppliers and downstream producers. Given the relation between the number of jobs in large companies, and the up- and downstream companies, it is possible that a magnitude of around 350 jobs being lost in a large company will render an application for assistance under the Fund possible; this is based on the assumption that up to twice as many jobs can be lost in up- and downstream companies, including Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs).

Under Art. 2a, the Fund only intervenes in cases where the redundancies occur in a region where the unemployment level is higher than the EU or national average. Eurostat data from 2004 shows that 44 (out of 54) Greek departments (Nome) would be covered under this eligibility criterion, with the notable exceptions of Athens, Rodopi, Karditsa, Fthiotida, Korinthia, Lakonia, Messinia, Kyklades, Irakleio and Chania.

Under Art. 2b, the Fund can intervene when in a given sector over a period of 6 months there have been 1000 redundancies, and where these redundancies represent at least 1% of regional employment measured at NUTS II level. Under this Article particularly workers of SMEs can receive support from the Fund.

The draft opinion of the Parliament's Committee for Employment and Social Affairs on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund proposed the introduction of a 'Safeguard clause' to cover cases in which the criteria under Art. 2a and 2b are not met entirely, but where there is a very serious impact on the local economy. The Commission will consider this proposal in the forthcoming negotiations.

Further to its answer of 8 February 2006 to my written question E-4979/05, what response did the Commission receive from the Irish authorities with regard to its correspondence on the implementation of Council Directive 98/59/EC⁽¹⁾ of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies by means of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 (consolidated)? What is the current status of the Commission's correspondence with Ireland and what action is the Commission now proposing to take on this matter?

(EN) The Commission asked by letter dated 14 February 2006 for clarifications from the Irish authorities on whether the findings of the European Court of Justice in case C-188/03 (Junk v. Kühnel) had been incorporated in the relevant section of the Irish transposing legislation. To date, the Commission has not received any information on this matter from the Irish authorities.

On the 2nd August 2006 the Commission reminded the Irish authorities to submit the requested information.

In order to tackle the profound crisis affecting the European footwear sector, the Commission issued Regulation (EC) No 553/2006⁽¹⁾ imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam. However, the Regulation's scope does not cover children's footwear and so-called STAF (Special Technology Athletic Footwear).

In Italy the steady loss of competitiveness is threatening some 5 000 jobs, with exports dropping by 10.8% in relation to 2004 and imports increasing by 29% in the same period, resulting in huge economic and employment problems, especially in some regions, the worst-hit being the Marche region.

What action will be taken to ensure that the anti-dumping measures now in force are extended as soon as possible to children's footwear and STAF?

(EN) On 30 August 2006, the Commission has adopted a proposal for definitive anti-dumping duties on certain leather shoes from China and Vietnam. Reflecting the finding of both dumping and injury to EU producers, the Commission has proposed a duty of 16.5% for China and 10% for Vietnam for certain leather shoes.

This proposal now passes to Member States in the Council, who have one month to consider it for adoption. The binding deadline for the publication of any definitive measures in the Official Journal of the European Union is 6 October 2006.

The Commission is fully aware of the issues of children shoes and Special Technology Athletic Footwear (STAF). The above proposal for definitive measures includes children’s shoes. This decision was taken in the light of the multiple comments received from the parties concerned on the provisional measures (which excluded children shoes). There are compelling reasons for the inclusion of children shoes, not least the fact that there is a substantial production of children shoes in the Community. In this respect it is worth noting that during the validity of the provisional measures there were very likely false customs' declarations and probably fraud concerning imports of children shoes in order to circumvent the provisional anti-dumping duty.

The decision to exclude STAF shoes from the provisional measures was maintained in the above proposal in the absence of Community production of this type of shoe.

How many officials took early retirement on grounds of invalidity between 2000 and 2004?

What was the cost of pensions for EU officials granted early retirement on grounds of invalidity in the years 2000 to 2004?

What was the average age of EU officials granted early retirement on grounds of invalidity in the years 2000 to 2004?

(FR) The number of officials taking early retirement on grounds of invalidity from 2000 to 2005 were:

Year Number taking early retirement on grounds of invalidity

2000 191

2001 203

2002 258

2003 307

2004 260

2005 121

The annual average cost of invalidity rose by an average of 2.96% per year between 2000 and 2005.

The average age of EU officials retiring early on grounds of invalidity during the period 2000-2005 stands at between 50 and 52 years:

Year Average age

2000 52.67

2001 51.94

2002 52.4

2003 52.7

2004 51.9

2005 50.38

In Vienna in June, a letter of intent concerning construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline was signed by the energy ministers of the five States involved in the project. Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs also attended the signing and described the implementation of the project as being of fundamental importance. From the point of view both of the security of energy supply and diversification of transit facilities and sources of supply, the construction of the pipeline, with a capacity of between 20 and 30 billion cubic metres per annum, could represent a huge gain for the European Union, which faces challenges in the field of energy. As the Nabucco project currently has no real competitor as a way of expanding the EU's sources of natural gas, what form of aid will the Commission provide in order to ensure that the Nubucco gas pipeline is built as soon as possible? What is the Commission's preliminary timetable for the realisation of the project? In comparison with other projects to supply Europe with gas, how does the Commission rate the probability of the construction of the Nabucco pipeline?

(EN) Concerning the financial support to Nabucco, the Commission has already accepted in 2003 and 2005, to co-finance studies for feasibility and engineering of the project at the level of € 6.5 million. On 24 july 2006, the Council and the Parliament decided new guidelines for the transeuropean energy networks where 10 gas projects have been declared as projects of European interest. Nabucco is one of these projects.

With regard to the timetable, the second study started at the beginning of 2006 and should finish by the end of 2007. The Nabucco company plans to commence the construction of the pipeline in 2009.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the risks linked to the construction of the Nabucco pipeline, however, the Commission considers the Nabucco route essential to connect the EU to new sources in the Caspian sea and Middle East.

On regulatory issues, the Commission lends its support to all projects that will significantly enhance security of supply and within the context of the Energy Community Treaty is developing a general framework to assist developers.

In its communication concerning the mid-term review of its 2001 Transport White Paper (COM(2006)0314 final), the Commission announces its intention of formulating an integrated maritime transport strategy creating, for the first time, a common European maritime space and producing a Green Paper on this in 2008.

Has the Commission already established a timetable for the commencement of deliberations and the drafting of the Green Paper? Does it already know what the central objectives of the integrated maritime strategy will be and have the challenges to be met been identified? What added value is this expected to confer on transport policy as set out in the mid-term review of the 2001 Transport White Paper? How will such an instrument (common European maritime area) fit in with the integrated strategy advocated in the Green Paper on the future of the Union's maritime policy and the international dimension thereof?

(FR) In its mid-term review of the White Paper on Transport Policy of 22 June 2006⁽¹⁾, the Commission announced its intention to present a White Paper in 2008 proposing the creation of a Common European Maritime Space.

The objective of this initiative will be to reduce the delays and costs resulting from the numerous administrative controls and exchanges imposed on short-sea shipping for transport between ports of the Member States of the European Union. This transport is effectively subject to almost the same requirements as transport from third countries, and it is therefore at a disadvantage compared to equivalent land transport.

In order to ensure that it is working on the basis of the facts, the Commission will certainly consult the parties that will benefit from it, such as loaders and transport operators, as well as the administrative authorities at various levels responsible for controls and making use of their results.

The Commission has not yet established the main points of its approach, but an important contribution to this objective will probably be made by the systematic use of advanced positioning and communication technologies harmonised between operators and administrations. These technologies will make it possible to considerably reduce costs and delays. The number of controls will be considerably reduced but their reliability will be greatly improved by focussing them solely on figures previously identified by means of better analysis.

In accordance with the Communication of 22 June 2006 on the transport policy, such an initiative cannot be restricted to maritime transport, but must consider the whole of the logistical chain of which it forms one link. By reducing and harmonising the constraints amongst the different modes of transport, the common European maritime space will contribute to creating a better modal balance of transport.

Since a significant number of administrative authorities will be involved in its implementation, it falls perfectly within the integrated strategy recommended in the Green Paper on Maritime Policy of 7 June 2006⁽²⁾.

Judgment C-212/04 of the European Court of Justice and Judgment 18/2006 of the Greek Supreme Court deem the conclusion of successive fixed-term contracts by Greek public sector bodies illegal and abusive, and the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions considered that the petition on this subject by the Association of Editors of Daily Newspapers of Macedonia and Thrace (ESIEM-TH) was well-founded. At the same time, the provisions of Law 3301/2004 and 3388/2005 which give the State the right to refuse to comply with judicial decisions is criticized in the strongest terms. Through Presidential Decrees 81/2003 and 164/2004, PASOK and Nea Dimokratia (ND) governments have flagrantly violated workers' rights and held thousands of private and public sector workers hostage with contracts which are constantly being renewed, even though they cover 'fixed and permanent needs'. The Commission has added to the confusion and is perpetuating the problem through its statements on the implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC⁽¹⁾,

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Greek State and private enterprises ensure that judicial decisions are respected and stop violating workers' rights?

(EN) Greece has notified the Commission that the Directive 1999/70/EC on Fixed-Term Work⁽²⁾ has been transposed through Presidential Decrees 81/2003, 164/2004 and 180/2004.

The Commission has assessed the compatibility of these Decrees with the Directive: Decree 81/2003 did not contain sufficient measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. However, the necessary rules have been put in place as from the entry into force of the other two Decrees. It should be underlined that there is no requirement under the Directive to transpose fixed-term contracts into permanent contracts as long as there are other effective measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts. The judgement of the European Court of Justice of 4 July 2006 in case C-212/04 confirms the Commission's assessment.

The Commission's assessment also takes account of the issues raised in a number of complaints and petitions, including the one referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission has closed all complaints, indicating in particular that remedies to individual claims arising during the period between the deadline for transposition of the Directive and the entry into force of the national transposition rules must be dealt with by the competent national courts.

The Commission has no indications of any new circumstances that would change its position as regards the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC in Greece. The Commission, therefore, does not intend to take any measures in that respect.

As regards the complex matters raised by Law 3301/2004 and 3388/2005 concerning enforcement of interim rulings the Commission would refer to its reply to question H-0537/06. The Commission is still investigating the matter.

Greek prison inmates are separated from their lawyers by glass panels, forcing them to communicate by monitored telephones.

This is a major infringement of the fundamental right of detainees facing charges to totally free, unrestricted and confidential communication with their lawyers, embodied in the Greek Constitution, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) and the provisions of Greek criminal procedure legislation, seriously undermining the dignity of the legal profession and of lawyers collectively.

What view does the Commission take of the infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees to completely free and confidential communication with their lawyers and the right to full and effective legal defence?

(EN) The Honourable Member seems to refer to the pre-trial situation ("fundamental right of detainees facing charges"). However, many of the points that the Commission will touch upon in its reply to the question, will be of relevance also for the post-trial situation.

Pursuant to the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect of the right of defence is one of the key elements in ensuring protection of individual rights. Moreover a recently adopted recommendation of the Council of Europe (the European Prison Rules) has strengthened the right of confidentiality in the relation between the detainees and their legal advisers.

It could be added that a study on minimum rights in the pre-trial procedure is planned within the framework of the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

The EU attaches special importance to the respect of fundamental rights.

However, the concrete issue raised by the Honourable Member is not currently covered by EU law.

The values being affected by the quest for profit, competition policy and increased pressure at the workplace are extending even to human life, the irresponsibility of employers claiming one victim every two or three days in Greece, 65 workplace fatalities having occurred in the first half of 2006. Almost none of the measures necessary to ensure safety and health at the workplace are being taken and workplace medical staff are also sorely lacking. This situation is being compounded by the recruitment of unskilled and untrained workers with a view to keeping down wage costs.

Will the Commission take the necessary measures to put an end to the loss of human life occurring as a result of the irresponsibility of employers, the number of deaths in Greece over the last 3.5 years having exceeded 450 according to official sources, and promote a legal framework for safety and health at work, accompanied by effective inspection procedures?

(FR) The Commission shares the honourable Member’s concern about the unacceptable number of fatalities resulting from accidents in the workplace. As the Commission stated in its communication, ‘Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006’⁽¹⁾, the strategy aimed at reducing the number of accidents in the workplace is based on consolidating a culture of risk prevention, on combining a variety of political instruments – legislation, the social dialogue, progressive measures and identification of best practices, corporate social responsibility and economic incentives – and on building partnerships between all the players on the safety and health scene.

There is significant Community legislation in the field of health and safety, particularly Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work⁽²⁾, as well as its specific directives.

Community directives must be transposed by the Member States. Greece has notified measures for transposing Directive 89/391/EEC and specific directives in the field of health and safety at work. It falls to the Member States, in this case the Greek Labour Inspectorate, to guarantee adequate control and monitoring of the implementation of national provisions transposing Community legislation in the field of the health and safety of workers at work.

Directive 89/391/EEC and its specific directives do not contain provisions on the organisation of competent national authorities. It falls to each Member States to establish the organisation necessary to guarantee adequate control of national provisions transposing Community legislation.