Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 24 May 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 10 a.m.)

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Madam President, on a point of order, under our Rules of Procedure, Annex I, Article 2, any Member who has not submitted a declaration of interests has to be reminded of this fact by the President. If he or she continues to fail to do so, this fact is published in the Minutes. It is then stated that, if the Member continues to refuse to submit the declaration, the President shall take action in accordance with Rule 147 to suspend the Member concerned.

I see from the Minutes of the sitting on Monday that Mr Herrero-Tejedor and Mr Nattrass, from the UK Independence Party, have still failed to complete their declaration of interests. It is now several months in a row that they have been named and shamed in the Minutes and I would urge the President to take action appropriate to the situation. It undermines the reputation and the credibility of this House.

  President. I shall pass that on, Mr Corbett.

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

4. Kashmir: present situation and future prospects (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0158/2007) by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Kashmir: present situation and future prospects (2005/2242(INI)).

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE), rapporteur. – Madam President, I am honoured to present the Committee on Foreign Affairs report entitled ‘Kashmir: present situation and future prospects’.

This report correctly contrasts the situation between the world’s largest secular democracy which has devolved structures at all levels – India, including Jammu and Kashmir – and Pakistan, which still lacks full implementation of democracy in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and has yet to take steps towards democracy in Gilgit and Baltistan. It also highlights the fact that there is considerable evidence that over many years Pakistan has provided Kashmiri militants with training, weapons, funding and sanctuary and has encouraged militants to commit atrocities on the Indian-administered side. It takes a firm line on human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is also constructive as it highlights the common heritage shared by India and Pakistan, exemplified in the ancient culture of Jammu and Kashmir, and recognises and values the pluralism, multiculturalism and multi-faith nature and secular traditions of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir, which have been kept alive in the Indian part of Jammu and Kashmir.

This is an enlightened and balanced report, which denounces terrorism and those who support terrorism; it promotes a vision of peace, coexistence, friendship and economic integration and commerce between peoples on both sides of the border and in Gilgit and Baltistan along the lines of the European Union model.

I urge this House to adopt it in its entirety, with certain amendments, so that an unambiguous message is sent to the disturbers of peace in that part of the world that the international community will not tolerate extremism or terrorism any more and that we respect and uphold the rights and ethnicity of the Kashmiri people.

I have with me a strong statement – of this morning – by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, Chairperson of the Pakistan People’s Party, in which she welcomes this report for drawing attention to the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people; for reaffirming the EU’s commitment to the settlement of dispute by peaceful means; for taking note of the impact of the earthquake and urging the European Union to help and support the Kashmiris; for supporting the role of the composite peace process in moving towards a durable settlement for the Kashmiris based on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; for urging the Indian and Pakistan Governments to facilitate the ceasefire on the Line of Control by calling further on militant armed groups to enrol in a disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation process; for encouraging the Pakistan Government to transform the ceasefire in place in Siachin since 2003 into a lasting peace agreement; for urging both governments to allow international human rights organisations immediate and unrestricted access to all parts of the former princely state in order to investigate the human rights situation there; for calling on the Indian Government to put an end to all practices of extrajudicial killings, ‘disappearances’, torture and arbitrary detentions in Jammu and Kashmir; for calling on the Indian and Pakistani authorities to ease restrictions on travel between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad; for urging Pakistan to revisit its concepts of fundamental rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religious practices in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan; for calling for the first-ever elections to be held in Gilgit and Baltistan and for seeking higher democratic representation in the Northern Areas. She firmly supports this report.

I am proud to inform the House that Imran Khan MP, former captain of the Pakistan cricket team and now head of his political party Tehreek-e-Insaaf, today pledged his full support for this report.

The plight of the Kashmiri people has been of concern to the international community for nearly 60 years. The European Union strongly supports regional integration, trade liberalisation and economic cooperation. The European Parliament is keenly interested in all aspects of the situation.

Let me draw your attention to the hundreds of young people who demonstrated in favour of this report, calling for the democratic freedoms that we recommend. They were beaten up by the police, their banners and petitions to the UN were destroyed. They demonstrated again. Two hundred of their relatives were kidnapped and have not been heard of since. Subsequently, many thousands of citizens of Azad Jammu and Kashmir have held meetings and pledged their full support for the report.

Over the border in Jammu and Kashmir, India continues to be criticised for her large military presence. The report is strong on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, as in the other areas.

In Gilgit and Baltistan, the people are kept in poverty, illiteracy and backwardness.

The report makes clear its support for the current peace process. It recognises the ancient and unique heritage of the Kashmiri people. It reflects many principles of the European Union. I earnestly hope that this House will support the report as wholeheartedly during the vote today as it was supported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I followed with great interest the very lively debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Kashmir report by Baroness Nicholson. There is much food for thought in this report. It is too comprehensive for me to be able to respond in detail today, but I should like to reflect on some of the issues which it raises.

The focus on Kashmir is timely. On the political front, there have been many positive developments, which, for the first time in many years, give some hope that this long-standing issue is getting closer to a solution. Both India and Pakistan have indicated that the Line of Control could become a ‘soft border’.

The European Union has expressed its firm support for the reconciliation process between India and Pakistan. But the road is still full of pitfalls. It is encouraging that the composite dialogue process remains on track despite terrorism. I was in Delhi when the terrible attacks on the daily Lahore-Samjhota Express train took place last February.

It would indeed be tragic if the peace process could be taken hostage by terrorists. I see no alternative to both countries addressing their differences through dialogue. This will, hopefully, lead eventually to settlement of all bilateral issues. I also feel it is important that the Kashmiris themselves have become more involved in the arrangements for the peace process.

I would like to say a few words about the terrible earthquake that struck Kashmir on the morning of 8 October 2005 and which, as Baroness Nicholson’s report describes, had a devastating impact on the lives of the Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control, especially in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the North West Frontier Province. I had the opportunity to visit the earthquake-affected areas in person when I visited Pakistan to represent the European Commission at the earthquake reconstruction conference in November that year.

The European Commission responded to this tragedy by providing humanitarian aid of EUR 48 million and by committing, in December 2005, a EUR 50 million programme on ‘Earthquake Recovery and Reconstruction support to Pakistan’, which covers rehabilitation of education and health facilities in the affected areas, an emergency education programme and community-based livelihood recovery schemes. Thus, we are aiming to do what the report recommends, namely help the most vulnerable and restore economic activities in the affected area.

This earthquake response comes in addition to other development programmes in Pakistan under our country strategy. Although the Commission has been quick to react to this challenge, I nevertheless expect that the reconstruction effort will still take a number of years. The Commission’s reconstruction programme will be implemented over a period of five years.

As far as the Northern Areas of Pakistan are concerned, the Commission has been active there over many years in developing human resources especially, in improving the public school system and in cooperating with the Aga Khan Education Services. While implementing our programmes there, we have ensured that all communities – and government schools – benefit from project activities.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank Baroness Nicholson for the encouraging words she found to recognise the work of the Commission’s delegations in Islamabad and New Delhi. This is much appreciated.

I would just like to add that I would have loved to have stayed for the whole debate but, as communicated, I have to leave before the end due to long-standing commitments which I could not alter after Parliament’s change to the agenda, but my colleague Mrs Grybauskaitė will take over and stay on in the debate.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, the tragic and bloody dispute over the beautiful Himalayan territory of the former princely state of Kashmir between the two great south-Asian countries of India and Pakistan is one of the oldest in the world, going right back to UN Security Council resolutions 39 and 47 of 1948.

I strongly support the Nicholson report, and I congratulate the rapporteur on its content and quality, after considerable rebalancing during the committee stage, both in tone and in terms of its approach. The report is accurate and primarily recognises that current ongoing bilateral confidence-building talks between the Indian and Pakistani Governments remain the best strategy to achieve a just and enduring peace between these two nuclear-armed states. My British colleague, Mr Bushill-Matthews, who alone voted against it in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, informs me that he will now be supporting the report, which indicates how it has progressed during its various stages.

Mercifully, since the agreed ceasefire on 25 November 2003, we are now witnessing one of the most peaceful periods in terms of military action since the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war: a ceasefire that has survived serious provocations to the Government of India, including the Mumbai terrorist bombings. Nevertheless, Kashmiri Pandits still continue to claim that cross-border infiltrating terrorists are attempting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the local Hindu population, albeit it on a vastly reduced scale.

Similarly, the report rightly calls for restraint by the Indian military, with full respect by the security forces for human rights, the wellbeing of civilian populations and observance of issued court orders.

The report highlights the lack of genuine democracy in Azad Kashmir and, in particular, for the first time, the plight of the inhabitants of Gilgit-Baltistan. There are also general concerns expressed in AJK over a number of issues, including women’s rights and religious minority rights. I, and many colleagues, warmly welcomed in 2005 the launching of a bus service across the line of control between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad allowing divided families to be reunited after nearly 60 years, and it is my hope that, eventually, the borders, including the line of control, will be just a line on the map and become increasingly irrelevant.

We in the EU have already proved this with our four freedoms of movement of people, goods, services and capital. A similar future vision of a south-Asian economic community by 2025 will require free trade across the line of control. Both India and Pakistan, much to their credit, cooperated positively after the October Kashmir earthquake to provide humanitarian aid to thousands of victims and displaced people. But much remains to be done to resettle the displaced populations permanently.

The EU’s role, in my opinion, is to support a peaceful settlement of the problem over the former princely state, with the EU willing to act as an honest broker for peace, but only if both sovereign governments ask for our help, as, ultimately, we regard the Kashmir dispute as a bilateral matter.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat my appeal to all parties that support the militants waging a violent Jihad to stop their activities immediately.

  Jo Leinen, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, India and Pakistan have waged three wars over the Kashmir region. This very much reminds me of the dispute between Germany and France over the Alsace–Lorraine region – where this sitting is being held. Three wars were waged in this region, too – but Germany and France decided after the Second World War to put an end to the confrontation and make cooperation the maxim of their policy. The successes of this policy can be seen in the European Union today.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament would like to see India and Pakistan, too, moving on from confrontation and making cooperation the maxim of their policy. People in the Kashmir region would benefit tremendously and the whole region would blossom. I believe SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) has the potential to be a similar success story to the EU.

Naturally, peace thrives best where democracy prevails. In this report, we are very critical of the absence of democracy – the democratic deficits – in the Kashmir region, and also of the many human rights violations. People are suffering on both sides of the Line of Control. All parties involved are called on, therefore, to introduce democracy and respect for human rights there once and for all.

We can see that there is a tremendous amount of violence there – consisting of violence within the region and also infiltration from outside – and 80 000 people have lost their lives. There must be an end to the arrival of violent groups in the region from across the border. Naturally, we call on the military, too, to respect human rights. We also call on human rights commissions to penalise, including in court, violations of this kind taking place in both countries. It is unacceptable that people are being kidnapped, tortured and killed with impunity.

In our opinion, the EU should support the region’s environmental and economic rehabilitation. Excellent work has been done there in the field of humanitarian aid, as I have been able to see with my own eyes. This commitment must continue. This report is evidently the first in the world to deal with Kashmir. I wish to thank the rapporteur for her courage in including quite a few things in her report. We have been struggling over this for months. I believe that this report will help the people in the region and also assist the India-Pakistan peace process.

  István Szent-Iványi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (HU) First of all, I would like to congratulate Baroness Nicholson for the comprehensive and important report. I know that she was under all sorts of pressures but that she was able to withstand them. I am aware that it is not easy for a British deputy to free herself from domestic political considerations, and that she was successful in doing so. Therefore she deserves all our respect, and I support the report.

The European Union is taking on a serious commitment to repair the damage caused by the earthquake in Kashmir. We have agreed to provide support in the amount of EUR 100 million, and in the coming years will be offering 200 million to Pakistan and 470 million in the form of development aid. This means that we have a moral basis for expressing an opinion on these questions.

We are all very concerned that on both sides of the ‘Line of Control’ serious violations of human rights have taken place. But it is very encouraging that Prime Minister Singh of India has announced a policy of zero tolerance, and over the past few years there have visibly been very positive steps forward in Indian-controlled territory. We expect the same from Pakistan.

We also expect Pakistan to take much more decisive action against extremists and terrorists, and not to allow them to drift across the border into Indian-controlled territory. The conflict is not simply a question of boundaries. It cannot be resolved from one day to the next. The first prerequisite for building confidence is for the conflict to be resolved.

Baroness Nicholson’s report shows that real improvement is needed in the current situation. The necessary social and economic conditions must be created. Family reunification must be made possible. Commercial ties need to be fostered, the infrastructure developed, new education institutions established and jobs created. But all this is not enough. It is necessary, but not sufficient. It is important for political dialogue to begin, with the Indian Government, the Pakistani Government and the whole spectrum of Kashmiri political life, with all those authorities that are willing to give up the use of force.

It is very important for the Kashmiris to be involved as well in finding a solution to the problem, for there will be no durable solution to the problem in Kashmir as long as freely and democratically elected Kashmiri leaders are unable to take part. In my judgment, India has shown a high degree of flexibility in recent times, and for this reason we expect the same from Pakistan as well, since there are close ties linking us to both countries. Both countries are important partners to us, and it is in our greatest interest that the two countries finally put an end to their conflict in a peaceful, constructive manner, and that in the meantime everything be done in an atmosphere of trust and dialogue.

  Cem Özdemir, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by expressing my thanks to the rapporteur, Baroness Nicholson, for her report. I also wish to thank those Members who helped steer this difficult and very controversial report clearly in the direction of a compromise, and thus helped us all make considerable progress. I do think, however, that we have some way to go in today’s vote before we have a report that – without also attracting censure from India, Pakistan or anyone else – ultimately serves our common aim of helping Kashmir to finally become a region characterised by peace, prosperity, and respect for the environment and human rights. We can make an important contribution to this today, if together we find the willpower and focus on the heart of the matter. This is a report on Kashmir, not one on India or Pakistan. We are perfectly justified in drawing up similar reports.

I should like to point out that much of the criticism levelled at India or Pakistan in the report is undoubtedly legitimate – in the case of Pakistan, in particular, much more could have been said. Yet this is not the place for a debate on Pakistan, as we are talking about Kashmir. Since time immemorial, Kashmir has been a bridging point and intersection between the Near East, Central Asia and South Asia. The region, which has even been the subject of a rock song by Led Zeppelin, can once more be a region in which people from all parts of Kashmir can live together in peace and prosperity. Let us contribute to this today. This would be the best contribution we could make towards the fight against terrorism. The region does not need more armed forces; it needs fewer arms, fewer armed forces. Parliament would then send out a signal to India and Pakistan today that they should continue to go down the route of peace; that they should do everything to increase the irrelevance of the border, so that Kashmir may one day be a region of prosperity and peace.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Madam President, for a long time, it was Europe that decided how other parts of the world should be governed. One of the effects this had is that all the states in a large part of South Asia were combined into one enormous British colonial empire, some parts of which were governed directly by colonial officials, and some indirectly by the successors of traditional sovereigns who had submitted to the colonial supreme authority.

In 1947, the future of the states formerly ruled by those sovereigns was in the hands of the sovereigns themselves. They were able to join one of the two new states that had gained independence during that year and into which the colonial empire had been carved up: India, which was large and secular and Pakistan, which, while in those days also comprising Bangladesh, was small and Islamic. The earlier states were unable to regain independence and there was no referendum about whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan.

In most areas, this did not lead to any insuperable problems, for the preference of the sovereign and most inhabitants happened to coincide. Kashmir was the exception to the rule. The people would probably have opted for Pakistan, while the sovereign went for India. This goes some way to explaining the problems of the past 60 years.

India may be the world’s largest democracy, but that democracy is being dealt heavy blows because of the overlap with Indian territory of a large section of Kashmir. Without any majority backing from its inhabitants, Kashmir can be kept under Indian control only by the army and the police.

Democracy there cannot function as it should under such conditions. India, being a secular democracy, has considerable advantages over Pakistan, where religious fanatics and the military have always had far too much influence. It is to precisely those benefits that India can offer that the inhabitants of Kashmir are blind.

In the contacts between the European Union and India, instead of sweeping this problem under the carpet, we should draw attention to it, and it was this idea that I found absent from the rapporteur’s original text, which was very much focused on three components: recovery following the earthquake, cementing relations between the European Union and India and more trade and transport as means of improving relations between the leaders of India and Pakistan.

The people of Kashmir did not, however, have any role in this. Their long-term desire for a referendum about the future, and international support for this, were explicitly omitted, although it now looks like the final result will be more balanced.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, the theme of the Kashmir-EU week in early June will be ‘peace building in Kashmir’, and it is an important initiative given the human rights violations in that region, where the need for help on both sides of the border is highlighted not least by the actions of militant groups both in the Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir and in the Pakistani part Azad Kashmir. It is important that European aid be offered to all victims within Kashmir.

Humanitarian aid, however, does not involve political interference. The United Nations found out earlier this month how difficult aid operations are to manage in the region, when eighty-three of their staff had to be evacuated because – according to a UN spokesperson – local groups that had not managed to secure reconstruction projects had been pitting the people against them.

The rapporteur is also right to note that the European Union has not been asked to act as an external mediator in the Kashmir conflict, although the space given in the report to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is in stark contrast with this view. The EU should not lose sight of the value of international intervention, aid and mediation. It is an omission that this value should be given such scant attention in this report. How do the Council and Commission intend to provide aid to all Kashmiris and the Asian regional partners?

  Philip Claeys, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (NL) Madam President, it goes without saying that the European Union will need to make a meaningful contribution in order to support the peace process in Kashmir. It is important that the channels of communications between all interested parties are opened, and indeed kept open.

Perhaps I might touch on one of its many aspects, that being the problem of terrorism. It is a fact that many acts of terrorism are committed by groups that either operate from Pakistan, or are supported by it, Lashkar e-Taiba and Hizb ul-Mujahideen being two examples. President Musharraf has on several occasions committed himself to tackling the problem of terrorism, but I am afraid that he has a long way to go yet.

The same can be said of the extreme Islamism that is promoted on a large scale via the notorious schools called madrassas. If Pakistan does not manage to get this problem under control, the peace process is bound to founder in the longer term. This is why the European Union should no longer content itself with promises from Pakistan; it should also expect concrete action.

  James Elles (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I warmly welcome this debate this morning. It is the culmination of a long process which started in March 2000 when the House voted overwhelmingly for a factual report on the question of Kashmir. It has thus become not just a British problem, but is seen increasingly as a European one, as our debate this morning shows. We have had vigorous discussions in committee and we now have a more balanced report than when we started out this morning. Some 450 amendments have been tabled, around 180 of those amendments have now been included in this document and so there has been a substantial revision.

There are still some areas where I remain unhappy, in particular regarding Amendment 21 which refers to the question of machine-readable Pakistan passports. I understand there is no such concern in AJK. We have to be careful to keep the report factual. There are, however, three amendments in particular to which I would like to draw colleagues’ attention and which I shall be supporting. The first is tabled by Mr Tannock on behalf of my group – and I thank him for having done so – where in order to create an atmosphere of confidence and goodwill it is vital to remove all obstructions and hindrances for all Kashmiris to travel freely in the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Secondly, this particularly relates to the financial aspects of the earthquake. We all know what terrible suffering there was. There has been a request for further funds from the Government of Azad Kashmir, but I understand that they have not yet had a full reply, therefore Amendment 41 is asking for a clear reply from the Commission so that we know what we have to do in budgetary terms. The last aspect refers to demilitarisation and that is why we have tabled Amendment 55 together with Mrs Lambert.

The article in The Economist of 7 April was very clear and I commend it to the House. It says that there are three fundamental reasons why we should now be pressing for demilitarisation. First, the present numbers are not needed. We now have a process of nearly three years of a ceasefire and the dangers of militancy have significantly decreased. Second, this would be hugely popular in Kashmir where, to quote from The Economist, there is an alienation ‘from Indian rule which runs deep, the withdrawal of the army would be widely seen not as a removal of a protective shield but as a lifting of an oppressive curse’. Third, withdrawing troops from Kashmir would be a great boost to the painstaking rapprochement between India and Pakistan.

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention, as one or two other colleagues have done, to the work of my colleague Mr Bushill-Matthews. I will be voting in favour of this report because it has a positive message of shining a light on the problems which are faced on a daily basis by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. We should keep that spotlight shining brightly and we should associate everybody possible with the process to find a resolution to the problem for the Kashmiri people.

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Madam President, the European Union’s positive role in dealing with any conflict in the world and our role in relation to Kashmir should be to support peace processes and to uphold international law. Our own Labour amendments to this report concentrated on advancing the withdrawal of troops on both sides, extending development aid, encouraging the practical involvement of the Kashmiri people themselves: balanced, constructive, diplomatic in our approach.

When I was in Kashmir in March at the same time as the Commissioner, I saw an AJK more open than ever before; the Indians willing to talk with the secessionists and both governments optimistic about their composite dialogue and when that bomb on a train from New Delhi to Lahore killed 68 people in February, the politics of blame was replaced by a mutual solidarity to defeat the terrorists who had planted it.

However, the support the Liberal Democrat rapporteur claims for her report this morning is possible only because at parliamentary committee level we defeated her proposals to cut off trade relations with one side, not the other; to provide economic aid on one side only; to overturn the UN resolution in favour of self-determination; and, most offensive of all, to score political points about the sixth worst earthquake in the history of humanity.

I note today the Liberal Democrat Amendment 58 to blame one side for preventing a plebiscite and the Conservative Amendment 5 to resist a plebiscite in the future. Labour and Socialist MEPs will oppose both.

In this report, I regret to say we have seen a rapporteur who claimed to uphold the principle of primum non nocere – do no harm – yet she has done only harm. I caution others in this debate and in our vote: do not speak today for India or for Pakistan; speak for Europe, for peace and for human rights and you will do a greater service for the people of Kashmir and for the honour of this Parliament.

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – Madam President, I welcome the Commissioner’s comments. In October 2005 the catastrophic earthquake opened the eyes of the world to the desperate plight of the Kashmiri people. This tragedy offered India and Pakistan a window of opportunity to make peace out of disaster. It also gave the international community the prospect of engaging in a previously closed region.

The Council has stressed that India and Pakistan must find a durable settlement for Jammu and Kashmir which takes into account the wishes of all the people of Kashmir. This is a just and responsible approach and one which this House must follow if it is to contribute constructively to the Kashmir debate.

As Liberals, whose forefathers shaped the concept, my group’s passion must be self-determination, self-determination and self-determination. It is an absolute right enshrined by the UN and respected and protected by the European Union. It is a democratic process that as a House we have a duty to support.

The EU must support the positive ideas now coming forward – systems of self-governance, making borders irrelevant, and joint management across the Line of Control. It is not for us to take any options off the table. We must, however, insist that they are explored through full consultation with the Kashmiris and, if the conditions are right, we must support their desire to determine their destiny through a democratic plebiscite. With a history of human rights abuses, a sustainable solution is impossible without ending impunity and ensuring that human rights are the building blocks of peace. India and Pakistan are now both members of the UN Human Rights Council. With membership comes a responsibility to lead.

Women and children have born the brunt of the conflict and the earthquake. Women have been widowed and children left orphaned. All are struggling to rebuild their lives. The EU, through its trade and economic relations with both India and Pakistan, must protect the most vulnerable in the short term and secure their livelihoods in the long term. The greatest tragedy of the earthquake was the loss of a whole generation of Kashmiris. We must mourn their deaths. For those who remain, our core goals must be peace, justice and self-determination for the generation of Kashmiris to come.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would agree with everything that my colleague, Mr Karim, has just said and, in particular, that self-determination is of crucial importance – even more so for peoples divided by history.

We would agree that the conditions for a plebiscite are not met at present, but they should not be set aside. Hence our Amendments 18 and 56, tabled with colleagues from ALDE Group, are of crucial importance for us.

This conflict in Kashmir has brought the world nearer to nuclear conflict than anything else since the 1960s. Therefore, it is hugely important to all of us in this House. Whether our countries have a historical involvement or not, the EU definitely has an interest. We welcome the confidence-building measures. The environment is of common concern to peoples on whatever side of the Line of Control, and can be a valuable peace-builder. We need the normalisation of relations at every level, grass-roots to political, and that softening of the border as an interim measure.

  David Casa (PPE-DE). – (MT) Thank you, Madam President. Throughout the years, the conflict in Kashmir has left thousands of victims in its wake, including thousands of victims torn from their families and thousands of others forced to leave their country to seek a better life elsewhere. Therefore, I believe we can all agree that the time has come for the European Union to do all it can to seek a long-term solution that is devoid of violence - one that is beneficial to all those involved. Surely everyone will accept that after years of insecurity, spilt blood and unfulfilled promises this is no easy task, even though there may seem to be consensus on an official level. Yet, we must ensure that what we have achieved up till now is not lost, and we must also see to it that permanent dialogue between India and Pakistan is given our full support and assistance. Both India and Pakistan must be given the chance to persevere with their confidence-building measures and to continue to allow people to cross control lines. This step was greatly welcomed after so many years of division. I am certain that the European Union will lend all its support to any initiative that could bring about peace, even if this could turn out to be a slow and lengthy process. As the Commissioner said, we must ensure, on a humanitarian basis, that people in refugee camps are provided with all the humanitarian aid they require, especially following the devastating earthquake that left so many people in a desperate plight. Aid has to be increased and the camps that have been in existence for so long must be given some form of official status. I strongly appeal to all Indian and Pakistani authorities to honour their obligations and to bestow upon the Kashmiri population the dignity it deserves, because every single person in the world has a right to such dignity. Last but not least; I believe we need to take action in order to protect the unique history of this people. The Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri population must focus on the factors that bind them together. It is only in this way that the peace process can be successful. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for all the work she has put in to making this report a successful one.

  Neena Gill (PSE). – Madam President, I wish to congratulate Baroness Nicholson on her work on what has already become one of the most talked-about reports initiated by this House.

When I led a delegation to Pakistan last December, this report was raised with us almost everywhere, and, having followed the progress of the report closely, I do not underestimate the challenges there have been in bringing the basic facts about these issues into the open. I am sure that, in time, it will become an authoritative report on the issue.

I, too, have visited one part of divided Kashmir and empathise with the plight of the Kashmiri people, especially following the tragic impact of the earthquake. This report has also brought out into the open for the first time the conditions prevailing, not only in Kashmir but also in the northern areas. Whilst in Pakistan, I met many people who expressed a strong desire for greater democracy and a greater voice. Therefore, I hope one outcome of this report will be more democracy and greater democratic structures, especially in Gilgit and Baltistan, in the near future.

One of the issues that has most divided the Members of this House has been the question of a plebiscite. However, I welcome the consensus that has now developed on this issue in the report, and it is important to remember that the UN resolution that called for a plebiscite to be held clearly stated that it should happen only when the conditions have been met. It is therefore unfortunate that the conditions under which this might happen have not been met so far.

Having chaired the Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation, and now the Delegation for relations with India, I recognise that this issue has hindered proper development between neighbouring countries and the region as a whole. Therefore, I strongly welcome the confidence-building measures that both India and Pakistan have committed themselves to in the past few years. I urge them to continue along this track with soft borders and more trade, because this has already paid dividends as regards regional prosperity, and I sincerely hope it will eventually lead to improvements on all fronts for the people of Kashmir.

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). – Madam President, this report is about the present and future prospects for the Kashmiri people and we must not lose sight of that. This report is not about India and it is not about Pakistan. I am pleased that the report was amended substantially in committee. I have, however, sought to amend it further and many of the amendments tabled by my group – though not all – are the ones I hope you can vote for.

Amendment 18 calls for the Kashmiri people to exercise their right to self-determination through a plebiscite in the future. This, to my mind, is the bottom line. I believe all people should have a right to determine their own destiny. This is what the Kashmiri people have been calling for for many years. Sixty years ago the resolutions were passed by the UN and they still have not been brought into effect. How can we be so selective about which UN resolutions we adhere to? I would like us, however, to go further and for any plebiscite to have the three options: governed by India, governed by Pakistan or independence. Hence Amendment 57.

Another concern I have about this report, although it is now much better than it was, is that it seems to be concentrating a great deal on the shortcomings of the Pakistan Government within Pakistan, rather than taking a balanced approach relating to both India and Pakistan’s failures in Jammu and Kashmir generally.

Finally, we must build on the positive steps taken by both India and Pakistan and not undermine them. However, no solution can be achieved without the Kashmiri people having the final say themselves.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, from the point of view of international human rights organisations, Kashmir has been one of the most volatile places on the map for the last 56 years. The civilian population has been in a difficult situation for many years and has received virtually no aid or protection from the international community. There is almost continuous fighting in Kashmir. Human rights organisations report that, since the Mujahadin insurrection in 1989, over 30 000 civilians have died in Kashmir.

Kashmir should weigh heavily on our consciences. All European democracies that pride themselves on a tradition of dialogue and freedom, especially concerning matters of faith, seem not to notice or to ignore the tragedy facing the civilian population in Kashmir. The European Union has to take part in spreading and promoting democracy by all possible means, especially in areas which have been affected by armed religious or racial conflict for many years.

At the moment, in view of the talks that are being held between India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir and which are, unfortunately, unlikely to end in success, we need the European Union to show a strong will to support the civilian population in Kashmir. We need the European Union to show the same sort of active attitude in supporting the peace process in Asia as it did when it backed the Orange Revolution and supported Aleksander Milinkiewicz by awarding him the Sacharov Prize.

We should not forget that Asia will be the European Union’s most important partner in the future, thanks to its natural resources and manpower. Ignoring conflicts is a sign of ignorance and foolishness, something we cannot afford in the twenty-first century, knowing that weapons of mass destruction may be used in these conflicts.

  Inger Segelström (PSE). – (SV) I wish to thank everyone for the success in finally reaching an acceptable compromise. India, Pakistan and Kashmir do not constitute a traditional issue for me as a Swedish Social Democrat and Member of the European Parliament, but I felt very committed when I read the first draft and heard different parties’ representatives, mainly from the United Kingdom, engage in debate.

Our task is not to live in the past or to adopt a position in favour of, or against, India and Pakistan. We have a responsibility for what is happening in Kashmir and for the human rights situation there. Our task as Members of the European Parliament is to see if we might play a role of some kind and then to offer our support and experience and in that way help resolve the conflict surrounding Kashmir.

What is going on, and has been going on for such a long time, is a scandal. I believe that two civilised countries such as India and Pakistan should be able to take greater shared responsibility, devise a timetable for achieving practical results and, naturally, help each other to combat terrorism. If that does not happen, the United Nations and the European Union will have to intervene more seriously than in the past. The EU’s strategy is to exert pressure via agreements, aid and contacts. I should have liked us to have gone further and been prepared to support a referendum, but I appreciate that we are not yet in a position to do that.

Kashmir’s wishes must be our guide in our future work and a guide for all those who wish to accept responsibility for the region. I want to call on everyone to think in terms not of prestige but of peace and in terms not of history but of the present and future. As Mr Leinen said, if France and Germany were able to create peace in Europe and found the EU, I am convinced that India and Pakistan have it within them successfully to bring about freedom and peace in Kashmir.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. Madam President, the Commission would like to emphasise its belief that there are now renewed hopes that the Kashmiri issue can be brought closer to a solution.

Both sides have, we believe, sent out signals that appear to be more flexible now than in the past. Nevertheless, we would expect a slow and gradual process rather than quick results. But it is important – and this is where the rapporteur is very clear in her report – that the key to resolving this conflict is very much in the political aspirations of the people of both sides and of both countries.

The European Union will continue to support the reconciliation process between India and Pakistan and, for its part, the Commission is fully prepared to continue to provide assistance to the region through its different cooperation programmes and, in reply to Mr Elles, we have already decided on EUR 50 million for reconstruction work, which we think will take a few years. We have not had any additional claim from either government for additional resources, but we are open to discussing this in due course if such requests come.

This programme will also help restore economic development and good governance in the two countries. That is the main and fundamental condition to finding a sustainable solution to the situation in Kashmir.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 p.m.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. – Kashmir has suffered more than its fair share of tragedy, the most recent being the devastating earthquake. Sometimes out of tragedy comes hope, and so with the aftermath of the earthquake both India and Pakistan showed a desire to cooperate to improve the lives of the Kashmiri people. We must encourage all sides to continue with confidence measures and ‘softening’ the border. India must reduce the suffocating impact of its troops in Kashmir and Pakistan must continue to tackle terrorism. When the time is right the people of Kashmir must be given a voice in determining their future.

5. Via Baltica (debate)

  President. The next item is a statement by the Commission on Via Baltica.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. On behalf of the Commission, and replacing my colleague, Commissioner Dimas, who is unable to participate today because of serious health problems, I would like to make a presentation on the situation and to explain why the Commission applied to the Court.

The Polish authorities gave the green light to the construction of the Augustów bypass, which cuts through the unique Rospuda valley in a forested Natura 2000 site, despite the initiation of previous infringement procedures. A letter of formal notice, covering the Augustów bypass among other things, was addressed to Poland on 15 December 2006, while the decision authorising the start of the works was issued by the Polish authorities on 2 and 9 February 2007.

The Rospuda valley is the last peat bog system of its kind in Europe. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that, if the project is executed in its current form, it would be in breach of the directives on birds and habitats. On 28 February 2007, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on an urgent basis requesting Poland to comply with EC environmental law within a week. Having found the response of the Polish authorities unsatisfactory, the Commission decided on 21 March to refer the case to the Court of Justice. The decision provides for a request for interim measures, which means the suspension of construction works until the judgment of the main case is delivered, in order to avoid irreversible damage to the Natura 2000 site concerned.

  John Bowis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, perhaps first we could send our good wishes to Commissioner Dimas and wish him a speedy recovery.

Secondly, let me say to my Polish friends that this is not an issue which is getting at Poland. There are many Member States who have been subject to pressure from Parliament and the Commission when a development proposal is potentially damaging to the environment.

I think in this case, though, we have a serious case which is going to be a test of will of the Commission, of the policy and certainly of this Parliament too. We have irreversible damage in prospect for the habitats of a large number of species from eagles to woodpeckers, to capercaillie, wolves and lynx. I welcome the Commission taking the steps of going to the ECJ and I certainly welcome the subsequent decision to seek a special procedure from the ECJ to make an order urgently requiring Poland to stop the works pending the proper full decision. That is sensible. The ECJ President granted that on 18 April and I hope that is a very strong message to the Polish authorities who are involved with this scheme. But regrettably, it appears that Poland is ignoring that and proceeding, at least in part, with construction works for two of the projects in north-east Poland.

So my request to the Commission is to insist that we look seriously at alternative routes, because we believe, and my committee believes, that there are alternatives which would be much better for the environment. We believe that they must be fully explored, they must use the strategic environmental assessment principles and that only if those are complied with should we agree to this road corridor proceeding.

I hope the Commission will take that message to her colleague. I hope it will make him better. It will certainly make it better for the Polish environment if we comply with the rules.

  Thijs Berman, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Madam President, my group supports the Commission in this dispute with the Polish Government.

With its environmental directives, including the Habitat Directive and the Bird Directive, the European Union has made a vital step towards the sustainable development of our continent. The directives are a great success. The areas where they apply often form part of Europe’s Natura 2000 network, which network of protected nature conservation sites located in the Member States is at the heart of the EU’s environmental policy and of the preservation and recovery of biodiversity. They give the protection of nature and the environment an enormous boost.

In some cases, this goes against the local and national grain. Politicians easily yield to pressure on the basis of short-term economic interests, instead of standing up courageously for a clean environment for the sake of future generations.

Needless to say, the Via Baltica is of major economic importance. This is beyond dispute. Moreover, it is essential to open up Northern and Eastern Europe, and to link up the Baltic states with the west of Europe. Increased prosperity and wellbeing in Poland are in the interest of the whole of Europe.

This is why billions of euros from the Structural Funds are being invested in that country, and everyone will understand that the residents of the city of Augustov are keen to see the end of the dangerous, noisy traffic pollution caused by lorries.

Traffic will need to be diverted away from the city centre. At what cost, though? The Rospuda valley is a unique area, a special protection zone under the Birds Directive, and it should, on account of its extraordinary value, also fall within the scope of the Habitat Directive. Poland has enormous natural resources, with a landscape of outstanding natural beauty. It is these resources that hold the key to Poland’s economic future.

In the Netherlands, we faced a similar situation not so long ago, with the construction – that was subsequently turned down – of a new motorway cutting across some of the Naardermeer, the Naardermeer being the oldest nature conservation site in our country which falls within the scope of the European Birds Directive. This situation was comparable to the Polish nature conservation area where the Via Baltica is planned.

The Commission was right to warn the Polish Government against the construction of this section of the motorway. As a European Member State, Poland has the duty to protect the Rospuda valley, and, whilst it has proposed measures that are intended to compensate for the destruction of part of the nature conservation area, this compensation is inadequate.

The study into possible alternative routes has not been carried out fully. There are other routes conceivable that could prevent irreparable damage being done to the area.

In mid-June, this House’s Committee on Petitions will be sending out an inquiry mission that will be looking into the complaints by Polish citizens who do not want to see the valley destroyed.

Although we will hear all parties and weigh up all arguments, one thing will be paramount: that the Via Baltica should not be allowed to damage one of Europe’s most attractive nature conservation sites. The construction of this road should not contravene European environmental laws which Poland has also signed. Pacta sunt servanda: treaties are there to be complied with.

  Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (PL) Madam President, we can view the case of the Via Baltica and the Rospuda Valley from two different perspectives which should not be contradictory.

The first point of view is a practical one, involving the people who live there and who use those roads. It is not only Poles who are affected, but also the inhabitants of the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It is a real problem which we cannot ignore. Many people die on these roads. These people have a right to roads that are built to the highest standard possible and they have a right to travel in comfort and safety.

The other issue at stake here is that of the authorities taking responsibility for decisions that they make. It is not true, in spite of attempts to prove to the contrary, that there is no alternative route. There is an alternative. It is possible and practical to implement and needs only the necessary political will. In Poland, this issue has been debated for many years. We, together with a group of Members of the European Parliament, drew attention to this problem last year when we tabled a question to the Commission and appealed to the Polish Government to stop this project from going ahead, as it would be a good idea for the project to already comply with European standards at the planning stage.

The second issue is that of lessons learnt. This is the first case of its kind in Poland, and sets a precedent. We, as Members of the European Parliament, and the European institutions should take care to ensure that, for the good of citizens and in order to improve their safety, all Member States plan their investment projects properly, in line with European Union directives and environmental protection standards.

This can be achieved. There are no contradictions. This lesson has to be very effective. We, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, therefore strongly support a solution that will allow the Via Baltica to be built as soon as possible. However, this solution also needs to quickly lead to a breakthrough based on the fact that it is pointless to insist on bad decisions that damage the environment.

  Roberts Zīle, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) Thank you, Madam President and Mrs Grybauskaitė. First of all, I would like to say that, on becoming acquainted with the history of this section of road, it certainly seems to me, as a Latvian citizen, that it has been known for several years that this stretch of road was going to be built. It is possible that the agreement of the Natura 2000 territories by the previous Polish Government was perhaps not conducted in the best manner. As a result, however, this delay is causing not only residents of Poland to suffer, particularly those in the eastern region, who may use this stretch of road every day, but also three entire European Union Member States — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — and not only citizens travelling to the European Union but also a large section of industry, since 4 500 lorries pass through the town of Augustów daily via this stretch of road. I would really very much like a compromise to be reached that would not further delay the already delayed construction of this road. It worries me that these three Baltic States are in fact not connected with the European Union via a normal, modern highway. These three Baltic States are not connected with the European Union through Poland by rail, since it seems that the Rail Baltica section in this region will encounter the same difficulties in complying with environmental requirements. Nor are these three Baltic States even connected with the European electricity market at the Poland-Lithuania border. So I call on the Commission and all other parties, including the Polish Government, which can reach these decisions within a reasonable length of time, to reflect upon this issue not only from the viewpoint of Poland and Europe’s environmental needs, but also from the point of view of the interests of these three European Union Member States. Thank you.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

  David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Madam President, the Polish Government is issuing a challenge to the European Institutions.

European environmental legislation must be applied. The directive on natural habitats is there to be applied. The way we deal with this issue will be crucial. We must either take Community law seriously, and take the application and use of European funds for great infrastructures seriously, or the whole thing will gradually become pointless.

I have had the pleasure of visiting the beautiful and unique area of the Rospuda Valley, and I can state that this project is absurd. It is also practically impossible from a technical point of view, given the marsh area that it has to cross. At the same time, I can state that there are clear alternatives which are more viable, more economical and which could serve the same purpose as this road.

People suffering from lorry traffic in Eastern Poland, in Augustów, are hostages to the political game being played by the Polish Government in relation to other issues. It is a political challenge to the European Commission, which is combined with other political issues. It is the inhabitants of the area and nature that are going to suffer as a result.

Furthermore, the alternatives to this road which runs through the forest have the support of the preliminary study, the strategic environmental study, carried out by the Scott Wilson consultancy, which is a highly prestigious international consultancy. It is not true, therefore, that the option of this road via the Via Baltica through the Rospuda Valley is the only possibility. Not at all.

The seriousness of this Parliament and the seriousness of European environmental legislation is at stake. I hope that the European Commission will stand firm, and that means not sending any more regional funds until Poland realises that being part of the European club means obeying the rules.

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Madam President, most of the EU Member States that acceded in 2004 and 2007 possess well-developed railway networks.

Unfortunately, this railway network has, in the last 15 years, been pared down, and there have been cutbacks also in the maintenance of it. Moreover, in many cases, the old railway companies have not received from the state the compensation they thought they could count on beforehand for their operating shortages, and this has the effect of deterring new enterprises that would otherwise be keen to take part in tenders, and so the likelihood is that the railway network will be used less and less and that rolling stock will become unusable.

These countries once had a huge head start over the west of Europe in the area of rail transport, but it has thus been lost, and their environment is particularly vulnerable too.

Fewer tracks does not mean less traffic. In order to channel this traffic elsewhere, all attention is now focused on investments in motorways. Roads like these were around 15 years ago, except that they were limited to the busiest routes, particularly around the big cities. New roads of this sort will now be built very quickly.

In an effort to limit costs, the interests of nature and the landscape are often overlooked. The shortest possible route cutting through areas considered empty is preferred, and there is no money for diversions, tunnels or bridges for wildlife.

Poland is not the first, or only, country to face this problem. The same thing occurred years ago in the Czech Republic, which planned a connection from Prague to Dresden and also in Bulgaria when a link was planned between Sofia and Thessaloniki.

The way in which valuable nature conservation areas are handled does not only make the national, but also international, news, as international nature and environmental organisations draw attention to this. They also point out that the European Union is partly responsible for destroying the environment if it helps to finance bad projects of this kind. I have been urging the European Union to refuse any responsibility in this matter for years.

On 2 July 2002, Commissioner Wallström stated by way of response to my written requests that Poland should adapt its Via Baltica plans. I would remind her that, according to the original plan, the Via Baltica avoided this vulnerable area, but that these plans were subsequently reviewed in a bid to better serve other cities. What the European Union should insist on is a return to the original plan that was drawn up a long time ago.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, it is a good thing that we, despite the urbanisation that goes hand in hand with increasing prosperity, still boast valuable nature conservation areas within the European Union’s borders. These areas form part of the Natura 2000 network, which does something very important by ensuring that nature in the European Union is accorded a protected status, and, for example, by helping to maintain biodiversity.

We approved Mr Adamou’s proposal only this week, in which a stand is made for maintaining biodiversity. Moreover, the Natura 2000 status ensures that the nature conservation areas remain intact for posterity.

At least, that is how it should be. Not every government appears to realise this, as was evident last year. The Polish Government seeks to build the new road, the Via Baltica, right across the Natura 2000 area of the Rospuda Valley.

Along with a delegation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I have visited the Rospuda valley and was able to see for myself how unique and valuable this Polish nature conservation site is. It is totally beyond me that it is the Polish Environment Minister, no less, who is in favour of this project, even though sound alternatives are available. He, of all people, should surely realise what disastrous effects this project could have.

By way of compensation for the construction of the road, it is intended to plant a million trees to the north of the region, despite the adverse effects this will have on nature. I know that this is a very sensitive issue in Poland. For traffic safety, it is necessary for the Via Baltica to be in place soon, provided it is tailored to regional circumstances with minimum adverse effects on the environment.

I am delighted that the Commission has issued warnings to the Polish Government, and that, when it received no response to its demands, it brought the matter before the European Court of Justice. It is to be hoped that the Court’s ruling of 18 April, according to which the Polish Government should stop the compensation measures with immediate effect, will be a message for the future – a message that Member States cannot simply tamper with valuable nature conservation sites.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the planned construction of the Via Baltica has caused a lot of controversy, as have many other trans-European transport routes. Having studied the Commission’s statistics on the subject, it is clear that a number of Member States have considerable problems related to planning infrastructure projects in the areas covered by the Natura 2000 network, namely Austria, Spain and Portugal.

At the moment, the Polish Government still wants to continue the construction of the Augustów bypass which will pass through the Rospuda Valley. It argues that the decision regarding the project was made before Poland joined the European Union, when Poland was not bound by the strict requirements of the European Union directives on birds and habitats. The European Commission is accusing Poland of infringing these directives as a result of its investment in the road building project. For Poland, road safety is the argument that speaks in favour of constructing the bypass. However, the environmental criteria that need to be fulfilled in the implementation of this project, seem to have been forgotten.

However, in spite of the current situation, we cannot allow talks on the issue of the ring road to stall. The problem has to be solved in the form of a compromise which will be satisfactory for both sides. Both arguments, namely those concerning environmental aspects and road safety, are equally important and will affect hundreds of similar projects in Poland and elsewhere. We should make cooperation mechanisms more efficient at various levels and adapt the regulatory criteria to the current environmental and social situation.

However, I would appeal for similar requests for debate to be treated equally in the future. To this day, in spite of the support of over 60 Members, no permission has been granted for a debate on the biggest environmental threat resulting from the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline under the Baltic sea. I would like to remind you that over 10% of marine areas are part of the Natura 2000 network and no one, literally no one, has taken this issue up in the European Parliament.

At the moment, when important areas of biodiversity are being destroyed before the very eyes of environmentalists and the whole of Europe, there seems to be no will to discuss the issue of the environmental threat to our only internal sea, namely the Baltic.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, the Polish PSE delegation in the European Parliament has stressed the need for the construction of the Augustów bypass for a long time.

However, the chosen construction plan for the new road, which will pass through the Rospuda Valley, will certainly have a negative impact on the ecosystem, which is unique in Europe and is located in an area that is protected by the Natura 2000 programme. Allowing the Augustów bypass to pass through the valley will cause irreparable damage to the natural environment, including the destruction of 20 000 trees and the disappearance of extremely rare plants and animal species. Sadly, we need to be aware of the fact that any alternative to the ring road will have an impact on the natural environment in that region. We should opt for the project whose negative impact on the unique fauna and flora in the Rospuda Valley will be as small as possible.

Representatives of the Law and Justice party, which currently governs Poland, assured us before the elections that the Via Baltica, which includes the Augustów bypass, will avoid the most precious natural areas. Now they are breaking their promise. The Polish authorities have had time to reconsider the location of the bypass. However, they have ignored the environmentalists’ suggestions that changing the route of the motorway would avoid damaging the environment and would save money. The Minister for the Environment did not take advantage of opportunities to reconcile the interests of the residents of Augustów, who are campaigning for a motorway, and those who seek to protect the environment. The Polish Government is ignoring the problematic fact that this investment will be incredibly expensive and will place a large burden on the Polish taxpayers, as the European Union will not contribute to the construction of the road in an area where, according to the habitats directive, it is forbidden to destroy the environment. Moreover, given the European Commission’s negative assessment of the project, further work on the construction of the road may make Poland liable for fines amounting to millions of euros. This will be a burden which Polish taxpayers will have to bear.

In my view, Prime Minister Kaczyński’s proposal to hold a local, regional referendum on the Augustów bypass, and its route through the Rospuda Valley, is simply a sign that the Polish Government wants to shirk its responsibility for home affairs and is an unnecessary bone of contention for Polish society. The referendum was held because local government elections were being held in the Podlasie Voivodship at the same time. However, it was obvious from the start that the result of this referendum would not be binding for the European Court of Justice, which is currently dealing with the matter. It is therefore irrelevant and these kinds of activities only serve internal political ends. In addition to this, I would like to point out that, according to Polish legislation, a referendum is only valid if the turnout is over 30% of those eligible to vote. The turnout on Sunday did not exceed this threshold.

The natural environment is one of our greatest treasures, and yet we do not do enough to protect it. I think that the Polish Government should make a real effort to draw up alternative solutions to the problem as soon as possible.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Augustavas bypass should become part of the Via Baltica. This is very important to the city of Augustavas, where about 1.5 million vehicles annually drive through the centre of the city.

The European Commission has appealed to the European Court of Justice against Poland's building of the Augustavas bypass on the Via Baltica, which was commenced before Poland joined the EU. The appeal is based on claims that the environmental protection requirements of the Rospuda Valley, through which the projected viaduct must pass, will be violated. The territory is protected by the Natura 2000 programme.

However, no such environmental protection issues have been raised concerning the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which is projected to pass through Natura 2000 territory and which may lead to unpredictable ecological consequences.

Poland is seeking ways of solving the problem, perhaps by building a considerably more expensive tunnel. However, the people of Augustavas want to live quietly. No one is concerned about the residents suffering from pollution.

I have asked the Commission what solution there might be, apart from a prohibition on building the bypass, and what help Poland might get. It was explained to me that in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is not empowered to dictate concrete solutions to Member States nor to prescribe expenditure.

Perhaps it is time to review the Commission's powers?

Will residents of the Baltic countries be obliged to travel to Europe only by air?

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski (UEN) – (PL) Madam President, the natural environment is very important. Indeed, it is one of the most important issues today. The natural world is an independent part of our surroundings. We did not create it and we should certainly protect it.

However, protecting the environment cannot become an alibi for certain small groups of environmental activists who resort to blackmailing specific regions and governments. For reasons that are rather more political than environmental, and due to expected material gains, these groups are trying to block the construction of roads, bypasses and airports. A classic example of the misuse of environmental arguments is the campaign against the construction of an airport in Świdniku, near Lublin, in Poland. The colony of marmots is the reason given. However, no mention is made of the fact that this was not their original habitat and that, according to experts, they could be safely relocated to another site.

Similarly dubious arguments are used by environmentalists to argue against other planned investments in Central and Eastern Europe, including the Via Baltica. No mention is made of the fact that a referendum in Poland produced a definite majority in favour of the project in the region where the bypass is supposed to be built.

European environmental regulations cannot be applied automatically, without acknowledging that specific cases exist. We should use our common sense and not be led by ideological feelings. Use of the environment as a scarecrow could be prevented by more investment in infrastructure in the new Member States. Let us not forget that these investments really do influence peoples’ quality of life, and that their right to good quality infrastructure is at least as important as environmental considerations.

  Stanisław Jałowiecki (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, it is true that Poland, which has done a lot since starting its programme of reforms 18 years ago, has unfortunately neglected the building of roads. That is a fact.

We are now quickly trying to make up for lost ground, although this is clearly far from easy. One of the hurdles in our path consists of environmental restrictions. We should bear in mind that when Western Europe was building roads that covered a significant proportion of its territory, no such restrictions existed on the construction of transport networks. Now, a conflict has erupted.

However, nature is not mute in this conflict. Various environmental groups speak on behalf of the environment. Indeed, they often speak too loudly, forgetting that man is also an important, if not the most important, part of this ecosystem. Indeed, it is man who needs to be protected, first and foremost.

It is regrettable that the conflict surrounding the construction work in the Rospuda Valley has escalated to such an extent and that it has become so complicated, including its political dimension. Is there a way out? Is there a sensible solution which could satisfy both sides? I am afraid that the answer is no and that the Commission has to choose. A decision has to be made.

I personally think that the road should be built. However, permission for the work should include a strict list of conditions that have to be met in order to minimise damage to the environment. This is because, let us admit, losses cannot be avoided. They accompany civilisation, as progress is never free. Everything has its price.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, the Via Baltica is most important in terms of increasing cohesion within the European Union. It is important in terms of decreasing the temporal distance separating the Baltic states, namely Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and indirectly also Finland, from the rest of the European Union, by means of access through Poland. The benefits for the Union and for Europe seem to be significant and measurable.

I am also aware of the very difficult situation in which the inhabitants of Augustów find themselves, as an increasingly large number of lorries, passenger vehicles and buses continues to pass through the town. Those people cannot continue to live like this. This region of Poland is very rich in natural resources: flora, fauna, lakes, forests and the entire landscape. Any road in this area will have a negative impact on the environment. However, it is simply impossible to avoid this region altogether. The road will give Europeans access to these landscapes and bring them closer, while not building the road will mean that the region will remain an inaccessible fortress.

In spite of the fact that the current Polish Government’s stance has sometimes been less than professional, I would like to ask the Commission to take these aspects into account. It is possible and necessary for the Commission and the Polish Government to effectively seek a solution that will be beneficial to the Union, the citizens and bring relief to both the inhabitants of Augustów and the drivers of the vehicles passing through the area, without causing too much damage to the environment. During the mid-1990s, I was the Minister of Transport in Poland. I supported the project then, as I thought that it was necessary. Today, I continue to support the construction of the Via Baltica.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, it is my duty as a Polish Member of the European Parliament to inform my colleagues that the case of the Via Baltica has two sides to it. The first is environmental and the other is political.

The worst thing in this case is that the European Commission has also become involved in local electoral conflicts. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the fact that the European Commission has recently become too frequently and unnecessarily involved in matters which fall within the remit of Polish national and local government. That is why we will soon be hearing a lot about the E-19 road.

This begs the question: what does the Commission want? In Poland, people say that it wants to block resources allocated to Poland for the construction of motorways. Perhaps it would be better for the Commission to deal with issues such as GMOs in Europe, as this is the reason why we are facing the threat of an environmental and biological disaster, or perhaps the Schmidt farms, whose increasing pollution of the environment continues to go unpunished. There is much to do and there is no need to interfere with those who are doing an honest job.

  Barbara Kudrycka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the European Commission decided to file a case against Poland at the European Court of Justice because it began to build a section of road that was 1 500 metres longer than the road that is currently used by lorries and five kilometres of which infringes on land protected by the Natura 2000 programme. The current state of the road is so appalling that residents have dubbed it the ‘road of death’. In 2006 alone, 14 people died and 25 were injured on that stretch of road near the small town of Augustów. Postponing the construction of the road by three to five years, as this is the minimum amount of time that the Court will need to deal with the case, and perhaps having to start from scratch with the investment process, may lead to another 40 to 70 deaths.

I would also like to mention the noise pollution created by the thousands of lorries which pass through Augustów and the potentially lethal threat of accidents involving lorries transporting dangerous goods through built-up areas.

The habitats directive permits investment in projects on Natura 2000 land in exceptional circumstances, if compensation is offered. Last Sunday, nearly 92% of local residents voted in a referendum in favour of the designated new route. Is this stance on the part of the residents not enough reason to withdraw the case filed at the European Court of Justice?

If the Commission does not decide to withdraw its complaint, it will show that it has not been able to fairly balance the opinions of a small but significant minority in the Directorate-General for the Environment, environmental groups and eco-terrorists, as well as the expectations and needs of the inhabitants, which both the mayor and the Marshall of the Voivodship presented to the Commission.

In this situation, if the alternative methods for building a bridge across the Rospuda Valley do not satisfy the Commission, a serious conflict may erupt, which threatens to permanently paralyse and block the road that is currently used. In view of how determined the local residents are, and I know that they are because I, unlike the others here, actually live in that area, anything is possible. If the aforementioned road is not going to be built soon, we should perhaps consider opening negotiations with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, with a view to diverting transit traffic from the Baltic states through these countries.

  Katrin Saks (PSE). – (ET) Madam President, as a representative of Estonia, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Via Baltica. Historically, this has, for us, been an important connection with European countries, and it must be developed so that it becomes quick and safe. Today it is neither.

This spring, for instance, it took more than 12 hours to get from Tallinn to Warsaw by car, and this is not as it should be. Thus we wholeheartedly welcome the opportunities offered by the Tenth Framework Programme for the construction of the motorway. That being said, a good road does not justify abandoning all environmental requirements. Nor are such roads likely to lead us to a happy future. Unfortunately, the Polish incident casts a shadow over the entire Via Baltica project, which is of vital importance for the Baltic region in particular.

We hope that the European Court of Justice will soon make its decision and that a compromise can be reached between the Commission and the Polish authorities as soon as possible. I would like to reiterate the importance of all connecting links between the Member States of the European Union – whether they be roads, railways or power lines. We cannot feel like full members of the European Union if these connecting links are virtually absent or in very poor condition.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I understand the sensitivity of this issue. We are talking about trans-European networks, about trans-European works and roads and people who are living near these roads.

We understand that this project started before the entry of Poland into the European Union. However, I would like to stress, on behalf of the Commission, that certain procedures need to be followed before large programmes can be started, in particular impact assessments. The Commission is urging Poland – as it is now its responsibility – to complete the impact assessment as soon as possible.

In comparison, and in reply to the question on the North Stream proposal, the project concerned has not yet started; the impact assessment is ongoing and this project can only start after the impact assessment is completed. That is a different matter. It is the opposite with the Via Baltica situation. There has been no impact assessment; the process is only halfway through, but the works are ongoing.

The works are ongoing outside Natura 2000. We do not have any information that Poland is breaching any decision of the Court. I can also confirm that no European financial resources have yet been given to the project.

There were some comments concerning the Commission’s responsibilities and powers. They are outlined in the European Treaties. If you want to change them, then you will have to change the Treaties.

  President. The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Madam President, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia need both the Via Baltica and other investments in road-building projects, as well as measures to protect the natural environment, including the Rospuda Valley. We cannot cut certain areas of the Union off from other regions and countries simply because of environmental protection requirements.

However, we cannot ignore the environment and use the need for infrastructural improvements as a way of justifying any decision we make. Experts tell us that there are alternative routes that do not damage the environment as much as the current plans. If that is the case, then we should focus on bringing forward their implementation, rather than stubbornly sticking to this less than ideal solution.

This problem is stirring up a lot of emotion in Poland. It seems that it would be more sensible to find a solution that is based on facts. The coalition governing Poland has made the issue extremely political. It has even forced a local referendum, which it is difficult to view as anything other than an attempt to use the issue of the route of the Via Baltica for their own purposes as the referendum took place at the same time as the regional elections. Furthermore, the referendum is not binding either for the European Court of Justice or even for the Polish authorities.

The best solution for the inhabitants of the region and future road users would seem to be a compromise at a European level, in order to make sure that the principle of sustainable development does ring hollow.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.35 and resumed at 12.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

6. Welcome

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, It was on 15 April that I invited Garri Kasparov to come to the European Parliament, at a time when he was being held under arrest for eleven hours, and a member of my staff had other reasons – to do, in fact, with the legacy of Andrej Sakharov – to be in Moscow. I am glad that Mr Kasparov has been here yesterday and today, and I rejoice in the great support that you have expressed for him and for his friends in Russia.

(Applause)

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I would like to inform the House that last night the Israeli authorities arrested a number of elected representatives of the PLC, including a Minister of the Abbas Government. I would therefore ask you, President, to condemn this Israeli action and to make a strong statement against their practice of arresting elected representatives of the Palestinian people. This is not the way to go forward with the peace process.

(Applause)

  President. We have just been discussing this in the Conference of Presidents, too. Unless there are unavoidable changes to my schedule, I shall be flying to the Middle East on Sunday and seeking suitable means to express this.

7. Voting time

  President. The next item is voting time.

(For results and other details of the vote: See Minutes

7.1. Common organisation of agricultural markets (vote)

– Busk report (A6-0171/2007)

7.2. Common organisation of the market in cereals (vote)

– Glattfelder report (A6-0141/2007)

– Before the vote on the proposal of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Mr President, could you make it entirely clear that it is rejected on the recommendation of the rapporteur, not the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I make no further statement.

  President. It is the recommendation of the rapporteur to reject the Commission proposal. Those wishing to follow the rapporteur must now cast a negative vote.

7.3. Verification of the credentials of Mr Beniamino Donnici (vote)

– Gargani report (A6-0198/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, I rise under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of Procedure to ask you to invoke your presidential powers, defined in Rule 19, to declare inadmissible, and therefore to stop the vote on, the report by Mr Gargani (A6-0198/2007). This report is in contravention of the Treaties and, in particular, of Articles 12 and 13 of the 1976 Act. It is, therefore, without legal basis, and I ask you to use your presidential powers to declare it inadmissible.

  President. This is a report by the Committee on Legal Affairs: who could be better qualified to provide information about the legal situation than they! The President does not feel he is in a position to correct a decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs on a legal matter – even though he, too, studied law a long time ago. For this reason, it is my decision that the vote on this report will proceed.

– After the final vote:

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, my Group considers what the House has just done to be illegal, as I explained earlier. Nonetheless, we accept the verdict of the House. As they sometimes say in my language, we look forward to seeing you in court!

(Laughter)

  President. This concerns the whole Parliament; as you are also among its Members, you, too, would be appearing there.

(Applause)

7.4. Situation in Nigeria (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0201/2007)

7.5. International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0200/2007)

8. Welcome

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to welcome the members of a delegation from the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan, under the leadership of Mr Matubraimov, who have taken their seats in the VIP gallery. The delegation is here to take part in the fifth session of the EU-Kyrgyzstan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee here in Strasbourg.

A very warm welcome to you all!

(Applause)

We rejoice in the further progress made in relations between our two Parliaments since the entry into force, in 1999, of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan.

I wish you an agreeable sojourn in Strasbourg.

9. Voting time (continued)

9.1. Innovation Strategy (vote)

– Gierek report (A6-0159/2007)

9.2. Tackling organised crime (vote)

– Newton Dunn report (A6-0152/2007)

9.3. Kashmir: present situation and future prospects (vote)

– Nicholson of Winterbourne report (A6-0158/2007)

– Before the vote on Amendment 5:

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to move an oral amendment to delete the two words ‘at present’ from the paragraph.

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

– Before the vote on Amendment 11:

  Jo Leinen (PSE). – In English the text reads: ‘Urges the EU to take a firm stance in upholding the democracy and human rights clause ... examining the possibility of setting up a specific human rights dialogue with Pakistan’. Then comes the oral amendment: ‘as is already the case with India’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on Amendment 13:

  Jo Leinen (PSE). – It reads, ‘[…] cautions the European Union and the international community that the Kashmir dispute continues to represent a serious risk of conflict in the region and the wider world, […]’. The amendment reads, ‘[…] cautions the European Union and the international community that the Kashmir dispute has represented a serious risk of conflict in the region, […]’.

(The oral amendment was not accepted)

– After the vote on Amendment 52:

  Sajjad Karim (ALDE). – Mr President, I understood that a request had been put in for an oral amendment by myself through the ALDE Group secretariat. Could you kindly check your notes?

  President. It might have been requested, but it is not in my papers. Therefore we have to proceed as usual.

9.4. Estonia (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0205/2007)

10. Explanations of vote

– Busk report (A6-0171/2007)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome the Busk Report which should lead to significant simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy. While I want to see further reform of CAP I accept the Rapporteur's argument that this should not be by the "back door".

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) It is good that the legal framework is being simplified, but both export subsidies and other aid in the form of intervention also remain in place. That is a state of affairs that I can never accept, and I am therefore abstaining in the vote.

  Salvatore Tatarella (UEN), in writing. – (FR) I question the reasoning behind the Commission’s action which, despite the quite appealing appearance of concern for the simplification of administration, is liable to take less account of the specific details of certain modes of production. I also find it regrettable that neither my fellow Members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development nor I have had the time to study, under the right conditions, the Commission’s proposal, as a consequence of the diabolical timetable laid down by the Presidency of the Council. This whole process was worthy of being considered in greater depth within the European institutions, and I find it regrettable that more time could not have been found for a subject of such fundamental importance.

It is for that reason I decided to abstain from the final vote.

– Glattfelder report (A6-0141/2007)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has again prepared a report opposed to reform of the common agricultural policy.

We wish to abolish the common organisation of the market in cereals. However, we support the Commission’s proposal, as opposed to the approach of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, because the said committee now wants to oppose the abolition of maize intervention.

The June List observes that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU’s agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of providing heavy subsidies to all the various farming groups.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for the Glattfelder Report on the Common organisation of the market in cereals not because I entirely support its contents but because it is in line with CAP reform. I also accepted as a compromise the phasing out of public interventions to support cereal crops.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Reform of the system for intervention in support of maize is a matter of necessity.

Although it is thought of as a safety rope in the event of difficulties and as a means of getting production flowing, the system is no longer – particularly in Hungary – playing only this primary role and constitutes nothing other than a business opportunity.

It must not, however, be abandoned overnight, and certainly not only on the basis of an economic study relating to two exceptional marketing campaigns, and based on the problems of one Member State, namely Hungary.

The Commission's proposal is unacceptable on the grounds of being premature and incapable of being managed by producers under favourable conditions. One must not treat speed and haste as being the same thing.

Limiting the quantity eligible to benefit from the intervention system and re-examination at the time of the health check would be a good compromise between the need to act and the need to take the time to do so.

Solutions to local problems need themselves to be local in nature, and Parliament’s response to the radical and ill conceived measure proposed by the Commission shall be to propose progressive reform, reflection, listening to agriculturalists and a re-examination at the time of the health check.

– Gargani report (A6-0198/2007)

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall limit myself to pointing out the regrettable fact that the vote that has been taken in favour of our colleague will easily be overturned by the European Communities’ Court of Justice, and the reason why this is so is that you have variable-geometry case law.

When the scandalous attempt was made to deprive Mr Le Pen of his mandate, you had recourse to national competence and were unwilling to confirm for yourselves that the French authorities were interfering with his rights. You saw fit to act similarly when it came to the verification of the credentials of another Member of this House, Mr Ruiz-Mateos, when, again, you had recourse to national law.

Yet now you want to defend the prerogatives of this House, and why ever not? In any case, the end product of your attitude was a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Communities which, unfortunately for you, found against you, thus confirming the truth of the Latin dictum, ‘Hodie mihi, cras tibi’ – my turn today and yours tomorrow. This House’s acting as judge is defensible only if the House judges all its Members equally.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The issues raised in this report are complex and have far-reaching implications. At the heart of the matter is the sovereign power of Member States to nominate MEPs and to define how they are represented in the European Parliament within the context of the existing regulatory framework for elections to Parliament.

I do not wish to go into detail regarding a procedural and legal issue that rests exclusively with the Member State in question, but, according to the report before us, the Italian authorities have decided, on the basis of a decision by the Italian Council of State, to nominate a particular politician to the European Parliament whose credentials are called into question by this report.

We take the view that, given that all the criteria and conditions for the nomination of an MEP by a Member State have been met – at national and European Parliament level – the Member State in question should be allowed to proceed with the nomination, in compliance with the internal legal framework.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (B6-0200/2007)

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I just wanted to make known that I abstained from the vote on CITES: not because I did not agree with many things contained in the resolution but because, as so often happens, this House is dictating to developing countries behaviour that seems right to us, but that those countries may not consider so appropriate. That is why I abstained.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement aimed at ensuring that the international trade in certain species of wild fauna and flora does not threaten their survival. 171 countries are signatories to the Convention, including Portugal, which ratified the text of the Convention in December 1980. It entered into force in Portugal in March 1981.

Given the vulnerability of many species, CITES is of acute importance. There are currently 5 000 animals and 28 000 plants protected by CITES including species found on Portuguese territory. The species covered by CITES are divided into three appendices according to the level of protection needed.

The legal trade in animals and plants has for a number of years constituted a serious threat to many species and, although many countries have stepped up the fight, and have become increasingly vigilant, the threat level unfortunately remains high.

As in other kinds of agreement and protection plans for wild species, the success of CITES also depends on the adoption of a balanced approach based on scientific criteria and recommendations by accredited bodies thus ensuring the validity and credibility of its actions and the effective implementation of the agreed recommendations.

– Report: Gierek (A6-0159/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report views innovation as a variable in the internal market. It calls for the liberalisation of the markets and the systematic removal of obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and capital, to freedom of establishment and to the mobility of the workforce, all of which forms part of a capitalist approach based on competition and concentration.

In order to deal with the under-funding of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development, the report follows the trend of providing for the use of structural funds and seeks ‘to promote and strengthen public-private partnerships’, in other words to put public investment at the mercy of private profit.

What is needed is to promote public investment in research, education and innovation, on the basis of sustainable development strategies, in every country. This would help improve the quality of life, create jobs (with rights) and generate (fairly distributed) wealth. What are needed are strategies that oppose the commercialisation of knowledge, education and research and that oppose the idea that only highly profitable research, with market opportunities, can actually take place. What are needed are strategies that promote greater investment in education and training at all levels and that actually make it easier for SMEs to access existing programmes and actions.

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) The report basically highlights the need for a broad innovation strategy in Europe, which would improve the competitiveness of its economy. The innovation strategy should be based on the creation of specialised areas of knowledge, the reform of patent laws and the introduction of tax incentives for companies investing in research and innovation.

In order to make the exchange of knowledge between research institutions and economic entities easier, the rapporteur sees a need to promote specialised areas of knowledge in the Member States, greater trans-border cooperation and more intensive cooperation with experts from third countries.

In keeping with the spirit of the report, I would say that the European Institute of Technology should create the necessary conditions for connecting centres of knowledge with companies by means of an emphasis on innovation and efforts to foster competition in economic sectors focusing on innovation.

Another important part of the report is the emphasis it places on the need to reform European patent policy. We cannot deny that reliable and fair copyright protection and patent systems are key elements for building an economy, and a society, that is based on innovation and knowledge.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for the Gierek report but against all amendments which could have led to reviving discussions on the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive. Given the efforts to find a majority in the first place for this directive it would not have been helpful to reopen the debate.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) There is a long-established idea that close relations between higher education and business can only benefit both parties. There is sometimes a discrepancy, however, between that idea and the reality. The public authorities are often engaged in creating conditions (depending on methods and times) that are conducive to scientific and academic research, but do not always do so – or do not always succeed in doing so – as effectively in the business community.

Support for innovation in the business sphere of course follows different rules and methods from those governing investment in research in the academic sphere. Even so, bearing in mind that a major part of innovation comes directly from business activity and from the quest for responses to what the market is looking for, I feel that this report by Parliament makes a useful contribution to the proposals contained in the Commission communication. Let us hope that the national and regional authorities make the most of these opportunities.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE), in writing. (ES) Mr President, I would like to explain the way I voted on Mr Gierek’s report on innovation.

I voted in favour, since the rapporteur has done a difficult and necessary job on an issue that is crucial in terms of achieving the Lisbon objectives, but which we have yet to deal with.

In order to become an advanced knowledge-based society, not only do we have to be strong on technological research and development, that is to say on our capacity to generate, absorb, assimilate and communicate new knowledge and capacities to society and to companies, but we also have to be strong on the capacity to convert this knowledge into wealth and social well-being. That is innovation.

Not all of the EU’s countries are at the same level in terms of the indicators defining a knowledge-based society, nor in terms of innovation efforts. Reducing these differences would benefit everybody.

Innovation is probably the only instrument that can enable us, within a reasonable space of time, to achieve such important objectives as:

1) Improving the quality and competitiveness of our companies;

2) Making economic growth compatible with preserving the environment, and with quality of life and social cohesion.

3) Innovation makes it possible to maintain traditional sectors;

4) Naturally, innovation can contribute to substantially improving working conditions and also the integration of certain groups, such as disabled people.

The most up-to-date economic analyses establish a direct relationship between research, development and innovation efforts and productivity, which is of particular interest to the majority of our countries with economies based on the services sector, for which productivity is perhaps one of their greatest weaknesses.

All of this is taken up to a greater or lesser extent in the report, and for that reason I have voted in favour.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. – (PL) I am voting in favour of Professor Adam Gierek’s report on ‘Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for Europe’.

At the moment, there is a great innovation divide in the world. On the one hand, there are countries who create ‘innovation fronts’, which group together the great majority of the scientific, research and development sectors, while on the other there are the sidelined countries, which can only participate as importers or countries where innovation is diffused. The world leaders in terms of innovation are the USA, Japan and the countries of the European Union, and the competition between these economies provides a stimulus for further innovation.

However, in the European Union, there has recently appeared a so-called ‘innovation paradox’. Economic results for the Community can be seen as disappointing in view of the opportunities that the single European market offers. The plan to transform the EU into the ‘most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’” is, on the one hand, a sign of the fact that the Union is aware of the need to fundamentally reform its social and economic system and, on the other hand, a sign of the ambitious and optimistic view that such change is possible.

In the report, the rapporteur very aptly points to the main reasons for this situation in the EU and, above all, highlights the need to develop an effective innovation strategy for Europe.

– Report: Newton Dunn (A6-0152/2007)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Today’s recommendation from the European Parliament to the Council concerning the development of a strategic concept for tackling organised crime is an extremely important and welcome piece of news for Europe’s citizens. It is proof that the Union is fulfilling its central role in an area that requires the closest possible international cooperation. Such cooperation is already working extremely well, but it is no longer enough. Terrorism and other forms of organised crime know no boundaries and are also, quite literally, exploiting the benefits of our democratic system. We must therefore weigh up what are the most important values in any given situation: combating crime or unfettered freedom. The time has come for us to cut back on our wonderful unlimited freedom in situations where that freedom prevents us from protecting the most precious thing of all, namely life itself. The time has definitely come to change tack and to remove some internal obstacles, including those which protect illegally acquired economic and financial resources. The Council must provide Europol and Eurojust with greater independence and authority. This is a new strategic task, and it is a responsibility that we have towards the 500 million citizens of the EU.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I am happy that Mr Newton Dunn’s own-initiative report has been adopted by a very large majority; for our House is thereby making several recommendations to the Council in respect of the drafting of a strategic concept for combating organised crime.

The abolition of internal borders between the Member States belonging to the Schengen area is certainly a major advance for our fellow citizens, but it is also helpful to organised crime, and so the European Union has a particularly important part to play in this area.

One fundamental and urgent requirement is that a policy of prevention be implemented and effective instruments put in place. If there is to be greater trust between states, and between their respective police forces in particular, then a great deal of progress needs to be made, and the countries from which we all come need to be pressed to set aside sufficient budgetary resources for their exchange and training programmes.

Finally, this House of ours has highlighted the need not only for victim and witness protection schemes to be reinforced, but also for the promotion of campaigns making public opinion more aware of the traffic in human beings.

For all these reasons, I have given the rapporteur my backing and have, in the final vote, cast my vote in favour of this report.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome the report by Bill Newton Dunn on tackling organised crime. It is vital that the EU has the necessary tools to promote and strengthen a coordinated strategy to tackle organised crime. The roles of Europol and Eurojust need to be enhanced and the public need to be made more aware of the EU’s role in this matter.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I voted for the report on the fight against organised crime presented by Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE, GB) because it will ensure that Europol’s role as a criminal intelligence body is strengthened, allowing it to fulfil its task of providing Member States with information and intelligence leading to more effective results in preventing and combating organised crime.

The EU has always played an important role in the fight against organised crime and it is now necessary to provide the Union with a more powerful and ambitious instrument to work more closely with Member States to improve cooperation in order to combat organised crime more effectively.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) More than a matter of choice or duty, the need for cooperation when it comes to fighting organised crime is clearly of practical value, as organised crime becomes more sophisticated, better equipped and more efficient in its use of the most up-to-date technology.

As well as the opening up of physical borders arising from the process of EU integration, one must be mindful of the fact that globalisation and its mechanisms also come into play when it comes to crime. As with all technological innovations, it is always open to being used for good deeds and bad. I therefore welcome the overall thrust of this report, which advocates enhanced cooperation and the need for a strategic approach that encompasses this fight and everything connected with it at all stages.

That being said, the recommendation will only prove useful, and be at its most effective, if in addition to passing laws, steps are taken aimed at actually enhancing mutual trust between the institutions responsible for fighting crime in the various Member States. Trust of this kind, which is not always in evidence, has been shown to be vital to the success of this mission.

  Martine Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union needs to equip itself with the instruments that will enable it to fight more effectively against organised crime, which knows no frontiers and is, lamentably, on the increase.

In view of organised crime’s activities being spread over different areas, the European Union must coordinate and maximise the effect of its actions; while it must be able to respond, it must also put in place a policy of prevention. Putting this strategy in place will make for deeper understanding of problems and will make available the tools with which organised crime can better be fought, and one of our priorities is greater cooperation between the police in criminal matters by means of Europol, Eurojust and OLAF.

A multi-disciplinary approach is of primary importance if we are to find the best possible way to keep organised criminal gangs in check, for we need to dismantle such organisations, bring the criminals in them to justice and deny them the proceeds of their crimes. The fight against money-laundering and weapons trafficking is among Europe’s priorities in this conflict, for these two types of organised crime serve the interests of terrorists.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report uses the existing problem of organised crime as a pretext to promote a harsher policy to restrict fundamental individual rights and strengthen the police state and the uncontrolled action of the repressive mechanisms of the ΕU.

Within this framework it proposes: the approximation of the criminal law provisions of the Member States, thereby paving the way for the ‘communitisation’ of criminal law and limiting one of the most important foundations of the national sovereignty of the Member States, the creation of joint investigation teams acting for the repressive mechanisms, the autonomy of Europol and Eurojust and the strengthening of their character and competences, so that they can act as a ‘moving spirit’ in the exercise of the policy of the Member States, the recognition of the fundamental role of the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator and the adoption of an informant mechanism, calling for ‘a formal status for collaborators of justice at European level’.

Of course, after all that, it is hardly surprising that the report makes no reference to the link between organised crime and state institutions and the repressive state mechanisms themselves, even though their underground relations are common knowledge.

It is clear that, ultimately, the real aim of the report is to ‘combat’ democratic rights and grassroot freedoms, not organised crime.

– Report: Nicholson of Winterbourne (A6-0158/2007)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Because we believe that it is not at EU level that foreign policy should be conducted or, by extension, foreign policy statements made, we have voted against all the amendments and against the report as a whole. There is no doubt that many of the proposals are commendable in themselves, but neither the EU nor the European Parliament should have competence in these issues.

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. The European Parliamentary Labour Party is pleased to have been able to inject a degree of balance and impartiality into this report, which was severely lacking in the first draft presented to Committee.

In relation to amendments 16 and 34, we express our deep concern regarding the suspension of the Pakistan Chief Justice and subsequent unrest that has led to over 40 deaths. Protecting the independence of the judiciary is of vital importance in a modern democratic society. However, referring to this case is inappropriate in a report dealing specifically with the Kashmir dispute.

With regards to combating terrorism, we have supported the more constructive and forward-looking language in amendments 55 and 56, which acknowledge that there has been progress in decreasing the levels of infiltration by militant groups, but that further action needs to be taken in parallel with meaningful demilitarisation.

In voting for amendments 18 and 56, we reaffirm the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people, which can be expressed through a plebiscite when the conditions are right.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. Reluctantly, I voted for this report. I recognise that it is radically different from the one-sided version originally put before the Foreign Affairs Committee and thank those involved for those changes. Kashmir is a region divided by history and has become a cause of conflict, which has been perpetuated at times by government and militant action on both sides of the Line of Control.

This is not simply an issue for governments but also for the Kashmiri people. I regret that Parliament did not vote to strengthen the commitment to the right of those people for self-determination through a plebiscite. I also regret that we did not strengthen our calls for the demilitarisation of the region. I recognise the role of insurgency but we must acknowledge that the Indian side has one of the highest ratios of military and security personnel to the population of any part of the world. We call for confidence-building measures and greater democracy: democracy cannot flourish in such circumstances. So, I wish the final report had been stronger on these crucial areas but I also recognise that this version now has a political value in EU relations with the peoples concerned.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this report, which is more balanced than the text put to Committee. I abstained on the amendment which expressed regret at the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan not because I disagree with the criticism but because I did not see it as relevant to this report. I voted for the amendment calling for a plebiscite at a future date because I believe that the people of Kashmir should be in charge of their own destiny.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. Having visited Kashmir and seen some of the devastating effects of the past violence but also having seen a people ready for peace, I support this report based on the importance it has for the way the European Union seeks, by offering best practice measures and experience, to show other countries how an economic zone can develop peace and prosperity in regions that have a history of war.

I herald the confidence-building measures proposed in this report, in particular the joint monitoring cell for the sharing of data on seismic activity to provide early warning against possible earthquakes. I also see the importance of community development measures that will stimulate the economy and activate untapped economic resources in the region.

Furthermore, I believe it is of utmost importance that the region of AJK has proper representation in the Pakistani Government, which it does not yet have.

- Estonia (B6-0205/2007)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) Mr President, first I would like to thank my colleagues who voted for the resolution on Estonia. Today's vote in the European Parliament showed that EU common foreign and defence policy is not just a declaration on paper or a collection of slogans. It showed that it is an operating policy. Today the European Parliament demonstrated something else too; namely, that solidarity in the European Union is alive and an operating principle. It is easy to declare and demonstrate solidarity when there are no problems and everything is fine. However, it is much more important and more complicated to implement solidarity at critical moments, in times of crisis. Today the European Parliament also showed that there is no disjuncture in the European Union between old and new, or large and small European Union Member States, and that there are no important or less important Members whose interests can be sacrificed for the benefit or interests of the large countries.

  Gerard Batten and Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM), in writing. UKIP deplores the behaviour of Russia towards Estonia, but cannot vote in favour of any resolution from the EU Parliament whose legitimacy we do not recognise.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We are firmly opposed to the resolution adopted by Parliament today, which trivialises and obfuscates the true, serious significance of the recent events in Estonia and forms part of attempts to rewrite history. Hence our vote against the resolution.

The point must be made that the resolution fails to make any reference to acts of Nazism and Fascism in Estonia, such as the renewed veneration of collaborators with the Nazi occupiers, thereby hiding their participation in the brutal repression and systematic murder of thousands of people.

The recent decision to remove a World War II memorial in honour of those who lost their lives in the cause of defeating the Nazis and Fascists – entailing the removal of human remains – from the centre of Tallinn is a further provocation which forms part of this revisionism. The citizens of Estonia legitimately expressed their opposition to this decision and their actions were brutally repressed. Added to this provocation is the unacceptable discrimination towards large sections of the Russian-speaking Estonian population, who are refused citizenship by the authorities.

This is an issue that goes way beyond EU relations with the Russian Federation. All anti-fascists and democrats should join forces to express their indignation.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) I support the resolution because we believe that Russian interference in what happened in Estonia is very serious and is unacceptable.

I do not, however, agree with paragraph 8. It is up to each sovereign state to decide whether or not a dialogue should be begun. Paragraph 7 comments on the Internet attacks carried out. These are very serious actions, but I do not believe that the EU should devise a plan in this connection, because the issue is best dealt with at Member State level.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I supported the resolution on Estonia, which showed solidarity with the country in the face of interference by the Russian authorities in the internal affairs of Estonia. In particular, I support the call on the Russian Government to respect the Vienna Convention on the protection of diplomats.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the compromise motion for a resolution on the recent events in Estonia, as did the left wing of the European Parliament, because it is governed by unilateral perceptions and because I believe that it is unacceptable for anyone to revise history, whatever they suffered from the Soviets. The monument whose removal was the cause of the demonstrations and tension is a monument to the victory over fascism. No one can call it otherwise in the name of opposition to Soviet sovereignty. The unilateral approach to the matter cannot be accepted. Not only does it not help to reduce the tension caused between Estonia and Russia, it feeds it.

  Marek Siwiec (PSE), in writing. (PL) The riots in Tallinn and the attack on the Estonian embassy in Moscow have made Member States aware of the current government’s policy towards individual Member States. However, on this occasion, Moscow, which has adopted a very aggressive stance towards one of the smallest European countries, has bitten off more than it can chew. For the first time, Europe has presented a unified front towards Russia. This is an important day in the history of the European Union, as solidarity is one of the fundamental principles on which the Community is based. That is why I am pleased to have been part of the majority of Members who supported the adoption of the previously mentioned resolution.

11. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

12. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

13. Agenda: see Minutes

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

14.1. The Radio Caracas TV Channel in Venezuela

  President. – The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on the case of ‘Radio Caracas TV’ in Venezuela⁽¹⁾.

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), author. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Venezuela we are witnessing the classic phenomenon of the gradual concentration of authoritarian power. The Venezuelan Government often speaks of itself as the promoter of a revolution and we should therefore be asking whether that revolution is leading in a democratic direction or not. Unfortunately it is not.

Things are increasingly moving in the opposite direction to freedoms, fundamental rights, pluralism and social harmony. There are other worrying phenomena that I could mention in the political, constitutional, legislative, social and also, recently, military spheres. These events are worrying for all democrats, for the Venezuelan people's friends in the world and also for the large Portuguese community that lives and works in Venezuela.

We know that the Venezuelans have paid a high price to win democracy over the last fifty years, and we want it to be maintained. We also know that political and social stability is valuable for democracy, freedom and peace.

Today we are focussing on the Radio Caracas Televisión case and on the threat that it represents to freedom of expression, a universal fundamental right. I shall not go into details, but it was his Excellency President Chávez who, on 28 December, announced the decision to close down the broadcasts of Radio Caracas, making extremely serious political accusations against it.

The competent authority did not issue the administrative act until three months later, on 28 March, and that act does not mention any of the serious accusations that the Venezuelan Embassy in Brussels has also communicated to us. None of these accusations have been brought before a court and the administrative act of the National Telecommunications Council (CONATEL) mentions other intentions involving the creation of a public service channel, in a process which, in our countries, we would consider illegal and arbitrary.

The mood has become more heated and we have seen people protesting against this decision in the streets. We also know from the polls that public opinion is against and we know that this is a political case, and, being a political one, it is therefore a bad case.

We are calling for the Rule of Law to be upheld and we are appealing for dialogue: dialogue and law. That is what is needed.

  Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL), author. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, an international campaign is being conducted to delegitimise Venezuela, its freely elected President and all its democratic institutions. There is a direct relationship between today’s debate and this international campaign; even the European Parliament is inappropriately debating an issue that is for the Venezuelan national government alone to decide. What is more, our debate focuses on an inappropriate sector, that of human rights violations, when in fact we all know that no human rights have been violated.

The reality is that this represents a political move; it is no accident that this agenda item was put forward by a group of MEPs and not by an official European Parliament delegation as some have tried to claim, to be precise, by a group of MEPs who went to Venezuela and met with members of the opposition only.

In reality, the non-renewal of the licence for Radio Caracas TV is a matter for the Venezuelan Government alone, and their decision respects the country’s laws and constitution. Radio Caracas TV will be able to transmit via cable, satellite and the Internet, and therefore those who claim that the decision represents an act that is hostile to freedom of expression know this to be a lie. There are a great number of cases in Europe in which frequency licences are not renewed and yet this Parliament has never spoken of human rights violations and curbing freedom of expression.

The fact is that freedom of expression and pluralism of information and television broadcasts are guaranteed in Venezuela. In the particular case of Radio Caracas TV we are talking about a television station that played an active role in supporting the coup in 2002 and the oil blockade in 2002 and 2003. Any accusations of subversive activities should therefore be made to those who have encouraged the breakdown of Venezuela’s democratic and constitutional regime through a terrorist campaign and by manipulating information, and certainly not to a democratically elected government actively demonstrating its social commitment.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, RCTV is a privately-owned TV station, which has been operating in Venezuela for more than half a century. RCTV’s history is, unfortunately, stigmatised mainly by its alleged controversial role in the April 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela. This is seen as the main reason behind the recent National Telecommunications Commission’s decision, supported by a Supreme Tribunal decision, not to renew RCTV’s broadcast licence.

Against this position, one has to set the upholding of the principle of freedom of the press and of media plurality. I admit the situation here is not black and white and the line separating one side of opinion from another is very fine, but only by a tiny margin we consider the freedom of the press prevails and any alleged ill-doing by the RCTV station must be properly substantiated in a court of law. Consequently, my group supports the resolution as it stands.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), author. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance believes that the non-renewal of the frequency licence for RCTV represents a politically inopportune precedent, insofar as such measures should be restricted to the specific cases laid down by law.

At the same time, we refuse to become involved in a campaign that is justified not only by events in Venezuela, but has arisen within a Member State of the European Union, that is to say in Spain, where this idea is actively used. In our opinion, dealing with such matters in an atmosphere of urgency, in a situation in which there is no opportunity for background work on freedom of expression, not only in Venezuela, I might add, but also in various other countries of the European Union, does not enable our Parliament to work on these issues in a credible manner.

We cannot divide ourselves into left and right on such subjects, we cannot take a vote in which one side of the Chamber goes one way and the other side goes another. We must send out a positive message that encourages dialogue and does not conjure up phantoms and devils. Although we will not support the resolution, we believe and we hope that approval will be given to a paragraph enabling our competent committees to work together on these issues to achieve a united position that may be of use to the debate in Venezuela.

It is not a question of interfering in national affairs, but words like ‘legitimacy’ and ‘illegitimacy’ are not to be bandied about at random. We are talking about a serious topic; we recognise that there is indeed a risk of restriction of freedom in Venezuela, but this does not justify a witch-hunt that is, moreover, unworthy of the European Union.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, when we speak about freedom of speech and the fact that President Chavez decided not to renew the licence of one of the largest radio and television networks in Venezuela, we should consider in general terms what the limits of freedom are. We agree that freedom is not absolute, that it is restricted for the good of others, that it is limited by moral principles and that it may be restricted by legal principles. Freedom must serve a purpose. The freedom of the press is the very cornerstone of useful freedom.

That is why I am surprised that here, in this Chamber, there are those from the Left, as is often case, who are attempting to justify the fact that freedom can be limited simply because the freedom in question is that of political adversaries. Freedom for us, according to one of the previous speakers, is a good thing, but freedom for our adversaries is not. This kind of freedom is no freedom at all. This is something we have experienced and observed. We lived in a communist state where people said that freedom should exist, but only for us, and not for our adversaries, in keeping with the famous motto that ‘there is no freedom for enemies of freedom’.

Communism fell and it seemed that we would have peace. Meanwhile, it turns out that Communism is like a hydra which springs back to life in various parts of the world and that there are those who defend it even here in this Chamber. They say that Mr Chavez is doing the right thing by silencing those he does not like, as it turns out that those people are also disliked by some of those present here.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us beware of the Left, the extreme Left, which is always prepared to defend all restrictions placed on human rights when it suits their purposes.

  Daniel Hannan, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, dictatorships are not established overnight. They take form through a thousand small subversions of the democratic order – the targeting of opposition leaders, the subversion of the electoral commission, the vitiation of the judiciary, the dissolution of the national assembly and, not least, the silencing of independent media.

Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela has something of the feel of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s. There are still elections, there are still opposition parties, there are still free newspapers, but the direction is unmistakable. True, President Chávez has not annulled the electoral process, but then there were elections every four years in the Comecon states throughout the Cold War. There are elections today in most of Mr Chávez’s closest allies – Iran, Byelorussia, Zimbabwe – it is simply that opponents of the regime find it hard to contest those elections, and that is why we should be so alarmed by the harassment and expropriation of Mr Chávez’s critics.

Venezuela is not Cuba, at least not yet, but the complacency exhibited by some in this House is at best naive, and at worst shameful. We are witnessing the slow asphyxiation of a once open and liberal polity. If we do nothing else, for heaven’s sake, let us at least register our disapprobation!

  Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I wish to speak in this House in defence of press freedom: here, in Venezuela and anywhere in the world.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has supported a motion for a resolution, basically presented by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance with certain amendments, and we are still supporting it in this House.

We are doing so because there are elections in Venezuela, as previous speakers have said. Mrs Frassoni and I were there representing the European Union during the last elections, and we witnessed a fair election process. There is press freedom in Venezuela.

It is true that it is not good for press freedom to be restricted and we must be concerned about anything of that nature, but we must also acknowledge that the Venezuelan Government is a democratic government and that there are judicial guarantees. Any intervention by us could therefore be interpreted as the European Union interfering in the internal affairs of a country that is in a rather delicate situation.

Venezuela is currently split in two and the last thing we should do is contribute to a confrontation amongst Venezuelans. The role of this Parliament and of the European Union must be to act in a friendly manner towards the Venezuelan authorities, society and political forces in order to prevent this conflict from becoming any worse.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is true that President Chávez’s economic and social policies are posing a big challenge to powerful interests and there may well be, as Mr Catania maintains, a campaign to delegitimise his government. However, we are not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of his socio-economic policies or indeed the internal politics of Venezuela. This motion for a resolution is an expression of worry about a suppression of pluralism and dissent, and that is our business. It is a shame if the elevation of President Chávez to an icon of anti-globalisation and anti-capitalism blinds some in this House to the drift towards an authoritarian and anti-democratic system. I find myself in rather rare agreement with Mr Hannan.

This has happened to the Mayor of my city, London, Mr Livingstone, who belongs to the Labour Party. A year ago he said: ‘For many years people have demanded that social progress and democracy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what is now taking place in Venezuela. ... With Chávez the choice is not difficult at all. He is both carrying out a progressive programme and doing so through the mandate of the ballot box.’

It is true, as Mr Hannan has said, that there are still elections, but there is an undoubted drift towards autocracy and a suppression of opinions that do not fit with the regime. We had some amusement when six months ago Mr Livingstone went 5000 miles to try to see President Chávez but unfortunately got stranded in Cuba because the President could not find the time to see him. We had a laugh about that. However, it is quite serious when somebody who is democratically elected as the Mayor of, I would say, Europe’s premier city, finds himself wishing to cosy up to someone who is not only populist but increasingly authoritarian. It is because there are breaches of human rights in Venezuela that we have this motion for a resolution.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, we have said it before and we must say it again: freedom of expression is not just a fundamental right, but it is also the guarantee of democracy. We must therefore condemn, and combat, any attempt to restrict it or violate it, wherever it takes place.

This is precisely what is expressed in the joint resolution presented by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, in which we call essentially for two things: firstly, for the Venezuelan State to guarantee the plurality of the media and non-concentration as a mechanism for promoting freedom of expression; and secondly, we call upon the Venezuelan media, both public and private, to treat information relating to electoral politics in an objective and impartial manner.

The resolution also takes note of the Venezuelan Government's statement that it will abide strictly by decisions taken by the judiciary, and we add that all of the parties should do exactly the same thing.

I sincerely believe that this is an extremely balanced resolution that is consistent with the principles of freedom of expression and plurality of the media. I can therefore only imagine that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group have presented their alternative proposal for reasons of Spanish domestic politics, not motivated by the fundamental issue that we are discussing but rather by the kind of political opportunism that we have seen on previous occasions in this House.

It ignores fundamental facts such as, for example, the fact that the non-renewal of the licence is only for VHF and not for broadcasts by cable, UHF, satellite or Internet.

It is not a question of deciding whether or not we are in favour of Hugo Chávez: that is not the issue. What we are talking about here is freedom of expression, but let us not indulge in demagoguery please.

  Sahra Wagenknecht, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the present resolution represents a further attempt by the conservative groups to exploit the subject of human rights for their own ends. This is not about the freedom of the media; it is about condemning the Venezuelan Government, one that has repeatedly received an overwhelming majority of the popular vote in democratic elections and is serious about fighting poverty and exploitation in its country – in contrast, of course, to most European governments, who with their neoliberal agenda are making the gulf between the haves and the have-nots ever wider.

In fact, it is Europe where the tackling of the power of private media moguls and private media conglomerates, and the establishment of a genuinely democratic media culture, is long overdue. Instead of arrogantly interfering in Venezuelan media politics, therefore, it would be far more appropriate to follow the example of the democratic and social standard of the Bolivian revolution. Europe, too, has alternatives to neoliberalism.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the President of Venezuela, Mr Hugo Chavez, has said that he will not renew the licence of one of the largest private television stations, Radio Caracas TV, which has been broadcasting for 53 years.

This move is nothing less than an attack on democracy and freedom of speech, as well as an attempt to undermine the position of private broadcasting companies that are critical of the Venezuelan Government. This decision is unacceptable and goes against all international treaties which Venezuela has signed and which compel it to respect the plurality of the media, not to mention the fact that Articles 57 and 58 of the Venezuelan constitution guarantee the freedom of speech, communication and information. Events taking place in Venezuela are extremely worrying, as they are yet another example of the flagrant abuse of human and civil rights in countries which call themselves democracies, such as Cuba, China or Venezuela.

The death of Anna Politkovska, a Russian journalist who denounced the Kremlin’s activities in Chechnya, recently shocked the world. The European Union should clearly and emphatically denounce attempts to silence journalists who have dared to criticise the government. We cannot remain indifferent to the infringement of democratic principles.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the superficial interest of the political groups of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Liberals and the Union for Europe of the Nations, to project on the pretext of freedom of expression and through a joint resolution by the European Parliament the groundless, false allegations by the owners of the Radio Caracas TV radio and television station and the reactionary political forces in Venezuela which together played a leading part in the attempted coup in 2002, in the oil embargo in 2003, in the subversive action during the referendum on the dismissal of the president and in the constant, blatant infringements of the rules of freedom of information, is a barefaced and unacceptable action against both the government and the people of Venezuela.

Information is a social commodity. 82% of radio and television stations belong to private companies. The spectrum of radio and television frequencies in Venezuela is a social asset that belongs to the people of the country and the legal representative for its management is its government. The government of Venezuela fully applies national and international rules on freedom of information.

It takes a great deal of courage for someone to attack the government of Venezuela from this tribune when it is clear that the reasons for the attack lie elsewhere. They basically want to restore the status quo ante in Venezuela, they want the wealth-producing resources in this country and they want the exploitation of the people of Venezuela to continue and the European Parliament and the people of Venezuela themselves will not allow it.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) President Hugo Chávez has prevented Radio Caracas Televisión from renewing its license. Tens of thousands of Venezuelan citizens have gone out on to the streets to defend free broadcasting and they are expecting the help of democratic Europe. They are aware that if they lose their broadcasting freedom, what awaits them is the ‘Cuban way’. They are aware that they will soon be prisoners in their own country, just like the Cubans, without independent information, because they are losing the opportunity to decide their affairs through democratic means. Chávez is planning to silence the media and to crush the opposition, which is warning that nationalisation and autocracy are bringing to the country not development, but food rations for poor people on the one hand, and luxury and unlimited power for the communist oligarchy on the other. Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia: this is a dangerous alliance of autocratic regimes spreading anti-democratic ideologies around Latin America and the Caribbean. Europe will not remain silent. We insist on Venezuela upholding its international obligations on human rights and on maintaining equal rights for independent media outlets.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission has been closely following the debate on the future of Radio Caracas TV, and our concern was raised at the outset by the statement made by the President of Venezuela and members of the Venezuelan Government to the effect that the frequency would not be renewed as of 27 May.

The Commission has raised this important issue with the Venezuelan authorities several times. We have always underlined each state’s sovereign right to organise and regulate its own broadcasting policies, but we have also stressed the importance that the European Union attaches to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. In its contacts with the Venezuelan Government, the Commission has also underlined its support for all initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue and mutual understanding and stressed that licensing procedures for the broadcast media should be transparent and non-discriminatory.

The Commission received a letter in April from the head of television, Mr Granier, and members of Primero Justicia. It has also held meetings with the authorities and members of the Venezuelan Parliament and has listened carefully to the arguments and explanations offered by both sides.

I wish to assure Parliament that the Commission is keeping a close eye on developments through its delegation in Venezuela and by virtue of its close cooperation with the diplomatic representations of EU Member States in Caracas.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes.

14.2. Human rights in Syria

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on human rights in Syria⁽¹⁾.

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE), author. – (FR) Mr President, my interest in Syrian affairs is common knowledge; I have always taken the view that isolating that country would do no good at the international level and would do nothing to advance peace in the region, and it is for that reason that I am a supporter of the plan for an association agreement, which has been put on ice ever since the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. Commitment to Syria and friendship with it also imply, however, that we do not mince our words when fundamental rights are violated, and that is why I take a critical line on, and indeed denounce, the political repression under which all the opposition, of whatever tendency, currently labour.

Most of the prisoners for whose release we are calling today are people we have met; they are almost friends, and none of them, when speaking with us, talked in terms of recourse to any means other than legal and peaceful ones in democratising the country that they all love passionately. When a country turns on those who love it passionately, when it stifles freedom of expression, it puts itself in danger, and I would not want to see Syria doing that to itself.

Today, we are calling for the release of Michel Kilo, Mahmoud Issa, Suleiman Achmar, Faek El Mir, Aref Dalila, Kamal al-Labwani and Anouar Bunni, who must be set at liberty. I would therefore appreciate it if the Council and the Commission were to pass this message on to the Syrian Government and if that body were to give it a very great deal of attention, for the message is a serious one.

Moreover, it would be good if Syria were to firmly declare itself in favour of there being an international criminal tribunal under Chapter 6 to try Hariri’s assassins; the international community would appreciate such a gesture, which would facilitate an exit from the political stalemate with which Lebanon is struggling, a stalemate that encourages recurrent bloody conflicts and offers forebodings of a period of violence and instability. It is common knowledge that Syria’s adopting such a position, far from being an interference in Lebanese affairs, would, on the contrary, make it possible to break the deadlock and, above all, to put a stop to the rumours that give people cause to think that Syrian could, in an underhand way, frustrate the establishment of such a criminal tribunal.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. – (NL) Syria is a permanently recurring item on our agenda. The European Union is keen to strike up good and intense relations with that country in the framework of the Neighbourhood Policy involving countries around the Mediterranean. The chaos in its neighbour, Iraq, is yet another reason why stability in Syria would be valuable.

Syria, however, is a dictatorship that does not tolerate internal opposition. For Christians and Kurds, it is, to say the least, an unpleasant place to be. Although it is not a theocratic state with sympathies towards Muslim fundamentalism, it does consider Iran – which is a theocratic dictatorship – as an ally.

In Lebanon, it gives its backing to Lebanese and Palestinian Muslim fundamentalists, as long as they help to build up Syrian influence in its small neighbour. Lebanon is considered – albeit wrongly so – as an area that has been cut off from Syria as a result of European intervention. The conflict with Israel is being carefully nourished, because the tension that this brings with it means that the Syrians could well consider the continued existence of the regime as the lesser of two evils.

There is no improvement in sight. Both an aggressive attitude towards Syria and friendly relations with this regime are counterproductive. The only thing that can contribute to long-term improvement is support for Syrian refugees and Syrian opponents in prison and in exile.

I would like to finish off by saying that those who have recently become the victims of restrictions on freedom, like Michel Kilo who has been to visit this Parliament before, need our undivided attention.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, the annual report on the human rights situation in Syria for 2006 makes very grim reading indeed. Scores of arbitrary arrests and detentions of political opposition figures, reformists and human rights and civil society activists have taken place. In addition, documented reports of torture used as a routine and systematic interrogation method of extracting confessions are found in abundance. Furthermore, corrupt members of the Syrian judiciary, both civil and military, have been passing draconian sentences, including life incarceration and death sentences, influenced mainly by political motives.

We call upon the Syrian Government, in the face of international condemnation, to at last make a serious effort to improve respect for the human rights of its citizens or face the consequences, which I hope, with some reservation, will be forthcoming and drastic.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), author. – (DE) Mr President, Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, and present-day Syria is an ancient cultural area in which several peoples and religions have coexisted – peacefully, for the most part – for centuries, and where close cooperation between Muslims and Christians still exists. Mr Dess and I are particularly involved with the dialogue between these religions, which certainly has a good chance of success in that country – being an Arab country that is not Islamist and is very important throughout the region. All the more regrettable, then, that a regime has established itself there that, under Ba’athist national socialism, is victimising, persecuting and repressing people, subjecting them to show trials and taking political prisoners – and this at a time when our need for Syria’s help in achieving peace in the region is more pressing than ever.

I am not one of those who believe in the complete isolation of Syria. The country has an ancient tradition; one that should be harnessed to build peace. Without Syria there can be no peace in the Middle East, no peace in Lebanon and no resolution of the Iraq problem. For this very reason, however, we cannot accept violations of human rights, such as the repression of Kurds and others on the flimsiest grounds, and so we would appeal to Syria to return to a policy of dialogue and cooperation. We are prepared to engage in this, but not with a regime that lacks the fundamental will to respect democracy and the rule of law. It is impossible to conduct a reasonable foreign and security policy and reasonable economic relations with a country that shows contempt for fundamental human rights. This should be a clear signal to Syria, therefore, to change its course and return to the path of cooperation.

  Adam Bielan (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, the ongoing human rights abuses in Syria are reaching a frightening scale. The Syrian Government is drastically restricting freedom of speech, assembly and association of any kind. The Syrian authorities continue to pursue a policy of intimidation and imprisonment when dealing with human rights defenders and peaceful critics of the policies of the current government.

Following the Beirut-Damascus declaration, which was signed in May of 2006, and which appealed for improved relations between Lebanon and Syria, the Syrian security forces arrested a dozen or so people for expressing views in this declaration that were different to the those of the Syrian Government. Those arrested included the brilliant writer Michel Kilo and the human rights campaigner Anwar al-Bunni. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prison without ever having been sentenced. The year 2006 passed without the Syrian authorities providing any information on the fate of 17 000 people arrested by the Syrian security forces. They were mainly members of the banned organisation Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian activists arrested in the 1980s and a few hundred Lebanese and Palestinian citizens arrested in Syria and Lebanon by the Syrian security forces, as well as by the Syrian-controlled Lebanese and Palestinian military police.

As representatives of the European Union, we have to decisively oppose further repression and human rights abuses in Syria, as we jointly stated in today’s resolution.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission, together with Member States, is following the situation in Syria very closely.

Since our last debate at the June 2006 part-session there have been a few positive developments. I would like to point out that a human rights contact was appointed in January 2007 in the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also consider it positive that the EU is granted regular access to trials at the High State Security Court, the Military Court and the Criminal Court.

However, we regret that none of the promises of political openness have been transformed into action – for instance, the relaxation of the emergency law, the adoption of a multi-party law, the granting of citizenship to stateless Kurds or the declaration of the National Council for Human Rights. We also deplore the disproportionate sentences pronounced against prominent civil society activists in recent weeks. We cannot accept that they are jailed only because they have expressed themselves freely.

We call again for the release of all political prisoners in Syria. To give an example, all our attempts to help Mr Anwar al-Bunni have led to a dead end. Today Mr al-Bunni was sentenced to five years in prison merely for denouncing torture and poor prison conditions in Syria and fined EUR 1500 for allegedly not respecting Syria’s law when setting up the training centre, also financed by European Funds.

For several years the Commission has been supporting the modernisation process in Syria through a range of activities. We have seen very encouraging results in the economic field. We sincerely hope that these will spread to the political sphere. We will continue to encourage Syria to respect this obligation and the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights and Torture. I am sure that the European Parliament will give its support to these efforts by the Commission.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes.

14.3. Human rights in Sudan

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on human rights in Sudan⁽¹⁾.

  Karin Scheele (PSE), author. – (DE) Mr President, on 6 March and 13 February 2007, respectively, Amouna Abdallah Daldoum, 23 years old, and Sadia Idries Fadul, 22 years old, were convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. Both women had been found guilty of adultery by a criminal court in Managil province, Gezira state. According to reports, the women did not have a lawyer during the trial, and could not even conduct their own defence because they only speak the language of their respective ethnic group. The trial was conducted in Arabic, but the women were not provided with interpreters. There was an appeal against the verdict.

According to the Sudanese Embassy in Brussels, the court quashed the death sentence on grounds of lack of legal assistance. We welcome the quashing of the death sentence if the court really confirms this, and we call on the Sudanese Government to ensure that the two women are not harmed physically or mentally.

On 3 May, two 16-year-olds were sentenced to death for murder and robbery. The imposition of the death penalty on young offenders is prohibited under international law. Sudan has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and accordingly committed itself to refraining from executing any persons under 18 years old. The Sudanese Government is called on to lift the death penalty imposed on the two minors and guarantee they are not harmed physically or mentally.

We call on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to condemn the death penalty, whipping and all other cruel and degrading punishments.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, this is my first term as a Member of the European Parliament, but I do recall that this is our third debate on the subject of Sudan. In an ideal situation, from the point of view of the Sudanese people, there would be no need for our involvement. I welcome the fact that the six largest political groups in Parliament have come to an agreement on the matter of Sudan, and that we have a joint position. Paradoxically enough, one could say that the suffering and terrible verdicts handed down by the injustice system, I repeat – the injustice system, in that country seem to unite us in Europe.

It is unacceptable in the twenty-first century for a situation to continue where women are sentenced to death by stoning for adultery or where sixteen year old children are sentenced to death by hanging. Yes, we have become involved in Sudan’s internal affairs. Moreover, we should be involved for moral as well as other reasons. One of these reasons is that we have already earmarked EUR 85 million for humanitarian aid to that country this year alone. That figure was increased two months ago, as it initially stood at EUR 40 millions. We also have to loudly denounce cruel practices, such as the mutilation of young women, which also occurs in that country.

On a personal note, there is no point hiding the fact that there is a debate taking place in my country on the subject of the death penalty. Personally, I am against the death penalty. Events in Sudan confirm my convictions, although the cultural context is, of course, entirely different.

I would like to highlight the fact that we have to show solidarity in this matter. We have to act together, as it is only our solidarity, the solidarity of the whole European Union, that can put an end to these absurd verdicts.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, Sudan is perhaps best known for the conflict in Darfur, in which human rights abuses have reached gigantic proportions. However, Sudan is also a state where respect for human rights in general is seriously lacking throughout the country.

This motion for a resolution reminds us again of the anachronistic and primitive judicial system applicable in Sudan, a system that allows the sentencing of women to death by stoning if found guilty of adultery and the sentencing of children to death. It is truly hard to believe that in the 21st century there are still governments that continue to tolerate and support such extraordinarily barbaric systems.

We understand that Sudan is a very poor country, with many political and economic problems, but such problems should not be an excuse for not following a course of common-sense-guided progress towards upholding universal values of justice and democracy. Furthermore, we find it difficult to accept how religion can interfere to such drastic and occasionally sadistic effect in matters of criminal and civil law.

We wish to send a strong message to the Sudanese Government that our patience is running out and the limits on our tolerance have long been exceeded. We demand that they implement an urgent revision of their judicial system, taking into consideration international law, UN conventions and respect for the human rights of the Sudanese people. We trust this will be done speedily, in order to avoid having to resort to more drastic persuasive measures.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE), author. – (DE) Mr President, I fully agree with Mr Matsakis, except on one point. He states that Sudan is a poor country – which is true, but, with its oil wealth and much more, it has the potential to be an extremely rich one. Yet it is being exploited, and international forces and companies have certainly fanned the flames of the war in Darfur and elsewhere to promote their energy interests.

Sudan, with its defective political system, is also inflicting infinite harm on itself, however, not only as a result of the conflict between north and south, east and west, Christians and Muslims – as the generalisation always goes – but also as a result of a host of individual conflicts. For this reason, we must insist on respect for fundamental human rights there. As has just been said, rightly, Europe rejects the death penalty. The debate in Poland has been mentioned. As we know, the death penalty is incompatible with membership of the European Union and also of the Council of Europe; but similar standards are having to be developed slowly in Africa, of course. The still fledgling African Union is particularly called upon in this regard to not only develop, but also implement and enforce politically the relevant human rights standards little by little – we know that this cannot be done overnight.

For this reason, we appeal to the Sudanese Government to not only discontinue the death penalty – particularly its particularly scandalous use on minors – but also to refrain from a) misinterpreting Sharia law as it is doing, as the barbaric customs practised there have nothing to do with real Sharia law, and b) extending Sharia law to non-Islamic communities. The country must comply with normal civil law that is in line with the human rights standards of the United Nations.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), author. – (ES) Of all the horrors that can be inflicted on a human being, death by stoning is unquestionably one of the most incomprehensible and patently unacceptable.

The case we are discussing today, the sentencing to death by stoning of Sadia Idris Fadul and Amouna Abdallah Daldoum, has two equally important dimensions. On the one hand, it obliges us once again to state our opposition to the death penalty as a form of punishment under any circumstances, and, on the other, it brings us face to face with another case of flagrant gender discrimination, since the sentence in question is based on an alleged crime – adultery – that is only classed as such in the case of women, and not in the case of men.

It is not sufficient, therefore, to call for compliance with the international legislation regarding the death penalty against minors, nor even to urge all of the countries maintaining that practice to consign it to judicial and political history. In this case, we must also present this situation as one of blatant sexism, or one of selective killings on behalf of a patriarchy, which comes to the same thing.

What we are dealing with when it comes to this kind of sentence that only affects women is a situation in which less value is attached to the lives of women compared to those of men. That is not acceptable in Sudan or in any other country of the world.

I am therefore delighted with the extremely high degree of consensus on this resolution and I hope that it will contribute not just to putting an end to the death penalty but also to the practice of valuing the lives of men and women differently.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. – (NL) Mr President, even in the days when the current state of Sudan was still known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the question was whether this very extensive area with very different peoples should gain independence as one state. A united state would mainly be the state of the Arabic people in the north, the east and the centre, because it would be difficult for the black Islamic people in the east and the black Christian and animistic people in the south to secure an equivalent position.

These areas, which were far less developed, were at a fair distance from the sea and were largely unknown to the international community. Eventually, they were ignored by everyone. After years of war, a compromise appeared to have been struck for the non-Islamic south that had been given self-government and a representation in the central government. As we know, this is not the case for Darfur that is located to the west.

Fundamentalism is a prevailing force among the dominating Arabic people, and particularly among those who wield power and administer justice, with capital punishment, even stoning, for offences including adultery being the worst outward signs of this. The resolution rightly draws attention to international agreements and the need to abolish capital punishment. Sufficient attention must be given to this area, for the situation facing Sudan is a terrible one.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg , on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, the conflict in Sudan, which has continued for over 50 years, has claimed at least 2 million victims. The breakthrough in one of the bloodiest wars in contemporary Africa came when a peace agreement was signed in Nairobi in 2005. However, the conflict continues in Darfur, in the western part of the country. To date, this conflict has resulted in 400 000 deaths and has displaced 2 million people. The inhabitants of this province are victims of the most serious crisis in the world today. They have no food, water or healthcare. The situation in Darfur has been critical for four years. The European Union has yet to take any effective steps to force the government in Khartoum to stop committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The latest reports on the execution of minors in Sudan is additional confirmation of the fact that this country has, once again, infringed human rights. Although Sudan has signed many international agreements, including the Cotonou agreement, it flagrantly disregards them. We can no longer simply express our concern regarding the situation in Sudan, as European foreign ministers have done for the last three years in nineteen declarations on this issue. The time has come for effective economic sanctions, which would show the Sudanese leaders that their campaign of mass violence against their own citizens has a real price.

  Danutė Budreikaitė, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the four-year war in Darfur gives little hope that human rights will be observed in countries at war.

Although the appropriate documents have been signed, the commitments made have not been honoured.

During the military conflict in Darfur about 200 000 people have perished, and 2.5 million of the province's people have become homeless. The country is rife with chaos and governmental self-indulgence.

I would like to draw attention to the conditions which continue to provoke military conflict and allow for human rights breaches in Sudan.

Whose arms are being used for the fighting in Darfur? According to Amnesty International, arms are being supplied to Darfur by China and Russia, although they deny it and have supported the UN Security Council resolution prohibiting the delivery of arms to Darfur.

In addition, China has many energy and raw material interests in Sudan. They come to take profits and, it would appear, the unstable situation is to their advantage.

Resolution of the conflict and rebuilding of human rights in Sudan will depend on the EU’s cooperation with interested parties and international organisations, and their commitments, which these countries are not honouring.

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. Mr President, Sudan’s human rights record remains a cause of extreme concern to the European Commission and the EU, especially in consideration of the insecure and extremely volatile situation still existing in marginalised areas such as Darfur. Almost two years after signing the comprehensive peace agreement, the Sudanese Government is falling far short of many of the human rights commitments made under the CPA and the internal interim national constitution, signed by the President of the Republic in July 2005.

Within the international community, European efforts to improve civilian protection in Sudan focus simultaneously on both security and political civilian actions. Since 2005 the Commission has funded approximately 35 projects aimed at promoting human rights and democracy in Sudan with a total budget of about EUR 6 million.

With regard to the cases of the two women mentioned in Parliament’s resolution, I can assure the honourable Members of Parliament that the European Union and the Commission are following the case very closely. This case was first raised by the heads of missions meeting in the Netherlands in mid-March and it was followed by the EU Troika on 27 March, composed of representatives from Germany, Greece and the Commission.

More recently the EU raised the issue at the last Advisory Council on Human Rights meeting on 16 April. The Court of Appeal ordered that case be returned to the court of origin – the al-Gezira State Court – to be looked into again. Although we remain firmly opposed to the death penalty, the fact that the case has been sent for retrial is at least positive and we hope that the women will be given a fair trial in line with international human rights standards.

The last case which we are discussing now is the case of two boys aged 16 years old sentenced to death by hanging. Various Member States and the Commission have raised this issue with the German Embassy and are waiting for the EU Presidency to take the lead on this issue in the days to come. If not, the Commission intends to raise this issue directly in a letter to the Sudanese authorities such as the Minister of Justice and the Advisory Council on Human Rights.

The next meeting of EU-Sudan political dialogue with the Advisory Council on Human Rights will be in early June and this could be a good opportunity to raise this case again.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. – How is this still going on? There have been so many genocides in the past 100 years and each time we say it will never happen again. But we know it is happening right now in Darfur, and the world knows it is happening – so why are we so powerless to stop it?

In my own country of Ireland we have been able to silence the gun and bring communities together that we never thought imaginable. So why are we so unable to make headway in this part of the world?

To answer this question, we need to look at the situation in Darfur in a different way. If the world’s sympathy and our resolutions could bring peace and relief to the people of Sudan it would have arrived long ago. We can continue to call on an unresponsive government in Sudan to change its ways, or we can look at why the support for its intransigence continues. We must cut the lifelines that are fuelling the destruction in Darfur, lifelines like Chinese oil money and Russian weapons. Until we are willing to stand up to these powers our resolutions will remain impotent and ineffective.

(1) See Minutes.

14.4. The situation concerning the President of the World Bank

  President. – The next item is the debate on four motions for resolutions on the situation concerning the President of the World Bank⁽¹⁾.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of my group. Under the Rules of Procedure, three debates on human rights issues are held within one hour on Thursday afternoon – and solely on cases of violations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. This is a fourth debate, and it has nothing to do with democracy or human rights.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that this constitutes an infringement of the Rules of Procedure – which not even the Conference of Presidents may disregard.

Thus my group formally proposes that this item be discontinued immediately.

  President. – I take note of your statement, Mr Posselt. Since the Conference of Presidents, in full knowledge of the facts, has decided to schedule four topics for debate today, I can do no more than take note of your statement and forward it to the President, who will consider how best to respond to it.

That having been said, this item clearly cannot be carried forward. You are familiar with the rules, according to which items not taken today under the heading of debates on matters of topical and urgent importance lapse, and so, if you are absolutely insistent on this item not being discussed today, it will lapse and will not be taken forward to the mini-session.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order, you said that the Conference of Presidents had decided this under the Rules of Procedure. Could you tell me under which rule they were enabled to extend this item to have four rather than three debates?

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, there has been a decision by the Conference of Presidents to follow this particular procedure. These matters have been placed on the agenda and I think that we should continue. I do not see why we are prevented from continuing our work.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE). – (FR) It may well be, Mr President, that we read the Rules of Procedure in a different way … In any case, as I read Rule 115, which allows these points of order to be put together under the heading of urgent business, the rule of law does actually have a part to play and, if the Conference of Presidents has ruled that, in its opinion, this resolution could be fitted in under this heading of our order of business, it may well be because the situation that has come about within the World Bank raises questions pertaining to the rule of law and of the way in which the law is applied within that institution.

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, as has already been said, the Rules of Procedure speak of three subjects – no one can disregard this. As my fellow Member has just mentioned, the matter itself has already been resolved by the resignation of the World Bank President. There is no reason whatsoever to address this matter, as the man concerned has taken the appropriate action. The Rules of Procedure state the number three, and we have already discussed three subjects. Even the Conference of Presidents cannot disregard this.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, the situation is as follows. As they stand, our Rules of Procedure permit the listing of three items on the agenda for debates on violations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; the Conference of Presidents has proposed four of them, and the plenary of our House accepted this on Monday without any objection being made.

It can be contested under Rule 167, by moving the inadmissibility of a matter, but this has to be done twenty-four hours before the debates.

In view of the fact that the Conference of Presidents, which is acquainted with the Rules of Procedure, made the proposal to the plenary, which did not object, I do not see how I could, today, go against the plenary’s decision on Monday, not least in view of the fact that you have not submitted your request within the prescribed time.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, it is possible, however, to propose the discontinuation of an item at the start of the debate – and that is what I have done.

  President. – Mr Posselt, I shall quote from the Rule: ‘The intention to move adjournment shall be notified at least twenty-four hours in advance to the President, who shall inform Parliament immediately.’

I very much regret it, but I am obliged to apply this Rule.

You are perfectly entitled to demand that this item be withdrawn; you were able to do so when the agenda was adopted on Monday. I would remind you that nobody in this House on Monday objected to the agenda as proposed by the Conference of Presidents, and the period in which the withdrawal of this item could be requested has, unfortunately, expired.

I really am very sorry, but I cannot decree that the plenary was wrong on Monday, and what I propose to do now is to move on to this debate, which, I can assure you, will be very brief, as very few Members have put themselves down to speak in it.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), author. – (NL) Mr President, appointing of the President of the World Bank should not be the privilege of the leader of the state with the largest package of shares, which has been the case to date. There was no need to compare the United States candidate to other candidates, or to weigh them up against each other, and there is one man who decides who the US candidate shall be.

Wolfowitz was not the choice of those most closely involved in the World Bank, but the American President, George W. Bush’s, and his alone. To Bush, he was a faithful ally, to others, an accident-prone person who always makes unsuccessful attempts at pursuing the wrong policy.

He was a very controversial man when he took up office in the World Bank and has not really ceased to be one now that he is leaving it. Showing favouritism towards his fiancée was not an inadvertent mistake, but the justification needed to put an end to his headstrong and unacceptable way of going about things. These mistakes should not be repeated when his successor is chosen. A transparent appointment procedure with public hearings for candidates is very much what is called for.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), author. – (FR) Mr President, 60 years after the implementation of the Bretton Woods system, something clearly has to change. Two years after Mr Wolfowitz’s arrival at the World Bank – and we all remember the conditions under which he was appointed and of which the previous speaker reminded us, whereby Mr Wolfowitz was obliged to come and explain himself to EU representatives meeting at Ecofin – it could be said that Europeans made the mistake of being right too early. Two years on, we find ourselves in a situation that has weakened not only the World Bank but also the entire international regulatory system, at a time when we really need it to be equal to its tasks.

I would urge the EU – and this is the point of the resolution we are proposing – in future to meet its responsibilities in full and prove capable of proposing changes to the Bretton Woods system, in order to enhance the system of nominations, which currently ensures neither the legitimacy, transparency nor credibility of the person in charge of an institution as important as the World Bank. In this regard, the International Monetary Fund, for example, operates a system in which there is a degree of competition between the candidates and a certain amount of publicity, and this strikes me as a more acceptable system. In order to obtain something similar, we need to hold exhaustive negotiations with our US partners, covering all aspects of the issue. We made this point in the resolution we adopted last month and, with this in mind, we call on the current German and forthcoming Portuguese Presidencies to consider proposals that the EU might like to put on the table. For the appointment of Mr Wolfowitz’s successor, Europeans will hopefully have the opportunity to hold a hearing with the selected candidate, prior to that person’s confirmation.

Lastly, we regret the fact that Mr Barroso acted as host to Mr Wolfowitz during the time when the latter’s post at the head of the World Bank was under review.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, Mr Wolfowitz belongs to the powerful Iraq War Bush gang. It was therefore no surprise to anyone that in June 2005 Uncle Sam appointed him to the lucrative post of President of the World Bank.

What was surprising was the sheer audacity exhibited by this individual in provocatively arranging a generous pay increase for his girlfriend, and even more surprising was the shameless way in which he fought to stay in office, despite the worldwide outcry against him. Needless to say, during this fight he had the full backing of President Bush, himself not unaccustomed to shameful behaviour. The Wolfowitz affair may now be over, but the stench associated with the Bush Administration’s corrupt and evil running of the world remains firmly stuck to our nasal smell receptors.

Let us hope and pray that, for the sake of the American people as well as for the rest of the world, soon enough Mr Bush and his warmongering associates will also find their way out of office. In adopting this motion for a resolution, we wish the World Bank good riddance to Mr Wolfowitz, and may better days ensue.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), author. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when Mr Wolfowitz was appointed to the head of the World Bank, our Parliament, through its Committee on Development, sent an open letter listing in detail all the problems liable to be created by an appointment made in this way, both in terms of governance and therefore the rule of law and from an international point of view.

Events have proven that initiative to be right, unfortunately it remained isolated within the European Union, given that neither the Commission nor the members of the Council have ever had a real desire to commit themselves to developing a European position on the Bretton Woods institutions.

I believe that the next few weeks hold a challenge for us: to demonstrate and try to convince the Member States, but also the Commission, to act on this issue, without pretending that the matter does not concern us; without a European voice, this kind of procedure will remain unchanged.

  Karin Scheele, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Paul Wolfowitz is stepping down as President of the World Bank at the end of June. The impetus for his resignation came primarily from Canada and Europe, as we justifiably feared a loss of confidence in the World Bank.

The principles of democracy, transparency and accountability of public institutions called for time and again by the outgoing World Bank President must also apply to the operations and decision processes of the World Bank itself. Like many of my fellow Members, I welcome the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative and one of the main proponents of the war in Iraq. Like many others, I regret that this decision is somewhat belated.

Of course, today’s discussion and resolution do not concern only Paul Wolfowitz personally. What is more important is to avoid making the same mistakes in future and to seek much better selection procedures. We would ask the German and Portuguese Presidencies to present proposals on behalf of the Union for making the selection of executives of the Bretton Woods Institutions more democratic, more transparent and more responsible in future.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the resolution talks about the Wolfowitz affair in terms of ‘the World Bank’s failure to live up to the globally shared standards of transparency and democracy’. What utter humbug! Any standards of transparency and democracy in the world are practised on a strictly limited basis, and the European Union hardly sets an example.

Mr Wolfowitz has been hounded out of office by those opposed to his anti-corruption agenda. The worst thing that the executive directors of the Bank could find to say against him was that ‘a number of mistakes were made’. If Mr Wolfowitz’s worst offence was giving his girlfriend a job, then it would hardly qualify as a minor error of judgement compared to the legendary levels of nepotism and corruption that the European Union has been guilty of over the years and the usual levels of corruption associated with the World Bank. Mr Wolfowitz wanted to clean it up and now he will not be able to, but it is an ill wind that cannot be used by the European Union to its advantage.

This brings me to paragraph 6 of the resolution that calls for the Commission to have observer status at the Bank and for it to attend and intervene at certain councils. The key phrase here is ‘pending legal personality for the Union’. That legal personality depends on the ratification of the European Constitution that the European Union intends to stuff down the throats of the peoples of Europe whether they want it or not.

President Bush should nominate a new head of the World Bank whose girlfriend or boyfriend already has a job and who will either clean it up or close it down, and he should make sure that the European Union is let nowhere near it in the meantime!

  Dalia Grybauskaitė, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission understands the European Parliament’s concerns about the situation at the World Bank before Mr Wolfowitz’s resignation. However, unlike the Member States, the Commission is not a shareholder in the Bank; it is not a member of the Board of Directors and can only take note of Mr Wolfowitz’s decision to resign.

The Commission calls on the Bank and its members to begin discussions to designate a successor to ensure continuity and stability in the leadership of the Bank. The World Bank plays a crucial role in development. The Commission looks forward to a continuing strong role for the World Bank and to continuing its good cooperation with this institution in development efforts.

  President. – Before I close the debate, I should like to make the following statement.

I understand why Members of this Chamber were surprised and perplexed to see that we had four points for this afternoon’s debate instead of three, as laid down by the Rules of Procedure. What happened was something of a divergence between two entirely legitimate perspectives: namely, what is laid down in the Rules of Procedure and what Monday’s Conference of Presidents was seeking, which was validated in plenary.

I therefore call on the President of Parliament to ensure that the Chair will never again be faced with such a problem. The Chair had to do his best to respond to the Chamber’s astonishment, which is understandable given the conflict we have seen today between two sources of legitimacy.

Please do not think that your points of view have gone unheard. They will be followed up, and the necessary conclusions will be drawn.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon’s debates, that is to say right now.

(1) See Minutes.

15. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

15.1. The Radio Caracas TV Channel in Venezuela (vote)

Motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0206/2007)

15.2. Human rights in Syria (vote)

Motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0212/2007)

- Before the vote

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, we should have liked to insert:

‘Calls for the abrogation of the state of emergency in Syria established more than 40 years ago’.

(DE) as paragraph 6(a).

  President. – Are there any objections to the inclusion of this oral amendment?

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, please note that I find the number of MEPs present needed to oppose the oral amendment utterly preposterous this Thursday afternoon. Indeed, more people than the total number here in the Chamber are needed to vote against. I am not sure there are even 40 people here in favour of this oral amendment. I cannot oppose the oral amendment itself, but I am firmly opposed to the procedure. I should like you to take note of this.

  President. – Let me remind you of the rule. The number of people required to oppose the adoption of an oral amendment is always the same regardless of when we vote and of the time, the day and the place of the vote. To propose an amendment, however, requires just one single MEP.

You can call for a quorum, but there is a procedure, a different procedure, for that. Yet if you ask to verify the quorum and the quorum has not been reached, I should like to remind you that this vote will not be adjourned because it is an emergency vote. The text will lapse, and there will not be a vote on it. That is the rule.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, it is not the Rules of Procedure that are wrong but the fact that colleagues from our groups leave early. They should be here to vote!

(Applause)

(The oral amendment was accepted)

15.3. Human rights in Sudan (vote)

Motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0208/2007)

15.4. The situation concerning the President of the World Bank (vote)

Motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0209/2007)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

16. Verification of credentials: see Minutes

17. Membership of Parliament: see Minutes

18. Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

19. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

20. Written statements for entry in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes

21. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

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

23. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

24. Adjournment of the session

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

(The sitting was closed at 4.25 p.m.)

I was recently contacted by a constituent concerned about the situation of political prisoners of the Cuban Government.

In June 2006 the Council affirmed the relevance and validity of its 1996 Common Position on Cuba which among others, is aimed at encouraging 'the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms' in Cuba. According to highly respected human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, it is a well-established fact that of 75 political dissidents, independent journalists and human rights advocates who were summarily tried in April 2003, 60 remain imprisoned. Serving sentences of on average 20 years, the incarcerated dissidents endure poor conditions and punitive treatment in prison.

What is the state of the dialogue between the EU and Cuba on human rights issues? What positive steps are being taken in order to achieve the release of political prisoners in Cuba?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and is not binding either on the Council or on its members, was not presented orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council has condemned the extremely harsh punishments imposed in 2003 on 75 Cuban citizens. The EU has repeatedly made representations to the Cuban authorities about the unsatisfactory human rights situation in Cuba and demanded the release of all political prisoners. The Council regrets the fact that only a few prisoners have been released, and even then, in some cases, only on account of severe health problems. It also condemns the fact that, purely for exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression, other Cuban citizens have recently been sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment.

It is up to Cuba to put matters right, especially in view of its membership of the Human Rights Council and the resulting obligation to apply and advocate particularly high standards. On high-level visits human rights issues are invariably raised, including the fate of political prisoners. The Council notes with satisfaction that this approach is clearly and unreservedly endorsed by the vast majority of MEPs.

The considerations set out by the German Presidency in its reply to question H-0277/07⁽¹⁾ on EU relations with Cuba not only fail to answer a straightforward question, but also increase grounds for concern as to the purpose of the 'current internal consultations' and the attempt to 'reassess' EU policy on Cuba.

This is all the more so given that it is the EU – and not Cuba in relation to any Member State – which has a 'common position' adopted in 1996, which explicitly states that its goal is to 'encourage a process of transition' and 'facilitate peaceful change in Cuba'. If this is not interference, what is?

The German Presidency goes on to claim that EU policy on Cuba is independent of the USA. How then does it explain that at the recent EU-US Summit on 30 April in Washington, it was claimed that 'throughout the year, we have consulted on Latin America, and in this context also on Cuba, including the prospect for democracy in the future. In mid-2006, the EU renewed its Common Position on Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States released the second report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (CAFC)'?

I would therefore again ask Council: what is this debate it is currently holding on Cuba, and what is its objective?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has nothing to add to the answer it has already given to question H-0277/07, which was put in April.

Scientific data concludes that, if used as the front-line primary test, HPV DNA testing is the next logical advance in best practice for cervical cancer prevention. It not only offers a higher level of sensitivity and increased disease detection rate, but also allows for less frequent screenings, ultimately saving time and resources within a health system. Despite the introduction of new vaccines, if countries do not offer more organised and better quality screening programmes using the most advanced technologies, Europeans will face an increase, not a decrease, in the incidence of cervical cancer. Since the adoption of the 2003 Recommendation on Cancer Screening, a new wealth of European data provides overwhelming evidence to favour HPV DNA testing over cytology (smears) as a better predictor for identifying women at risk for developing cervical cancer.

What steps will the Council take to ensure that in its considerations of the Commission’s upcoming review of the 2003 Recommendation on Cancer Screening it will adequately reflect current advances and developments and update the Recommendation to reflect newly published evidence and recent European clinical guidelines to ensure rapid advances towards eliminating this preventable disease across Europe?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for her interest in this important issue, and also wishes to refer her to its answer to her oral question H-0084/07.

The Commission intends to present the first edition of the EU guidelines on quality assurance in cervical cancer screening and diagnosis in the first half of 2007. This will lay down a European reference standard for cervical cancer screening; this is a measure to implement the Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening⁽¹⁾, in which it was suggested to the Member States that they should carry out screening programmes in accordance with European guidelines on best practice.

As soon as those guidelines are published, the Council Presidency will refer to them and decide on appropriate follow-up measures, taking account of the most recent advances and developments in this field, so that rapid progress can be made throughout the European Union with overcoming this preventable disease.

Following the undemocratic presidential elections in Belarus in 2005 the EU began to apply sanctions against Belarus. It banned A. Lukaschenko and 30 officials from entering the EU and froze their European bank accounts.

In view of the totalitarian regime of the Belarus President, the restriction of opposition rights and human rights violations the sanctions against Belarus have been extended until 10 April 2008. The Council of the EU has also taken the decision to exclude Belarus from the EU trade preferences scheme.

The armed conflict in Darfur involving the regular army has been running for a number of years. Violent attacks on the civil population, torture and the forced recruitment of adults and children for military service – typical human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law in Darfur – are on the increase.

What sanctions is the Council imposing on Sudan for human rights violations and what sanctions does it propose to apply? Are such sanctions suitably proportionate to the situation in Belarus and to the sanctions imposed on that country?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Comparison of the measures taken in relation to Sudan and Belarus is, in principle, possible and reasonable only to a limited degree, since the political circumstances of the two countries are completely different.

The EU imposed an arms embargo on Sudan in 1994, and it is still applicable. The sanctions (restrictions on travel and the freezing of assets) specified in UN Security Council Resolution 1591 (2005) as being applicable to persons obstructing the peace process and/or committing offences against international law or human rights or committing other acts of cruelty in Darfur were incorporated into EU and EC law. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1672 (2006) of 1 June 2006, the Council decided to impose sanctions on four persons.

The Council has repeatedly stressed its willingness to take appropriate action – including targeted sanctions – against all the parties to the conflict in the event of failure to make visible progress in Darfur, and has furthermore expressed its support for the use of sanctions in accordance with Resolution 1591 against anyone obstructing the peace process, committing violations of human rights or breaching the agreed cease-fire or the arms embargo, while applying the measures described in the Resolution to their fullest extent.

The Council has argued that the Security Council should, as a matter of urgency, examine the possibility of further measures of the kind provided for in its own Resolution 1591 of 2005, and is itself willing to consider additional measures, in particular under UN aegis, against any party obstructing the implementation of the UN’s package of measures in support of the Mission of the African Union in Sudan (AMIS).

The Turkish chief of diplomacy and the head of the country's armed forces have both announced that Turkey is prepared for military intervention in northern Iraq, General Yasar Buyukanit commenting that such an offensive was inevitable.

In view of the fact that an incursion into northern Iraq will create further problems in that country, and the surrounding territory, what view does the Council take of possible Turkish military intervention in that area? What action will it take to ensure that any such moves are thwarted?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is not open to the Council to express views on public statements of this kind. Although it is following closely developments in the area to which the honourable Member refers, no official statement has yet been made.

It needs nevertheless to be pointed out that Turkey, as a country applying for accession to the EU, and engaged in negotiations to that end, is required to endorse the values and objectives of the European Union, as set out in the Treaties. Turkey is therefore required to demonstrate beyond all doubt its commitment to good neighbourly relationships and to the resolution of outstanding border disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the UN Charter.

This, together with the principles in accordance with which negotiations are to be conducted, is stipulated in the negotiating framework for the accession negotiations with Turkey, and the peaceful settlement of border disputes is also listed as a short-term priority in the accession partnership with Turkey adopted by the Council on 23 January 2006. The EU and Turkey are together giving systematic consideration to these issues.

The Council will be aware of the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. What discussions have taken place in Council in particular covering any positive measures to help alleviate the tensions of violence in this country?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on the Council’s members, was not delivered orally at the Council’s question time in Parliament’s plenary sitting in Strasbourg in May 2007.

While the Council has not held an exchange of views on Sri Lanka recently, the EU is of course following developments there on a continuing basis at working level. The EU is also playing a major role as one of the four co-chairs of the Tokyo Conference on the Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka (2003), and continues to support without restriction Norway’s role as mediator in the peace process.

The Commission refers to budget heading 16 02 02 regarding funding for the broadcasting of Euronews in Arabic. However, the original amendment specifically referring to the addition of a channel in Arabic as one of the measures under this heading was rejected on first reading. It was retabled and adopted on second reading by the European Parliament. However, the justification regarding the funding makes only general reference to measures within the framework of neighbourly relations with the Mediterranean countries and no specific mention of a specific broadcasting channel, other media or European funding for programmes in Arabic. In view of this, can the Council explain how it justifies projected funding under heading 16 02 02 for the broadcasting of Euronews in Arabic also, as announced by the Directorate-General responsible for communications? Have the shareholders of this private undertaking been informed of plans to use the funding in question for this purpose and are they in agreement?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has given due attention to the position of the European Parliament on the issue addressed by the honourable Member as expressed in paragraph 32 of the resolution of the European Parliament on the European Union general budget for the financial year 2007, adopted on 14 December 2006.

As regards its implementation, the Council begs to point out to the honourable Member that this, under Article 274 of the European Communities Treaty, is a matter for the Commission

On its decision on complaint 1273/2004/GC, the European Ombudsman concluded that Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003⁽¹⁾ had only come into force on 1 August 2004 and considered erroneous the Commission's other interpretations, and furthermore considered maladministration the inconsistent remarks made by the Commission in this respect.

Does the European Council agree with the decision of the Ombudsman on what constitutes the date of entry into force of the above-mentioned article?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is not open to the Council to interpret Community law.

Moreover, the Council does not customarily comment on the Ombudsman’s decisions, particularly when these do not refer to it itself.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, numerous requests have been made of the Court of First Instance to rule on the validity of the Regulation 1954/2003, and, since it has not yet ruled on this point, it would be inappropriate for me to make comments here that might affect this case.

Will the European Council support putting into place an information programme which would advise EU citizens of the legal and taxation pitfalls that they should watch out for when an EU citizen purchases a property in another EU jurisdiction?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

As the Member is no doubt aware, the Council works on the basis of a Commission proposal and, at present, there is no such proposal on the issue in question.

Where there are no harmonised measures, Member States are free to draft their own legislation in line with their domestic objectives and requirements, provided they exercise this power in a way that is compatible with Community law.

It is not the Council's role to describe or interpret national legislation. Nor is it appropriate for the Council to judge when national measures alone or in conjunction with national measures in another Member State do not correspond with the requirements of the Treaty.

Does the European Council believe that there is a level playing pitch operating within the 27 Member states of the European Union in terms of the rules and standards that are in place before a pharmacist can set up in another EU jurisdiction?

Will the European Council review the operation of the rules under EU rights of establishment provisions so as to confirm or otherwise whether a level playing pitch exists within different EU Member States before a pharmacist from one EU Member State can set up in another EU jurisdiction?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

As the Member is aware, Article 43 of the Treaty enshrines the freedom of establishment as one of the basic freedoms crucial to the effective operation of the European Union's internal market.

Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985⁽¹⁾ concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas in pharmacy, most recently amended by Council Directive 2006/101/EC of 20 November 2006⁽²⁾, sets out the professional qualifications needed to practise as a pharmacist and states that national qualifications should be treated as equally valid in the assessment of compliance with professional entry criteria.

With regard to other conditions governing entry to the profession, Member States may adopt additional legislation within the boundaries set out in the Treaty.

However, if national legislation, in whatever form, bars European Union citizens from other Member States from entering the profession or makes it unnecessarily difficult for them to do so, the Commission will then bring infringement proceedings, in line with Article 226 of the Treaty, in order to enforce Community law, or will take the necessary legislative steps to remedy any shortcomings in the aim of ensuring the smooth operation of this area of the internal market.

Can the European Council make a statement as to how much is centrally available from the EU annual budget for information campaigns that promote the positive work of the European Union in the year 2007?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and is not binding either on the Council or on its members, was not presented orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

Communication policy has an important part to play in informing the public and the media about Union activities and policies.

The Council would draw the Member’s attention to Title 16 of Section III – Commission – of the Union’s general budget for the financial year 2007, which gives full details of the appropriations earmarked for EU communication policy.

Under Article 274 of the EC Treaty, implementation of the appropriations is the responsibility of the Commission.

The United Nations operates a programme known as the Central Emergency Reserve Fund (CERF). This is a fund which ensures that monies are collected from international donors in advance of a natural disaster such as an earthquake taking place. It ensures that monies are then immediately available for the international community to distribute once a natural disaster has happened.

Will the European Union consider contributing to the UN Central Emergency Reserve Fund and becoming a member of this CERF programme?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on the Council’s members, was not delivered orally at the Council’s question time in Parliament’s plenary sitting in Strasbourg in May 2007.

The Presidency would like to point out that the issue of providing Community funds for the United Nations Central Emergency Reserve Fund has never been addressed in the Council. The question should instead be put to the Commission in its twofold capacity as the initiator of Community actions and implementing body for Community legal acts and budget lines for humanitarian aid.

The Council would also point out that approximately 77 % of committed funds and contributions to the budget of the Central Emergency Reserve Fund already falls to the EU Member States.

The LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), led by rebel leader Kony, has for years been terrorising and destabilising northern Uganda. Talks have been held in Juba in southern Sudan between the LRA and the Government of Uganda. The LRA has abandoned these talks. Kony has now taken refuge in the Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The International Criminal Court has issued an international warrant for the arrest of Kony and four of his commanders.

So far no initiative at all has been taken. What efforts will the Council make to bring pressure to bear on the Governments of DRC and Sudan so that Kony can be located and surrendered to the International Criminal Court?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Following an interruption of many months, peace talks between the Government of Uganda and the ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ (LRA) rebel movement were resumed on 26 April 2007 in Juba (Southern Sudan). Both sides agreed to extend the ceasefire until 30 June 2007, and so it is that no further acts of violence on the part of the LRA in Northern Uganda have been confirmed since August 2006. An agreement on comprehensive solutions to the conflict in Northern Uganda was signed on 2 May 2007. This agreement, however, addresses only the second point of negotiation on the two parties’ common agenda.

Since talks on how to resolve Northern Uganda’s political problems are continuing, there are encouraging prospects of an end being brought to the conflict that has been going on for 20 years now, and internal refugees are now beginning to return to the areas from which they originate, in which process they are being supported by humanitarian measures put in place by the EU and by many individual states. The International Criminal Court’s warrants for the arrest of the rebel leader Joseph Kony and a number of his commanders on charges of grave violations of human rights remain in force.

Several ambassadors of EU Member States participated in the latest talks in Juba as observers and had additional talks with Joachim Chissano, the UN envoy for the conflict in Northern Uganda, in order to stress the EU’s great interest in a resolution of these issues.

For decades, the Greek State has pointedly and defiantly ignored the cultural identity of the Pomaks of Greek Thrace, whom it is trying to 'Turkicise' by refusing to teach them their own language and forcing them to learn Turkish.

The Pomaks are using every means to protest against this strategy and are calling for an immediate end to the fascist practice of enforced 'Turkicisation'. Recently, a well-known Greek businessman, Mr Prodromos Emfietzoglou, proposed that a 'Chair of Pomak Language and Culture' should be set up at the Democritus University of Thrace in order to record the language, history, customs and traditions of the Pomaks. Can the creation of such a Chair, the aim of which is to preserve a priceless example of Balkans culture and prevent their enforced 'Turkicisation', be placed under the aegis of the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The honourable Member is reminded that, while the Community does contribute to the flowering of the Member States’ cultures, its activity in the cultural sphere is restricted to the promotion of cooperation between the Member States, and so the establishment of national cultural centres is a matter for the relevant Member State alone.

Will the Council give details of what role it is playing in stopping the use of child soldiers in Africa?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's May 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The promotion and protection of the rights of the child are a priority concern in EU human rights policy. By adopting the EU guidelines on children and armed conflict in December 2003 the European Union has signalled its aim of focusing more closely on measures in this area. The guidelines make it incumbent upon the European Union to take account of the short-, medium- and long-term effects of armed conflict on children through monitoring and reporting by heads of missions, military commanders and EU special representatives, as well as through representations, political dialogue, multilateral cooperation and crisis management operations.

The European Union has expressed its concern about children affected by armed conflict in a number of different forums and has referred to this problem in several declarations. The EU Troika has made representations in a number of States, including Burundi, Uganda, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia.

The Council has tabled a strategy for implementing the guidelines (Doc. 8285/1/06 REV 1) which is based on UN Security Council Resolution 1612. The EU special representatives have received specific instructions on this issue, and in June 2006 a checklist for the integration of the protection of children into ESDP operations was published (Doc. 9767/06).

The European Union provides sustained support for the work of the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict; she recently approached the Political and Security Committee and the Council Working Party on Human Rights.

The Council and Parliament are currently finalising an opinion on the Commission proposal on reducing charges for making mobile phone calls from and to abroad in the EU, and making them more transparent. Following a proposal by Parliament, data communication (SMS and MMS messages) is also likely to be included in the measures.

Research carried out by the Netherlands Consumer Association shows that charges for mobile Internet use (via mobile phones or laptop or handheld computers) are also not transparent and, like current roaming charges, can be excessively high for accessing the Internet abroad in the EU.

With the continual development of this technology, mobile Internet use can only increase. Use of the Internet, like international mobile phone use, is important within the context of the EU's economic and social development model.

Given its concern for the interests of European consumers and companies, does the Council envisage introducing an initiative in the near future to also reduce the costs of international mobile Internet use in the EU, and make them transparent?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As the honourable Member has already stated, the Commission proposal for a Regulation on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community is currently before Parliament and the Council for their examination. In its current version, the future Regulation’s provisions on charging structures cover only roaming services for voice calls, and there are two principal reasons for this, which are as follows.

Firstly, the Commission had taken this initiative not only because charges for roaming services were unacceptably high for both end customers and wholesale customers, but also because this problem is not susceptible to effective solution by the national regulatory authorities at the level of the individual Member States. Although the occurrence of unjustifiably high prices in the field of data communication services, for example in short message services (SMS) and multimedia message services (MMS), was noted in the course of the consultations carried out by the Commission, the national regulatory authorities have not as yet been able to observe such problems when conducting their own investigations into SMS services. Secondly, it is, at the present moment, difficult to see what shape development in the MMS field, in other similar data communication services and in the sphere of internet access is likely to take, and there is very definitely a considerable danger that the development of this market might be hindered by the application of inappropriate regulations. It would be helpful in this respect if the Commission were to draft an assessment of the economic and legal impact of such regulation.

As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, both the co-legislators wish to give the Commission a mandate to join with the national regulatory authorities in monitoring the market for roaming services in the field of data communication, including SMS and MMS. It is planned that the Commission should, in its report on the application of the future regulation, also discuss the development of charges for the provision of speech and data communication services, including the forwarding of SMS and MMS, to roaming customers, whether they be end customers or wholesale customers, and that it should, where necessary, make recommendations as to what regulatory measures are needed in this area.

Members of Parliament will also be aware that Parliament and the Council, in the interests of more transparent pricing, want to require service providers to provide their customers, free of charge and on demand, with details of the charges per unit for the sending and receiving of SMS, MMS and other data communication services when roaming within the Community.

In the context of the recent exchange of views, held at the March part-session, with High Representative Javier Solana on the priorities for the Union's common foreign and defence policies, a large number of Members stressed, as a major priority for 2007, the need to deal with the problems of security and stability in the Union's eastern neighbourhood, especially via a more active involvement in settling unresolved conflicts and eliminating their consequences.

What concrete measures will the Council take for the consolidation and further development of the existing efforts in this direction in 2007? In this connection, how will the Council take account of the recent Commission communication on Black Sea synergy, which makes direct reference to 'a more active EU role through increased political involvement in ongoing efforts to address the conflicts'?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to thank the honourable Member for her question.

Since the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, the EU has bordered on the Black Sea region, which includes the Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy countries of Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and whose ‘frozen conflicts’ have considerable potential for bringing about political crises. The region does, however, also have considerable – and as yet unexploited – potential for economic cooperation and growth, and so it is very much in the EU’s interests that its development should move forward.

There are, then, many arguments in favour of the EU having a more active policy in respect of the Black Sea Region, in which, although it is already involved in it, it can today assume an even more prominent role than it has done in the past by promoting cooperation in the region. The EU has therefore embarked on the drafting of a coherent and comprehensive policy in respect of the Black Sea Region aimed at strengthening regional cooperation and developing the region’s relations with the EU at every level.

The Presidency is also able to inform the honourable Member that the Council, on 14 May, adopted the following Conclusions on the Black Sea synergy initiative:

‘The Council welcomed the Commission's Communication “Black Sea Synergy – A new Regional Cooperation Initiative”. The Council underlined that following the accession of two Black Sea littoral states, Bulgaria and Romania, the EU’s interest in furthering stability and prosperity in the Black Sea area has become even greater.

The Council looked forward to further examining the Communication and invited the future Presidencies and the European Commission to continue work on an enhanced and coherent EU engagement in and with the Black Sea area, particularly in the framework of a strengthened European Neighbourhood Policy and building on synergies with regional bodies and initiatives. The aim should be to intensify the regional cooperation in sectors of cross-border relevance such as energy, the environment, transport, telecommunications, science and technology, freedom, justice and security, as well as democracy, human rights promotion, respect for international law and civil society cooperation.

Given the strategic importance of the Black Sea area to the EU, the Council invites the Commission to carry out a review during the first half of 2008 of the development of the Black Sea Synergy Initiative, as a basis for further consideration by the Council of its engagement towards the region as a whole.’

Long-term successful development in the Black Sea Region will be possible only as and when the conflicts in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh – currently regarded as ‘frozen’ – have been resolved and normal and cooperative relationships have been established between all countries in the region.

The presidency takes the view that the closer regional cooperation envisaged in the Black Sea Synergy Initiative will not only bring economic benefits but will also be able to help build political trust and thereby create an environment in which the resolution of difficult political issues is made easier.

The Council has given its attention to the issue of the unresolved conflicts and has appointed EU special envoys for Moldova and the South Caucasus; it has also established both the EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EU BAM), the head of which is also a high-level political advisor to the EU special envoy for Moldova, and the Border Protection Support Team in Georgia. These instruments need to be in continually active and flexible use if the EU is to make a substantial contribution to the region’s stability, and the EU BAM’s mandate has just been renewed for another two years up to the end of November 2009.

The three ENP action plans for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were adopted on 14 November 2006, and each of them include among their main priorities the settlement of the internal conflicts in Georgia and the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The EU-Moldova action plan, adopted in February 2005, lists as a priority the peaceful resolution of the Transnistria conflict.

In 2007, the European Union’s special envoy to the South Caucasus will be continuing to endeavour to create the conditions for the settlement of conflicts in the region, in which his first step will be to establish channels of communication between the parties to the conflicts and to take action to foster trust between them and him. In settling the conflicts, he will, in accordance with his mandate, liaise closely with the existing machinery for the resolution of conflicts. Two of the joint chairmen of the Minsk Group, Ambassador Bernard Fassier and Mr Matthew Brysa, reported to the Council in April on the current state of negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the course of 2007, the EU special envoy for Moldova will also be working on a solution to the Transnistria conflict, representing the EU in conflict resolution talks and actively engaging in bilateral consultations with Moldova and other partners including Russia.

2007 will also see the Council endeavouring to bring about settlement of the ‘frozen conflicts’, and it is prepared to play its part in implementing any solution to them. It has held an internal discussion on the results of the special envoy’s and experts’ mission sent by the Commission to Georgia and the breakaway regions in January 2007 and will now embark on putting into effect the measures agreed on.

The Council is also ready and willing to help with Nagorno-Karabakh, although precisely what form the EU’s contribution will take will be determined only as and when the political parameters for the resolution of the conflict are known.

On 1 May, demonstrators were arrested en masse and dozens of others injured in a barbaric attack by Turkish riot police in Istanbul. At least 1100 demonstrators, approximately 600 of whom are members of the Turkish Communist Party, were arrested by Turkish police, while some 30 demonstrators were injured during the May Day demonstration in Taksim Square in Istanbul. The demonstration, which had been organised by the Turkish Communist Party, the Patriotic Front, the Labour Party EMEP, the trade union movement DISK and other left-wing parties and trade unions, was dedicated to the memory of the 34 demonstrators who were killed on May Day 1977 when special police forces dispatched from Ankara tried to break up the demonstration by pouring in chemicals, tear gas, water cannon, armoured vehicles and helicopters, etc.

Does the Council condemn this barbaric attack? What steps will it take to secure the immediate release of those arrested and to protect the right of workers to strike, their freedom of assembly and the right to organise trade union and political action?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the May 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The presidency is following developments in Turkey with close attention.

In a more general context, however, it should be borne in mind that the negotiating framework adopted by the Council in October 2005 states, in its ‘outlines for the negotiations’, that negotiations are opened with Turkey on the presupposition that Turkey will comply sufficiently with the political criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and later largely incorporated into Article 6 (1) of the Treaty on European Union and promulgated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It is quite clear from this that what the EU expects of Turkey is that it should press on with its process of reform and work to bring about further improvements in the fundamental areas of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and basic freedoms, including the relevant European case law, and that it should consolidate and extend its legislation and implementing measures with especial attention to a zero-tolerance policy in combating torture and mistreatment and the application of provisions relating to the free expression of opinion, freedom of religion, the rights of women, ILO standards – including the rights of trade unions – and the rights of minorities. The Council, furthermore, in its conclusions on 11 December 2006, noted that further considerable efforts would be needed in order to extend, inter alia, free expression of opinion and the rights of trades unions. All these issues are regularly raised in the course of political dialogue with Turkey.

The presidency will continue to monitor developments in Turkey and will address all issues arising in an appropriate manner.

In the light of recent serious football violence and security problems across Europe, including my team's matches in Lille on 20 February 2007, and in Rome on 4 April 2007:

What role can the Commission play in ensuring that Member States take responsibility for high quality and preventative policing and stadium safety?

Does the Commission think that citizen and consumer safety and public order could be enhanced by the introduction of EU-wide standards and a common approach to football policing?

Does the Commission think there is a possibility of extending the UK banning orders for football risk supporters across Europe?

(EN) The Commission is strongly committed to preventing incidents in which sporting passions turn into disturbances and violent conduct. Our aim is that football matches with a European dimension should not just be regarded as a potential source of ructions relating to breaches of law and public order and security. It is not acceptable that groups of determined hooligans have tarnished the image of the majority of peaceful football fans.

Based on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the EU should collect national experiences, generate synergies and develop further data exchange among national services. For the Commission, European added value can be achieved through:

Developing legislative instruments where necessary

Enhancing practical exchanges of experience and best practice between Member States, including law enforcement authorities, in order to establish common standards of safety and public order

Reinforcing operational cooperation at EU-level, particularly information exchanges on disorder assessments and on football supporters, their movements between countries and their classification as peaceful or violent supporters; developing further the National Football Information Points

Supporting the coordination and development of these and other activities through financial programmes.

To meet these objectives, the Commission intends to:

Develop a multidisciplinary approach based on prevention and law enforcement, including socio-educative activities for supporters and cooperation with international and national football bodies, supported by EC funding

Look into the possibility of developing further binding regulations or recommended standards

Support the development of existing CEPOL training courses on public order/crowd management and crowd control/hooliganism

Promote the use and dissemination of best practices including the Handbook on police cooperation in major football matches

In this perspective, the Commission with the Council Presidency and UEFA⁽¹⁾ will organise, at the end of 2007, a large EU high level conference with all stakeholders to consider the development of a European policy to prevent sport violence.

As regards the use by Member States of banning from stadiums all the individuals previously guilty of violent conduct at football matches, the Council already adopted a resolution on 17 November 2003. The Member States are invited to examine the possibility of introducing relevant provisions in their legal system and take appropriate steps ensuring their recognition in another Member States, hosting football matches. Following this Resolution, only few Member States adopted criminal or administrative provisions allowing banning orders. It can also be recalled that the Council has recently adopted, on the 4th of December 2006, a Resolution concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved.

Recently, the pharmaceuticals company, Abbott Laboratories Ellas AEVE, a subsidiary of a US multinational, informed its workers by letter that it was collecting and processing sensitive personal data, including information relating to workers' activities away from their places of work, maintaining its right to forward that data to companies in the Abbott Group and to the USA, or to government authorities. The company claims that it is applying the 'Abbott international principles' and taking part in the EU-USA 'Safe Harbour Programme' of personal data exchange.

Does the Commission condemn the companies' creation of their own arbitrary and uncontrolled regulations which violate the right to privacy and the relevant national and international provisions on the protection of personal data? What is its response to this unlawful activity on the part of the company in question, in particular its forwarding of personal data to third parties, especially to the USA, where personal data do not benefit from effective protection?

(EN) The transfer of personal data to which the Honourable Member refers is made to an entity in the United States (US) which has adhered to the Safe Harbour scheme.

The Data Protection Directive contains specific provisions with respect to the transfers of personal data to third countries. The Directive provides that an international transfer of personal data may lawfully take place when the third country in question ensures an appropriate level of protection. With regard to transfers of personal data to the US, the Commission declared in 2000 that transfers to the US organizations having joined the Safe Harbour offer an adequate level of protection in accordance with the Data Protection Directive (Decision of 26 July 2000).

The Safe Harbour is a specifc scheme put in place by the US in order to facilitate transfers of EU personal data to US entities and meets the requirement of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC to ensure an adequate level of protection level for a transfer to a third country. Safe Harbour sets out privacy principles (i.e., access, notice, choice, onward transfer, enforcement, security and data integrity) that US organisations wishing to join this scheme must commit to observe and publicy disclose before they are certified by the US Department of Commerce. The US Federal Trade Commission is the main body of the US Government competent to enforce compliance with Safe Harbour privacy principles by Safe Harbour organisations.

Transfers of personal data to a US organisation in the field of employment and human resources are covered by Safe Harbour. In this case, Safe Harbour contains specific provisions aimed at ensuring the protection of personal data of employees of EU entities, as well as their sensitive data. Any US Safe Harbour member which receives personal data must commit to cooperate and comply with the advice of competent EU data protection authorities. A panel of EU data protection authorities has been set up by Safe Habour. It is the competent body to examine and resolve complaints lodged by individuals for alleged infringement of Safe Harbour principles. If the entity in question fails to comply with the advice of the EU data protection authorities panel, the latter will inform the US Federal Trade Commission to take enforcement action over the entity or to inform the Department of Commerce so that it can be removed from the register of Safe Harbour members.

The US entity receiving personal data from the EU is included in the the official register of entities members of Safe Harbour held by the US Department of Commerce. The inclusion in this register indicates that the US Department of Commerce has certified that this entity has taken the necessary measures to comply with the privacy principles required to join the Safe Harbour with a view to accepting transfers of personal data from the EU.

An EU entity that transfers personal data to a US entity that adheres to the Safe Harbour scheme is not in breach of the EU Data Protection Directive.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that data subjects may in any case address their complaint to their EU national data protection authority which shall examine whether the EU entity complies with national data protection law as regards its processing activities.

What information does the Commission have concerning the living conditions of prisoners in jails (including those held on remand) in the various Member States? Does it have information concerning measures taken by the Member States to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into society? Insofar as the Treaties allow, does the Commission intend to take measures - or propose that the Member States do so - to ensure that minimum standards apply to prisoners' living conditions in the Union or that best practices are exchanged between the Member States in order to help prisons acquire a more human face and give prisoners a 'second chance'? With particular regard to those in custody on remand, does the Commission know in which Member States remand prisoners live side by side with prisoners serving sentences? In which Member States does the number of remand prisoners cause overcrowding in prisons? What alternative means of judicial supervision are in operation in the various Member States and with what outcome?

(EN) The Commission does not collect specific information regarding living conditions for prisoners, including pre-trial detainees in the European Union - such as statistics regarding cell space, the ratio of prison wards to inmates etc – since this falls under the responsibility and competence of the Member States.

The Commission has, however, gathered some statistical data on detention in the Member States in connection with the drafting of the Proposal on the European supervision order (for instance, statistical data on the prison population, including pre-trial detention that the Commission drew up in 2003 at the request of the Italian Presidency, show that there are considerable differences between the EU Member States both as regards the rate of pre-trial detention per 100 000 inhabitants and the proportion of own nationals in relation to foreign detainees )⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾. It should be pointed out that the Commission is aware of the fact that when action in the field of prison policy is considered, the possible impact must be analysed in the light of available statistics. On 7 August 2006 the Commission presented a Communication⁽³⁾ developing a strategy to measure crime and criminal justice – an EU Action Plan 2006 – 2010, which also aims at including background information on nationality and residency for prison populations, which is urgently needed for EU policy on criminal justice.

A recent study on prison overcrowding in 24 European countries demonstrates that overcrowding exists in 50% of these countries. Overcrowding seriously undermines reintegration of prisoners into society. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, has thus proposed a series of measures to reduce the number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees.

First of all, on 29 August 2006 the Commission adopted a "Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union"⁽⁴⁾. This draft Framework Decision, once adopted, would allow judicial authorities in the different Member States to release persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence but who are not resident in the Member State in which they are suspected from custody and transpose it into a non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures, which could be transferred across the borders into the Member State where this person is normally resident. As many as 8,000 persons could be affected by this measure, which corresponds to the total pre-trial detention population of the United Kingdom some years ago.

Moreover, in February 2007 Germany and France took an initiative with a view to the adoption by the Council of a Framework Decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences and alternative sanctions. This Framework Decision, once adopted, would facilitate social reintegration of sentenced persons, who will be allowed to return to their home State. Moreover, it would diminish the risk of recidivism thereby reinforcing public security and the security of victims. And last but not least, it would reduce prison overcrowding.

It should also be mentioned that the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme⁽⁵⁾ provides that an "analysis of minimum standards in pre-trial detention procedures and the routines for regular review of the grounds for detention" should be undertaken before the end of 2007.⁽⁶⁾ A study will be launched soon to examine this question and should be completed in 2008.

Finally, in order to facilitate the re-settlement of (ex)-offenders, and reduce recidivism, more than 100 projects under the 2000-2006 EQUAL Community Initiative have tested new approaches to preventing re-offending through re-settlement support, aftercare or assisting inmates while in prison. Some of these innovations are structural and relate to the management of change in prisons, the introduction of quality systems and the motivation of staff to adopt a more creative, pro-active attitude to the rehabilitation of inmates. Others are concerned with the development of new forms of education and training. Many of these initiatives involve the opening up of prisons to agencies and individuals, including employers, so that offenders are empowered and prepared to play a more positive part in society on their release.

A European Mainstreaming Programme is currently being implemented with the objective to convince key actors who are responsible for penal and/or resettlement policies, to adopt the good practices that are emerging from the EQUAL projects.

The three main foci of this Programme are:

- An Exchange Event of EQUAL DPs held in Portugal, during October 2006, that agreed on a set of topics to be presented at the subsequent Policy Forum;

- A Policy Forum in Poland, in June 2007, to confront policy makers with the good practices that are emerging from EQUAL and to engage their interest in taking some of these forward;

- A Transnational Network, later in 2007, to ensure the continued transfer and the sustainability of relevant EQUAL outcomes, and of relevant outcomes from the new programming period for the Structural Funds, provided there is sufficient interest in the Member States.

The Council and Parliament are currently finalising an opinion on the Commission proposal on reducing charges for making mobile phone calls from and to abroad in the EU, and making them more transparent. Following a proposal by Parliament, data communication (SMS and MMS messages) is also likely to be included in the measures.

Research carried out by the Netherlands Consumer Association shows that charges for mobile Internet use (via mobile phones or laptop or handheld computers) are also not transparent and, like current roaming charges, can be excessively high for accessing the Internet abroad in the EU.

With the continual development of this technology, mobile Internet use can only increase. Use of the Internet, like international mobile phone use, is important within the context of the EU's economic and social development model.

Given its concern for the interests of European consumers and companies, does the Commission envisage introducing an initiative in the near future to also reduce the costs of international mobile Internet use in the EU, and make them transparent?

(EN) The Commission shares the view that the rapid deployment of competitively priced mobile internet services is important for EU social and economic growth.

In its original proposal for a regulation of international mobile roaming charges, the Commission envisaged that developments in prices for roaming data services (which would include mobile internet) should be monitored very closely.

From the discussions which are currently ongoing between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, it seems clear that monitoring of developments for data roaming prices will be an important element of the final regulation.

In addition, the final regulation is likely to include provisions aimed at enhancing the transparency of data roaming prices for consumers. The Commission is supportive of this approach and intends to monitor this market very closely and will report developments to Council and Parliament.

The industry should now respond with competitive prices for mobile data roaming services so that the possibility of further regulation can be avoided.

Does the Commission not consider that its most recent statement (of 2 May) regarding events in Turkey and the annulment of the first round of presidential elections was excessively indulgent in respect of intervention by the military? Should it not send a more explicit message regarding military interference in politics, making it abundantly clear that the stance adopted by the Turkish military is damaging to the country’s European prospects?

(EN) The statement of 2 May 2007 is only the latest one that the Commission has issued in relation to the recent political developments in Turkey.

As regards more particularly the role of the military and their statement of 27 April 2007, the Commissioner in charge of Enlargement reacted on the following day, by expressing the Commission's deep concern. On 28 April 2007, the Commissioner in charge of Enlargement stated that the military must leave the remit of democracy to the democratically elected Government. He also stressed that this is a test case for the Turkish armed forces to demonstrate full respect of democratic institutions.

Fully aligning civilian control of the military with EU practices is a priority of the Accession partnership and remains one of the main priorities of Turkey on its way to accession.

The Commission expects the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Turkey to be carried out democratically. In this context, the principle of the supremacy of democratic civilian power over the military must be fully respected, as recalled in the statement of 2 May 2007.

The Commission will continue to follow up closely the situation.

In its Written Declaration No 21/2006 of 5 September 2006 (P6_TA(2006)0335) and - on a recommendation from the Committee on Culture and Education - in paragraph 34 of its resolution on the 2007 budget (Ρ6_ΤΑ(2006)0570), the European Parliament called on the Commission to carry out a survey on the condition and estimated cost of restoration of churches situated in the northern part of Cyprus under Turkish military control, which have been desecrated, converted into mosques or damaged.

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with a view to drawing up the survey and, in general, for the conservation and restoration of churches in the part of the Republic of Cyprus under Turkish military occupation, in accordance with the European Parliament's written declaration and its resolution on the 2007 budget?

(EN) Within the ad-hoc aid programme for the Turkish Cypriot community⁽¹⁾ funding has been made available for actions facilitating the reunification of Cyprus. A study on cultural heritage including religious heritage could in principle be funded under the aid regulation, as a confidence building measure to enhance reconciliation between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot community.

However, in order to undertake a survey on the conditions and estimated cost of restoration of cultural heritage, the agreement and co-operation of both communities in the island, including the Turkish Cypriot community, would be required.

The Commission can not proceed unilaterally.

The Commission is aware of a recent meeting between religious leaders from both communities where the issue of renovating churches and mosques falling into disrepair was discussed. Would any agreement emerge between the two communities, the Commission would be ready to consider assistance in favour of cultural heritage from the aid regulation.

Whatt measures does the Commission intend to take within the multilateral trade negotiations, to protect the Community's banana producers from the continual efforts of the dollar zone multinationals to put an end to competition from the EU's small producers?

(EN) One of the key objectives of the fundamental reform of the EU banana sector, implemented as of January 2007, is to ensure a fair standard of living for EU banana producers. The Commission will continue to address the needs of small EU banana producers through the EU's domestic regime.

The Commission is closely monitoring market developments to ensure the reform is meeting its objectives. In parallel, the Commission remains strongly committed to a successful outcome of the multilateral trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation but it is not possible to predict the exact outcome of these negotiations for individual agricultural sectors. Nevertheless, The Commission can assure you that it will continue to take account of the needs of the banana sector and the integrity of EU market reforms in its related discussions.

In order to make a contribution to combating terrorism and to security on European flights, European citizens are not protesting en mass at the confiscation of their personal items in liquid form and the financial burden of having to buy basic articles after passing through security control.

The problems which arise in connection with the above measures are the unjustified confiscation of valuables and refusal to return them after security control, the lack over control of the quality of the services provided by the security staff who abuse their excessive new powers, the lack of cheap or free drinking water, which is a basic survival item, particularly during the summer months, and the disrepute brought on the EU, in whose name the prohibitive measures are announced by megaphone, at least at Greek airports.

As part of its responsibilities for ensuring freedom, security and justice could the Commission, in tandem with the ban, also introduce provisions governing the transport of liquid articles and propose solutions to ensure that drinking water and environmentally-friendly bags are provided free of charge?

Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006⁽¹⁾ amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003⁽²⁾ on aviation security entered into force on 6 November 2006. The annex to that Regulation directly imposes on the public a set of restrictive measures concerning the liquids passengers are authorised to carry in their hand luggage. The secret nature of that annex makes it impossible for the authorities to conduct any judicial review of the application of the European provision concerned. How does the Commission view the fact that it has itself imposed obligations on European citizens by way of secret rules? Does it feel that it is properly guaranteeing fundamental rights in approving binding secret rules with direct effect whose application is beyond the realm of any possible judicial review?

(EN) The Commission has had the opportunity to express itself on the subject on several occasions in plenary session. It wants to emphasise again that the Commission, the Member States and the Parliament share the view that there is a real threat to civil aviation from home-made liquid explosives.

As regards the question of Mr Guardans Cambo, the regulation on restrictions on liquids does indeed have an unpublished annex which is classified as "EU Restricted" and thus not published in the Official Journal as required by article 8/1 of the Framework Regulation 2320 adopted by the Parliament and the Council in 2002. The Regulation is addressed not directly to citizens, but rather to the appropriate authority of each Member State.

However, passengers should be informed about items that are prohibited. Information is displayed in Community airports telling passengers about the rules on liquids, as well on airline websites, it is fair to say that Community airports and airlines appear to be meeting their obligations to inform the public and that the necessary information is in the public domain.

Furthermore, the main stakeholder organisations representing airports, airlines and airport shops all confirmed that they had been involved by the Commission during the development of Regulation 1546/2006. The measures contained in this regulation were approved by the Member States and the Parliament following the correct procedures. They have not been adopted in secrecy and the possibility of juridical review exists like in every other case.

Turning to the question of Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, the Commission sympathises with the issues she raises. It is unpleasant for any passenger to have any item – no matter its value – confiscated. The provision of free drinking water is, indeed, desirable and concerns about the environmental effect of plastic bags are laudible.

It is the normal practise of airlines, on long-haul flights at least, to make non-alcoholic refreshments freely available to passengers in order to avoid deshydratation. Community legislation does not regulate prices at airport shops. Nonetheless, the Commission is looking at this issue very carefully and is encouraging airports and airlines to take all appropriate measures in order to ensure that free drinking water is available cheap, free or market-priced and that passergers are informed of any available sources of free drinking water.

To conclude, the Commission can assure the Parliament that the respect of passenger rights is a cornerstone of our legislation in the field of aviation security. But it should also be noted that one basic right is the right to travel safely, as much as possible free from the threat of terrorist attack.

Pursuant to European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005⁽¹⁾ of 14 December 2005, the Community should direct its activities in the air-transport field towards ensuring that, as a priority, passengers enjoy a high level of protection against safety risks.

With reference to the rules on air safety which were adopted in 2006 and with regard - on the one hand - to the major security challenges facing Europe in a globalising world and relating to issues such as international terrorism and worldwide organised crime, and - on the other - to the fact that since 1993, any person holding the nationality of a Member State is entitled to reside and to move around freely within the European Union, should the Commission not ensure that there is a consistent approach throughout the EU and avoid the situation stemming from a proliferation of rules adopted in individual Member States? Does the Commission not consider it inconsistent and detrimental to security that the rules should be applied differently at each airport and that even transit passengers must at certain airports undergo checks of various kinds?

In the Commission's view, what role should be played by the European Air Safety Agency in the establishment of an effective, consistent approach designed to increase air safety within the Community without hindering the free movement of passengers?

(FR) The Commission agrees with the honourable Member that there is a need to have harmonised rules for aviation security throughout the European Union. For almost five years, since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002⁽²⁾ there has existed common rules in the field of civil aviation security. Futhermore, under the Regulation the Commission undertakes inspections of Community airports in order to ensure a correct and even application of the common rules throughout the Community.

Any differences in levels of security that apply today are as a result of Member States choosing to apply more stringent measures. These can result in passengers whose journey started within the Community being subject to rescreening when transferring flights at another Community airport, even though the legislation does not require this. However, it should be noted that all transfer passengers at Community airports who arrived on flights from outside the European Economic Area shall be subject to rescreening, in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 2320/2002.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was established by Regulation No 1592/2002⁽³⁾, which entered into force in September 2002, with the aim of promoting a uniform and high standard of safety and environmental protection in the field of civil aviation and does not play a direct role in security issues. The Agency provides the Commission with all the technical expertise the latter requires and assists it, among other things, in carrying out its legislative and regulatory tasks. It also implements a system for monitoring the application of Community legislation, evaluating its effects and making any useful suggestions on the matter. In this context, EASA plays a part in implementing Regulation 2111/2005 by passing on to the Commission information that is of relevance when it comes to updating the Community list of airlines subject to a ban on use and by helping to distribute this list to the public.

In November 2005, the Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation aimed at extending its powers to air operations and to pilots’ licences. The Commission is confident that this proposal will be adopted by Parliament and by the Council over the next few months. Furthermore, in an effort to promote a fully integrated approach to aviation safety in Europe, the Commission is already making preparations for EASA’s missions to be extended to the areas of airport operations safety and air traffic.

There are no plans at this stage to extend EASA’s powers beyond aviation safety to security, that is to say, to the prevention of illegal acts in the field of aviation.

In the written answer to oral parliamentary question (H-1020/05) by Sophie In't Veld (MEP) in December 2005, the Commission described the activities of the Commissioners' Group on fundamental rights, anti-discrimination and equal opportunities since its inception. Can the Commission now give an update by outlining the main activities of the group in 2006?

Regarding the Commission’s role under article 7 TEU, the Commission said that it 'intends to exercise these powers in full and with a clear awareness of its responsibility. Should a case………emerge which would require a political assessment by the Commission in the light of Article 7 of the EU Treaty, the possibility is not excluded that the Group might contribute in preparing that assessment through discussions'.

Has the group of Commissioners on fundamental rights done a political or legal Article 7 assessment on the issue of CIA ‘extraordinary rendition’, not least in the light of the conclusions of the European Parliament temporary committee report and in particular paragraph 228? If not, why not? What action do the group and the Commission as a whole intend to take on this matter?

(EN) In 2006, the Group continued playing a central role in driving policy initiatives of the Commission for the active promotion of fundamental rights, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, with due regard for the Community competences and the principle of subsidiarity.

In particular in 2006, the Group contributed to the finalisation of the Communication on the rights of the child and the Green Paper on diplomatic and consular protection before their adoption by the Commission; contributed to on-going work in view of the European year for equal opportunities for all 2007, and raised inter-cultural dialogue – including issues related to different beliefs – in the context of the preparation of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. The Group considered the creation of the European day against the death penalty and launched the preparations towards a European day against trafficking in human beings.

The Group raised a number of recurrent issues, such as the state of play of institutional negotiations in view of the creation of the Agency on Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for Gender Equality, and of dialogue with the Council of Europe on the accession by the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The implementation of the methodology for monitoring fundamental rights compliance in EC legislative proposals was also highly considered.

The Group monitored the implementation of the non-discrimination directives and took stock of the negotiations at United Nations level in view of an International Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Disabled People. Minorities, racism and xenophobia were on the Group’s agenda too.

The Group held an extraordinary session on the occasion of the International Women’s Day – 8 March 2006. This meeting involved members of the Parliament and was devoted to the presentation and discussion of the main aspects of the Road Map for equality between women and men 2006-2010, which was prepared by the Group and adopted by the Commission on 1 March 2006. In addition, the Group considered gender-related issues, such as the objectives for the recruitment and appointment of women to management posts and other A*/AD posts within the Commission in 2006 or the role of women in science and technology.

As regards the alleged CIA use of European Countries to transport and hold prisoners, the Group has closely followed the work done by the Parliament and the Council of Europe and supported the Commission’s line on this important and sensitive issue. However, the Group held no meetings after Parliament’s adoption, in February 2007, of the resolution on the temporary committee’s final report. In this text the Commission stressed very forcefully that it was essential to fight effectively against terrorism using all the legal instruments available, and that any anti-terrorist measure must at all costs respect fundamental rights and international humanitarian law. The Commission, within the framework of its powers, supported the work of the temporary committee. Like the Parliament, the Commission takes the view that it is essential that the Member States concerned carry out inquiries, and welcomes the fact that judicial or parliamentary inquiries are under way in some countries. The Commission will give careful consideration to calls for action that fall within its remit; to this end, it will carry out a comprehensive evaluation in the light of the results of the various national inquiries.

Has the Commission any statistics regarding the impact within the EU of the up to 66% import tariff on energy-efficient light bulbs from China imposed since 2002? Specifically, what estimates is the Commission working on for the future, in terms of possible quantity and price of imports to the EU if such tariffs were to be abandoned when the issue is reviewed later this year?

(EN) As the Honourable Member is aware, a Commission investigation was initiated in July 2006 to assess whether maintaining anti dumping measures on imports of CFL(i) lamps, originating in the People's Republic of China, would be justified for a further period of five years. The case is still under scrutiny by the Commission and no conclusion as to the final outcome of the case can be drawn at this point in time.

The aim of this investigation is to verify whether unfair competitive distortions which favoured exports originating in China still exist, or, whether they risk reoccurring in the future if anti-dumping measures are removed. In this respect it should be borne in mind that the purpose of anti-dumping measures is neither to prohibit imports nor to hamper supplies to the Community market, but rather to re-establish conditions of fair competition on the Community market.

More generally and without prejudging the final outcome of the case, available statistics show that imports of CFL(i) lamps, originating China, have more than trebled in the period 2001 – 2006. During the same time, consumption in the Community has more than doubled and the Chinese market share is therefore higher than before measures were imposed.

It follows from the import statistics that the measures in place have not restricted trade flows of CFL(i) lamps, but rather they have ensured that they are now traded at prices which should eliminate the injurious effect of the dumping previously found.

It would however be difficult to provide any useful estimation as to how this market will develop in the future.

At their extraordinary summit in Dar-es-Salaam of 28-29 March 2007 the heads of state and government of the Southern African Development Community declared their support for Robert Mugabe and the government of Zimbabwe, and also called for the present sanctions against Zimbabwe to be lifted. The situation there, in political as well as economic terms, is absolutely desperate. In the near future 2 500 Angolan paramilitaries are to be deployed against opponents of the Mugabe regime.

All the countries of the Southern African Development Community are parties to the Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000, Article 9(2) of which stipulates that respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law underpin their domestic as well as their international policies and constitute ‘essential elements’ of the Agreement.

What impact will this totally unacceptable signal have on the financial and other assistance for those countries?

(EN) The Commission considers that the most important outcome of the Extraordinary Southern African Development Community (SADC) Summit held in Dar-es-Salaam on 28-29 March 2007 is that for the first time the regional leaders decided to engage in the resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis through the appointment of South African President Mbeki, as a mediator in this process.

The Commission has fully supported the recently issued Council Conclusions welcoming the mandate given to President Mbeki to facilitate a dialogue between the opposition and the Government, and the engagement of President Kikwete as chair of the SADC organ, and standing ready to support the SADC initiative.

The Commission believes that, at this stage, the SADC initiative is the best option available to overcome the Zimbabwe crisis.

This SADC initiative has also been welcomed by some Resolutions adopted this month at the European Parliament Plenary session.

Concerning the information on the deployment of 2 500 Angolan paramilitaries in Zimbabwe, the Commission is aware that there have indeed been reports in the press about it but so far there has been no confirmation or even indication that this has occurred or is intended by the Angolan Government. Indeed, the Angolan Embassy in Harare in a statement of 21 March officially rejected these reports as "completely false" and informed that the purpose of the recent visit to Harare of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Angola was to sign Agreements of Interest of both countries such as sharing of knowledge and experience and never the reinforcement of Police power of Zimbabwe.

The Commission does not consider that the SADC Statement of 29 March in any way constitutes violation of the articles of the Cotonou Agreement referred to by the Honourable Member.

Therefore the Commission does not intend to review its levels of assistance to theses countries nor to the region.

According to information gathered by the University of Hamburg and published by the German Focus periodical, in one hour of operation the engines of a 50 000-tonne cruiser ship emit into the atmosphere a quantity of suspended particles equivalent to that emitted by 50 000 automobiles travelling at 130 km/h, a quantity of nitrogen monoxide equivalent to that emitted by 45 000 automobiles and a quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent to that emitted by 7000 automobiles. Most cruiser ships keep their engines running for one or two days while on moorings in their various ports of call, an unacceptable situation further aggravated by other passenger and cargo vessels.

At a number of tourist destinations, particularly in the USA, the authorities have provided onshore power points to supply vessels with electricity. In view of this, what action does the Commission intend to take in response to this problem and is it investigating the compulsory installation of onshore power points at popular tourist destinations or in coastal areas facing serious environmental problems?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the problem of large sea-going ships producing a lot of air pollution in ports. This is true not only for cruise ships and passenger boats, but also for cargo ships like tankers and container ships. It is for this reason that the European Commission looks for solutions covering both passenger and cargo ships.

The Commission has published a recommendation on shore side electricity⁽¹⁾, the solution suggested in the Honourable Member's question. It recommends Member States to consider the installation of shore-side electricity for use by ships at berth in ports; particularly in ports where air quality limit values are exceeded or where there is public concern about high levels of noise nuisance, especially in berths situated near residential areas. It also asks Member States to consider financial incentives to promote these installations and to take steps towards the harmonisation of shore side electricity facilities. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is primarily the Member State or the local authority that should decide in individual cases if this option is effective, taking into account the local air quality situation. This situation differs from port to port. European legislation obliging such facilities is therefore not considered appropriate.

A measure already taken is Directive 2005/33/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2005, amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels⁽²⁾. This Directive requires the use of fuel with less than 0.1% sulphur for ships at berth as of 2010 and will contribute to reduction of air pollution in ports as of 2010.

At international level (the International Maritime Organization, IMO) the negotiations on reducing air pollution from seagoing ships, including cruise ships and passenger vessels, are now at a decisive stage. The aim is to reduce the air pollution at source, by improved engine technology, emission abatement and/or improved fuel quality. The Commission is pushing for an ambitious reduction of air pollution from ships. Should this not be possible, or not be possible within an acceptable time frame, the Commission will consider coming forward with a proposal for tighter standards in line with the provisions of the Thematic Strategies to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships of 21 November 2002⁽³⁾ and on air pollution of 21 September 2005⁽⁴⁾ and the subsequent conclusions to these strategies by Council and Parliament.

On 6 February 2007, I tabled a Written Question (E-0662/07) to Commissioner Fischer-Boel on the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector, with particular reference to the solutions proposed for the new Member States. In her reply of 23 March 2007, Ms Fischer-Boel wrote: '(...) in regions of the European Union where the degree of organisation of producers is particularly low, Member States may be authorised, under certain conditions, to pay producer organisations national financial assistance (...)'. In Poland, the lack of interest in forming producer organisations derives from the fact that such groups are subject to corporate income tax and their assets to property tax, whereas individual farmers are subject only to agricultural tax, which is substantially lower.

Could temporary exemptions from income and property tax for producer organisations be recognised by the Commission as national financial assistance of the kind mentioned and accepted by it without challenge?

(EN) In the Commission proposal for the reform of the fruit and vegetables regime, adopted on 24 January 2007, there is a specific group of measures aimed at increasing the concentration of supply through producer organisations (POs) and producer groups (PGs) in the Member States which joined the Community as from 1 May 2004. Among these specific measures a national financial assistance, equal to a maximum of half the financial contribution of producers, could be authorised, under certain conditions, in those regions of the European Union where the degree of organisation of producers is particularly low. This assistance shall be additional to the operational fund.

As far as the Commission is aware, in accordance with domestic Polish tax policy, only primary agricultural activity is exempted from income taxes i.e. Personal Income Tax (PIT) and Corporate Income Tax (CIT). Activities normally carried out by POs or PGs i.e. preparation of products (cleaning, drying, trimming, cutting, packaging) are not regarded as primary agricultural activity and, as a consequence, are liable to income taxes, even in the instance when they are done by individual farmers.

It is important to highlight that the benefits stemming from Community and national support under the current Regulations may clearly outweigh the costs of compulsory taxation in Poland, although as mentioned in the second paragraph, the Commission is not convinced that there are any additional costs coming from the fact that the producer is member of a PO. Therefore, the Polish tax policy can not be considered as potentially discouraging farmers from organising.

The national assistance proposed by the Commission involves a transfer of national budgetary resources and it is additional to the operational fund. It is not the intention of the Commission to grant to the Member States other possibilities to hand out this assistance as this would complicate the system. If the national assistance were to be channelled in other ways than financial transfer it would be difficult to safeguard that it is additional to the operational funds and equal to maximum half the financial contributions of producers to this fund.

In any case, the proposal is still under discussion at the Parliament and the Council. After the adoption of the Council proposal, the corresponding implementing rules will be drafted. Implementing rules on the proportion and details of the national additional assistance will then be studied and the Commission will take into consideration all the proposals from Member States including this one.

Finally, the Commission would like to add that the area of direct taxation is harmonised only to a very limited extent within the European Union. Therefore, the Member States are free to determine their own tax legislation, as long as it remains within the framework of the provisions of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would be grateful if the Honourable Member can provide it with additional information and evidence.

Does the Commission ever consider additional measures to assist communities which have lost or are under threat of losing vital transport links? For example, when a low-cost airline withdraws from a regional airport or Eurostar ceases to stop at Ashford in Kent, the regeneration and growth that has evolved will immediately go into reverse. What support would the Commission feel is appropriate in this field?

(EN) Structural change is an inherent part of the development of regional economies, and is experienced in many fields of activity including transport. The European Union, through its Cohesion Policy, helps the regions to design and implement policies to help regional authorities, businesses and workers to anticipate these changes, adapt more quickly to them and to exploit fully new opportunities. These policies result from strategies based on the strengths and weaknesses of each region, and are defined with the involvement of all local partners and all relevant expertise.

The Commission is currently finalising negotiations with the United Kingdom on its strategy for cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013, the National Strategic Reference Framework. While this strategy does not make specific reference to the transport sector, it is based on the need to promote the sustainable competitiveness of the regions, and their ability to adjust to and to exploit structural change. The strategy for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Regional competitiveness and employment regions is based on four priorities: 1) Promoting innovation and knowledge transfer, 2) Stimulating enterprise and supporting successful business, 3) Ensuring sustainable development production and consumption and 4) Building sustainable communities The strategy for the European Social Fund (ESF) is based on two priorities: 1) Tackling barriers to employment and 2) Improving the skills of the local workforce.

In the specific case of the South East of England, the Commission expects to receive the relevant Regional competitiveness and employment ERDF Operational Programme in late June/ early July, so at this stage cannot comment on the priorities it will identify. Given the amount of money available for this programme, (€ 48 million total cost with an ERDF contribution of € 24 million) it is not expected that it will contain specific actions in support of the transport sector. It is expected, however, that it will concentrate on the promotion of innovation and entrepreneurship which are both essential for sustainable economic development in the South East. The Ashford area will be eligible under this programmes and will therefore have direct accesss to cohesion policy support. The implementation of the programme, once adopted by the Commission, will be the responsibility of the Regional Development Agency (RDA) for the South East.

For the ESF allocation there is one Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment Operational Programme covering the whole of England. Each region has been given an ESF allocation within the total amount of the programme (2 893 million total for Regional competitiveness and employment of which 229 million is destined for the South East). The ESF Operational Programme has already been submitted to the Commission and contains two Priorities: 1) Extending employment opportunities and 2) Developing a skilled and adaptable workforce. The interventions will concentrate on tackling unemployment and inactivity by helping people with no or low level skills.

On 11 and 12 April a meeting of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee took place in Moscow. During the meeting held in the Russian Parliament, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, Mr K. Kossatschow, spoke on the subject of Russian membership of the EU. He stressed that this was a hypothetical issue for the time being, as the Russian Government had not yet adopted a position on membership. However, in order to enable a debate on this issue to begin in Russia, it needed to be made clear whether Russia could expect some time - in several decades' time or later - to become a member of the EU, if it decided to apply and fulfilled all of the criteria for EU membership.

What is the Commission's position vis-à-vis this statement by Mr Kossatschow, who has underlined the fact that, unlike the majority of his colleagues in the Duma, he is in favour of Russia pursuing a European course?

(EN) The Russian Federation is a strategic partner for the European Union. Russia is the largest neighbour of the EU, brought even closer by the Union’s 2004 and 2007 enlargements. Russia and the EU are interdependent in many fields: the EU is by far Russia’s most important market, and Russia is the EU’s most important energy supplier. None of the important foreign policy issues in Europe can be settled unless we find a common understanding. We will continue to depend on each other for many years to come.

A key priority of the European Union is to build a strong strategic partnership with Russia based on a solid foundation of mutual respect.

The Russian Federation has not applied for membership of the EU. Various Russian political leaders have continuously expressed their scepticism as to whether Russia should ever apply for EU membership. The issue is therefore not on the table.

The Commission pursues the strengthening of the strategic partnership with Russia, inter alia through the implementation of the Four Common Spaces agreed upon in May 2005. The Commission is committed to conclude with Russia a new comprehensive agreement to replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement from 1997 and to therefore further integrate Russia into a common Europe on the basis of respect for values to which both sides are committed and the pursuit of mutual interest.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to how the new EU-US Atlantis programme will operate, how much funding is available for the implementation of this programme and how many universities and third-level colleges will be participating on this scheme, so that a greater level of EU-US transatlantic educational programmes can be put into effect?

(EN) The EU-US Atlantis programme implements the EC-US agreement on higher education and vocational education and training signed on 21 June 2006 and concluded by the Council on 4 December 2006⁽¹⁾. The Atlantis programme is designed, managed and funded jointly by the European Commission and by the United States (US) Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE).

Consortia projects involving EU and US institutions are selected jointly by the Commission and FIPSE through joint calls for proposals. The following actions are funded under Atlantis:

Transatlantic Degree action: providing support to multilateral partnerships of EU and US institutions for the purpose of setting up joint study programmes - including joint/double degrees - and transatlantic mobility of students and faculty;

Excellence Mobility Projects: providing follow-up financial support for student mobility to joint consortia that have a proven track record of excellence in transatlantic cooperation;

Policy-oriented measures: addressing comparative higher education and vocational training issues, and promoting dialogue on recognition of qualifications and accreditations;

The Commission plans to allocate a total of € 43 million to the EU institutions participating in Atlantis in the period 2006-2013. The annual budget increases gradually from € 3,6 million in 2006 to € 7 million in 2013.

The programme is implemented in principle on the basis of matching funding from the EU and US sides.

It is envisaged that the Atlantis programme will fund every year some 45 European Higher Education institutions and 200 EU students. An equivalent number of institutions and students should be funded by the US.

Last month, the Brazilian Government announced that it was tightening up a series of controls in Brazil so as to halt the spread of foot-and-mouth disease there and to ensure the safety and quality standards of beef exports destined for the European Union.

Will the European Commission make a statement as to whether it is satisfied with the assurances that have been given by the Brazilian Government concerning the quality of the beef that is being exported at present into the European Union? What is the level of contact between the European Union and the Brazilian Government on this issue and have EU food and veterinary inspectors travelled to Brazil recently so that our own inspections have been carried out there?

(EN) The Commission is in regular contact with the Brazilian authorities and follows the situation closely.

A Commission inspection was recently carried out in Brazil in order to assess whether animal and public health standards related to export of beef were in compliance with Community rules. The inspection took place in March 2007 and the final report will be published on the Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) website, in accordance with the normal procedures.

Following this inspection the Commission has already written to the Brazilian authorities to draw their attention to the need to continue their efforts to further improve their foot and mouth disease control measures.

The Commission has welcomed the announcement of the Brazilian authorities to enhance animal health controls as regards foot and mouth disease and on cattle and beef traceability.

However, the Commission also indicated to the Brazilian authorities that certain discrepancies have not been adequately addressed, informing them that it will reconsider the authorisation of imports of beef from Brazil if the competent authorities have not provided the Commission, by the end of this year, with auditable evidence of the rectification of all the remaining deficiencies.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to whether it supports setting up a centralised structure which could advise SMEs, EU businesses, third level colleges and local authorities in Europe as to how they could draw down part of the 55 billion euro that is available in RTD grants from Europe between now and the year 2013?

(EN) The Commission is already supporting a comprehensive network of National Contact Points in all Member States as well as states associated to Framework Programme (FP) 7, in total 37 countries. The NCP network also extends to other third countries in all continents, and includes so far 33 additional countries. The NCP system is open for all potential participants in the FP and the Commission is financially supporting transnational activities as well as organizing training events for the NCPs.

The Commission believes that such a decentralized one is more efficient than a centralized system which would be more difficult for e.g. SMEs to access. The NCPs are able to give advice and help on a number of issues such as how to apply for grants or in finding partners. Further, the NCP systems in the different countries show a wide variety reflecting the different national and regional research and innovation structures.

An Enquiry Service, provided by the Europe Direct Contact Centre, is in place and questions can be put on any aspect of European research in general and the EU Research FPs in particular by applying a web request (http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries

) form. Every enquiry is logged in a database to ensure that a response is given as quickly as possible and then passed through to the relevant department for expert handling.

In addition the Commission has issued a call under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) in order to set up a "Services in support for business and innovation".

The aim of this call is to implement a single network providing integrated services in support of business and innovation in Europe, building on the strengths and achievements of the current Euro Info Centres and the Innovation Relay Centres. Under this call, the new network will implement the requirements of Article 21.2(c) of the CIP decision by providing complementary services, especially at regional level, to those services provided by the NCPs, to support the participation of SMEs in FP7. The CIP single network will have around 600 outlets and involve 2,000 to 2,500 staff across the EU. It will start to operate in January 2008 and will provide services to enterprises, notably SMEs.

Finally, the Commission also funds the "IPR-Helpdesk project" (http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/controlador/principal?seccion=principal&len=en

) which provides free Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) advice, including regarding IPR issues related to FP7.

Commissioner Hübner failed to indicate in reply to my question No. E-1269/07 how it is that the Elanet company (in which she herself admits that the Greek Federation of Industry - SEV - has a vested interest) is involved in the approval of 299 of the 300(!) applications submitted to the Finance Ministry, as pointed out by the Greek press (for example ‘Ethnos’ of 13 December 2006). I am, therefore, compelled, as I also mentioned in my above question, to raise the matter before the European Parliament in plenary in the hope of obtaining a full reply from (the otherwise likeable) Mrs Hübner. Under Community law and the rules governing the implementation of the third CSF and other Community initiatives, is it acceptable for applications to be approved by the representatives of the applicants? What are the Commission's views on the fact that Elanet has approved 299 of a total of 300 applications submitted?

(EN) On the issue of the compatibility with Community rules of the involvement of "ΕΛΑΝΕΤ" (ELANET) in the evaluation of applications for certain co-financed state aid measures and the procedure for the evaluation of such applications, the Commission has already explained, in its answer to the Honourable Member's written questions E-5710/06 and E-1269/07, that private firms can be involved in the implementation of co-funded operations, in particular state aid measures. In accordance with article 9(l) of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1260/1999⁽¹⁾ of 21 June 1999 (the general regulation applicable to the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006), for the purposes of the Structural Funds, final beneficiaries are defined as "the bodies and public or private firms responsible for commissioning operations. In the case of aid schemes pursuant to Article 87 of the Treaty and in the case of aid granted by bodies designated by the Member States, the final beneficiaries are the bodies which grant the aid".

On the issue of high number of projects approved by ELANET, the Honourable Member asks for the Commission's judgement. As explained in the Commission's answer to the written question E-1269/07, in line with the subsidiarity principle, the management of the Structural Funds, including the evaluation, selection, implementation and auditing of individual projects is, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission intervenes when, on the basis of audit reports or otherwise, there would be indications of irregularities in the management process which would not have been satisfactorily dealt with by the Member State authorities.

Despite the ban imposed by the Commission on the hunting of birds during the migration season for many species of bird from and to Africa, and despite major protests from animal welfare organisations, the government of Malta has this year again, at the start of spring, authorised the hunting and shooting of a number of protected bird species. This is in flagrant contravention of the Birds Directive, which is designed, in particular, to protect a number of rare bird species. In 2004 the Commission already instituted proceedings against Malta before the Court of Justice, apparently to no avail.

What is the Commission's response? Will it be applying further sanctions vis-à-vis this serious and repeated violation of European legislation by a Member State?

(EN) Under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (hereafter the Birds Directive), the hunting of migratory birds listed in Annex II of the Directive is not allowed during the return to their breeding grounds. Article 9 of the Birds Directive provides the possibility for Member States to apply a derogation but only under exceptional circumstances and only if the strict criteria set out in this article are met. Crucially, derogations are only possible where there are no other satisfactory solutions.

In 2004, the Maltese Government decided to apply this derogation for the hunting of Quails and Turtle Doves during the spring migration. However, the information sent to the Commission by the Maltese authorities was insufficient to demonstrate that the derogations granted were able to meet the requirements set out in the Birds Directive. In particular, the Maltese authorities failed to show that there were no other satisfactory solutions and that the spring hunting takes places under strictly supervised conditions. This is why the Commission concluded that the derogation granted in 2004 infringes Articles 7 and 9 of the Birds Directive. In July 2006, an infringement procedure was launched in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

The abovementioned infringement case only concerns the derogation granted in 2004. However, the Commission is aware that spring hunting was permitted in the subsequent years. The Commission considers that the continuation of the spring hunting all these years without a proper justification constitutes a case of systemic bad application of the Birds Directive. Thus, in March 2007, the Commission decided to send a supplementary letter of formal notice aiming at broadening the scope of the infringement case and addressing the generalized practise of the Maltese authorities all these years. It should be stressed that the Commission gave Malta the opportunity to submit its observations on the matter within one month, i.e. a shortened deadline.

In their replies to the letters sent by the Commission, the Maltese authorities affirm that the derogations granted fulfil the criteria of Article 9 of the Birds Directive. The Commission is assessing the information received. If it is established that Malta has not fully complied with the Birds Directive, the Commission will not hesitate to continue the infringement procedure to its conclusion, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

On 10 May 2007, the Maltese authorities announced that legislation permitting spring hunting in 2007 of Quail and Turtle Dove would be revoked from that date. Spring hunting had commenced on 10 April 2007 and was due to terminate on 20 May 2007. The Commission welcomes the proposal of the Maltese authorities to stop spring hunting earlier than anticipated. The Commission hopes that such a move by the Maltese authorities indicates recognition of their obligations under EU law and that spring hunting in future years will not be permitted, to ensure that the infringement of the Birds Directive in relation to spring hunting may be closed.

Despite the availability of advanced treatments, nearly one in five adult Europeans suffer from long-term pain. These findings were uncovered by Pain in Europe, a study amongst 46 000 people across Europe. According to the survey, people with pain report feeling isolated, desperate and a burden to family, friends and colleagues. One in five have lost their job, a similar number have been diagnosed with depression because of their pain and, for one in six, the pain is sometimes so bad they simply want to die. Chronic pain is a complex condition requiring a multidisciplinary approach to treatment and management. To date, Germany is the only Member State that recognises chronic pain as a condition in its own right. Why are we so slow to accept chronic pain as the medical condition it so clearly is? Can the Commission initiate action at European level to support citizens suffering from long term pain and ensure that they get the necessary treatment?

(EN) The Commission welcomes the initiative of the Honourable Member in raising the issue of chronic pain. This is a serious issue that affects the daily lives of a considerable number of citizens in Europe.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the recognition of chronic pain as a medical condition varies between the Member States. This means that citizens in different parts of the Union get different access to treatment for chronic pain.

The Commission understands the frustration that this can cause, both to the patients concerned and their carers.

However, the primary responsibility for the organisation and financing of health services and medical care lies with the Member States. The Commission cannot therefore impose a single way of dealing with chronic pain at European level.

Nevertheless, it can aim to promote better understanding and best practice through sharing experiences at European level. And it is doing so.

The Commission has included specific questions on how far pain restricts daily living as part of a Eurobarometer survey in 2006, to help assess the extent of this issue. It plans to issue the results in July 2007.

It has also funded relevant projects including "Defining best practice in palliative care" and "Highlighting the impact of headache in Europe".

And for this year, the Commission has specifically included 'pain management' as a topic in its 2007 Call for Proposals under the public health programme, to help support further cooperation on these issues in particular at European level.

This will not change the situation in Member States overnight, but over time, the Commission thinks that this kind of European cooperation can help to improve understanding and disseminate best practices in treating chronic pain throughout the Union.

Nowadays, MP3 players can produce up to 120 decibels. However, the Superior Health Council, a Belgian committee of scientific experts, recommends that a limit of 90 decibels should be the standard applicable to MP3 players. According to the Council, MP3 players are more damaging to hearing than other portable audio devices, because people listen to them more and for longer periods. Damage to hearing can already occur at 80 decibels. Such damage may lead to ringing in the ears, disturbed sleep and deafness.

Is the Commission aware of the recommendation by Belgium's Superior Health Council? Will the Commission adopt a legislative initiative to institute a standard for the noise levels of portable music players, ideally setting a limit of 90 decibels?

(EN) The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member over potential hearing damage and other health effects from MP3 and other music players. Several national authorities have pronounced themselves on this matter.

Community legislation is already in place that restricts the noise level of this type of music player to 100 dB. Therefore, emitting levels above may not be safe and should not be used without additional protective measures. These levels are set by a harmonised standard: EN 60065:2002 “Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus - Safety requirements”.

This standard is referred to by Community product legislation as appropriate to apply for both personal music players and other equipment including such a function.

The regulatory framework governing the safety of this equipment is as follows:

The Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE) Directive⁽¹⁾ 1999/5/EC governing the health and safety aspects of radio equipment, including mobile phones;

The Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 2006/95/EC governing the health and safety of electrical equipment within certain voltage ranges;

The General Product Safety Directive⁽²⁾ (GPSD) seeks to ensure that all consumer products are safe where this aspect is not further detailed in any other “specific” EU legislation (including personal music players).

Notwithstanding that a standard exists, the Commission is preparing a request for scientific advice on this issue. The scientific opinion will inform the Commission, who will then proceed to take the measures deemed appropriate.

In respect of noise limits, a firm view on this will be taken at that time. In this respect the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that most research findings on noise currently take into account not only the noise level, but also the length of time and number of exposures.

At the plenary sitting of 24 April in Strasbourg, Amendment No. 8 to the report establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch (A6-0137/2007) was rejected. The amendment provided for a more rational allocation of quotas among Member States. The transfer of unused quotas from old Member States to new Member States would have meant that there was a chance of them being fully utilised and would have been of assistance to Poland and Lithuania, among other countries.

Furthermore, there would have been an improvement in production ratios, which are currently as follows: EU 15 – 90.4% and EU 10 – 9.6% (starch production); EU 15 – 70% and EU 10 – 30% (potato production)). Following the rejection of the above amendment, what steps will be Commission be taking to regulate potato starch production and meet the needs of the new Member States?

(EN) The Commission is well aware that certain new Member States believe that their quotas, negotiated in the Accession Treaty and based on a historic reference period, are too small.

In the new Member State, the quotas were established with the same method as for the existing Member States, i.e. the allocation was based on traditional potato starch production, taking an average of the three reference years (1999–2001 except for Lithuania, where the years 1998–2000 were used). It was not possible to take into account potato areas since data on the part of the potato production used for starch processing were not available.

A reallocation of unused quotas would incite higher potato starch production under quota and weaken the quota regime itself. In view of the supply situation of the potato starch market, where currently 40% of the production has to be exported and where the cereal starch becomes more and more competitive on the domestic market, this should be avoided.

Therefore the Commission proposal is limited to a two years roll-over and does not consider any adaptation or modification of the present quota regime. As far as the future development of the sector is concerned, this will allow reviewing the potato starch regime in the framework of "Health Check".

To what extent is the Commission proceeding with initiatives to encourage policies to make all European work places, including bars and restaurants, smoke free?

(EN) A smoke-free Europe constitutes one of the main priorities of the Commission in the field of health.

This January, the Commission adopted a Green Paper which launched a broad public consultation on the best way forward to promote smoke-free environments in Europe.

On the basis of the comments received, the Commission will decide on the direction of further action. The opinion of the European Parliament will be of crucial importance to us in this respect.

The Commission will propose the way forward in a follow-up communication in 2008.

In addition, our media HELP campaign is now in its third year. So far, the campaign has been highly successful in warning young people of the risks of passive smoking and addiction. The latest HELP TV spot addresses the dangers of second-hand smoke to children.

The new pictorial warnings on tobacco packages are intended to help smokers visualise the nature of tobacco related diseases, including the risks of passive smoking to children and pregnant women.

Finally, the Commission is preparing a report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on smoking prevention. The report will include an analysis of national smoke-free policies and regulations.

In March, workers at the Quinn radiator factory in Grobbendonk in Belgium learned that the company's Irish management plans to close their plant (making 137 people redundant). This decision coincides with the opening of a new factory in Newport, Wales, where production from Grobbendonk and also from Leigh in the UK is to be continued. The Quinn group operates in a number of very diverse sectors (including building materials, property, hotels, insurance) and employs 6400 people. As there is no European works council, structured communication of information and consultation are not possible.

Could the Commission indicate what European support the Quinn group has received for the factories in Newport and Leigh? Is the Commission prepared to initiate a discussion on how large companies could be compelled to set up a European information and consultation structure? Is the Commission prepared to contact the regional authorities concerned in the UK and Flanders with a view to evaluating this restructuring?

(EN) The old factories in Grobbendonk (Belgium), Leigh (North West England) and the new factory in Newport (Wales) have not received any European Social Fund (ESF) support nor any European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) support.

2) All Member States have implemented the European works council Directive⁽¹⁾. It is up to the competent national authorities, notably courts, to ensure the correct and effective application of the national transposing rules in view of the specific circumstances of each case and to ensure the fulfilment of any employer's duties in this regard. According to the most comprehensive data⁽²⁾, out of the 2204 companies employing a total of 23.6 million workers falling under the scope of the Directive, 772 companies, employing 14.45 million workers, had established European Works Councils in 2005. Negotiations for the establishment of a European Works Council shall be initiated on the own initiative of the central management or at the written request of at least 100 workers or their representatives in at least two undertakings or establishments in at least two different Member States. The Commission is not aware of any initiative or request taken within the Quinn group to this aim.

The Commission reported in 2000 to the Parliament and the Council on the practical and legal application of the European Works Council Directive⁽³⁾. In April 2004, the Commission launched a first phase of consultation on the review of the Directive and in March 2005, in the framework of the Communication "restructuring and employment"⁽⁴⁾, it launched the second phase of this consultation. The proposal of transforming the right to transnational information and consultation into an obligation was nevertheless not addressed in these consultation documents.

3) The Commission has already contacted the Flemish authorities who indicated that in such cases, employment cells are put in place to provide guidance and training to workers for a maximum of two years. The Commission will closely follow the situation with the Flemish Authorities.

Recently there have been calls for investment in holiday homes in Greece, principally in island and coastal areas and sites of outstanding national beauty, involving the construction of one million new residences and measures to cater for the movement of 40 million tourists. The restricted settlement areas, overcrowding and the lack of infrastructures for tourism on such a scale, present us with a major housing, environmental and social problem for the immediate future.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? Have studies been carried out into the impact of the investment projects in question? What measures and policies will be adopted to discourage investment projects on such a scale offering no guarantees of sustainability in practice?

(EN) The Commission is not aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member or of any studies that may exist concerning the calls for large scale investments for holiday homes in Greece.

The Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management⁽¹⁾ provides general principles for sound and sustainable coastal planning and management. Under the principle of subsidiarity land use planning issues fall under the responsibility of Member States. It should be stressed however that any such development should be carried out in conformity with EU legislation including environmental legislation and more specifically on environmental impact assessment and nature protection. Indeed, this type of development is covered by Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EC⁽²⁾ as modified, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Member States have to determine whether projects included in this Annex shall be made subject to an environmental impact assessment. In addition any project having a potential impact on nature protected areas has to respect the requirements of corresponding legislation, and in particular Council Directives 409/79/EEC⁽³⁾ on the conservation of wild birds and 92/43/EC⁽⁴⁾ on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The Delphi company recently announced that it was closing its Puerto Real (Cádiz) plant in southern Spain. This closure involves 1600 direct, and a further 2500 indirect jobs in an economically vulnerable area with high unemployment.

Since 1986, the company has been in receipt of over 60 million euros of public subsidy. Furthermore, it had committed itself to an Industrial Plan running to 2010, which offered its employees specific commitments with regard to stable employment.

Is the Commission going to ask the Spanish Government to take steps to prevent the Delphi closure in the light of the Industrial Plan commitment to 2010, under which it has received public funding?

Is the Commission going to demand that the Spanish Government insist that Directives 94/45/EC⁽¹⁾ and 2002/14/EC⁽²⁾ on information and consultation of workers, and 98/59/EC⁽³⁾ on collective redundancies be complied with, and should they not be, does the Commission intend to call on the Spanish Government to act on its responsibilities?

(EN) The Commission is attentive to cases of restructuring in the automotive sector and is particularly concerned by the negative consequences of plant closures for the workers affected, their families and the regions in which they are situated. However, the Commission has no authority to prevent or defer the decisions of individual companies in relation to company restructurings or site closures and cannot interfere in a company's decision unless that decision violates Community law.

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that Delphi Automotive España SL has received support through the European Regional Development Fund as follows:

€ 9 974 577 under the Operational Programme "Competitividad y Mejora del € Tejido Productivo"⁽⁴⁾;

€ 4 365 151 under the Integrated Operational Programme for Andalucía⁽⁵⁾.

Delphi Automotive España SL has not received any direct assistance from the European Social Fund.

If it appears that the closure of Delphi's site in Puerto Real is in breach of the rules concerning the maintenance of Structural Funds operations⁽⁶⁾, the competent national authorities should take the necessary measures to make the financial corrections required, including the recovery of sums unduly received.

As regards the financial support that Spain has granted to Delphi in the form of State aid, the Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that, in addition to some public aid to specific R&D projects under approved State aid schemes⁽⁷⁾, on 17/10/2006 a decision to grant the company a subsidy of € 4.26 million. was taken by the Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa of the Junta de Andalucía⁽⁸⁾, for an investment project to be implemented before 30/05/2006. However, since Delphi has so far not proved the implementation of the project in question, the corresponding aid has not been paid out to the company.

Spain has adopted the necessary measures to transpose into its national legal order Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of laws of the Member States on collective redundancies⁽⁹⁾, Council Directive 94/45/EC the European Works Councils⁽¹⁰⁾ and Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer⁽¹¹⁾. It is therefore up to the competent national authorities, notably courts, to ensure the correct and effective application of the national rules in view of the specific circumstances of each case and to ensure the fulfilment of any employer's duties in this regard. The Commission has sent a letter to the company recalling the need to respect the legislation in force.

As regards Directive 2002/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community⁽¹²⁾, the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Spain for failure to transpose this directive into national law within the required deadline. The case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice⁽¹³⁾.

According to the 'Independent' newspaper, in 2006, in the United Kingdom alone 22 000 people entered rehabilitation programmes to cure them of their addiction to cannabis, 9 600 of whom were under 18. At the same time, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 12 million Europeans take cannabis, 25% of them on a daily basis, while 20% of rehabilitation requests are cannabis related. Recent research has established a link between cannabis and mental disorders caused by the increased content in cannabis of the psychotropic drug tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

It has been shown that the decriminalisation in certain EU Member States of 'soft' drugs such as cannabis is resulting in a dramatic increase in the number of users and drug addicts, particularly among young people, with tragic consequences for their health and even their lives.

What is the Commission's response to the findings of scientific surveys showing that not only are 'soft' drugs no less dangerous, but also their decriminalisation is resulting in a sharp rise in drugs dependency and drug addiction, particularly among young people?

(EN) Cannabis use in Europe is a public health problem. Evidence shows that its use, in particular when intensive, and in young people, can be detrimental to physical and mental health.

The use of cannabis has increased over the past two decades. However, the speed and signs of the increase vary throughout Europe.

There is an overall increase in the level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis products, however, this increase is not yet visible in every country and rates differ considerably between countries. This issue is taken into account very seriously by all Member States.

Much research exists on cannabis, on its medical use as on mental problems. However the suggested link ‘between cannabis and mental disorders’ has not yet been fully explored by researchers.

Cannabis use is the most widely used drug in the European Union, and indeed in the world. It is a public health concern.

Therefore selective interventions on prevention and treatment should be made available to curb the current level of use. This is reflected in the EU Action Plan (2005-2008).

In Greece and more generally in all the EU Member States, the number of workers being 'hired out', that is to say subjected to a modern form of slavery, is increasing exponentially. While they are employed for years at a time to meet the recurrent and ongoing needs of undertakings in the public and private sector, they are not directly recruited by these undertakings but indirectly through private employment agencies which treat them like slaves. The 'hired out' workers are not covered by collective bargaining agreements and are constantly denied their freedom at the workplace and their civil liberties. In this way the agencies concerned are clearly seeking to maximise their profits by keeping earnings and benefits for workers to a minimum. In Greece, for example, according to the incomplete information available (in fact the situation is much worse) the National Bank of Greece alone employs 700 of its staff on this basis while the total number of workers employed in this way exceeds 15 000 and is steadily increasing.

Does the Commission consider that this type of recruitment infringes the rights of workers to permanent and stable employment and the principle of equal pay for equal work under collective bargaining agreements?

(FR) The honourable Member highlights the situation of workers who are recruited in Greece and in the other EU Member States by private employment agencies in order to be placed at the disposal of user enterprises, the apparent objective of which procedure is to reduce the latter’s labour costs and social security contributions. At the same time, the employees concerned have little job security and are not covered by collective agreements. The situation described by the honourable Member corresponds to the triangular relationship more commonly referred to as ‘temporary work’, where agencies, as employers, make their employees available for a fixed term, with a view to providing a service to a user enterprise.

Many Member States, including Greece, have adopted national legislation that covers this type of situation and guarantees temporary workers adequate protection. Most of these laws establish the principle of equal treatment – not least regarding pay – between the temporary workers and permanent workers employed by user enterprises. In this case, temporary workers benefit from the provisions of the collective agreements applicable in the user enterprises. In some Member States, it is the social partners at national or sectoral level who have decided to conclude collective agreements with the specific aim of providing the workers concerned with a protective framework.

On 20 March 2002⁽¹⁾ the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on the working conditions of temporary workers. After the European Parliament issued its opinion at first reading, the Commission adopted an amended proposal on 28 November 2002⁽²⁾. This text lays down the general principle of equal treatment, in accordance with which the basic working and employment conditions (in particular pay and working time) of temporary workers will be at least those that would apply if the workers had been recruited directly by the user enterprise to fill the same post. This text is still awaiting discussion by the Council.

The 'Memorandum of Understanding' on imports of textile and clothing products from China to EU countries, which was signed on 10 June 2005 and covers 10 of some 35 categories of products imported from China, is due to expire on 31 December 2007.

This agreement introduced, albeit to a limited extent, special safeguard measures relating to Chinese exports, as distinct from EU imports from other countries.

Various organisations in the sector have drawn attention to the need maintain the measures restricting the exponential growth of textile and clothing imports into the European Union. The continued application of such measures will help to guarantee the future of this important sector, to create or save millions of workers' jobs and to ensure the socio-economic development of EU disadvantaged regions in particular, in which the sector is concentrated.

Against this background, what measures, including import restrictions, will the Commission take to support productive capacity and jobs in the textile and clothing sector, which is of major socio-economic importance to EU countries?

(EN) The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed between the EU and China in June 2005 was a "once and for all" agreement. It comprises agreed levels for ten textile and clothing categories until 31 December 2007. It was intended to give an extra breathing space to the EU industry to adapt to the new environment after the end of the Agreement for Textiles and Clothing (ATC), foreseen since 1995. The Commission is convinced that the industry put the extra time since 2005 to good use. In fact, the social partners representing European textile and clothing industry did not demand any extension of the Memorandum. They call instead for priority being given to policies guaranteeing equal market access and respect of agreed rules.

After the end of the MoU the textile sector will be subject to the same rules as all other economic sectors in the EU.

Nevertheless, the Commission is monitoring and will continue to monitor the situation of trade in the textile and clothing sector and in particular the imports originating in China.

Should the situation warrant it, the Community has at its disposal instruments to ensure that World Trade Organisation and EU rules are respected.

Since 1 January 2007, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been in operation. Can the Commission supply figures on the number of cases currently under consideration? Have any decisions already been taken on particular cases? What action was taken on them?

(FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) entered into force on 19 January 2007, following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006⁽¹⁾ by the European Parliament and by the Council.

To date, two requests for EGF funding have been made to the Commission. Both of these requests were made by France, pursuant to the criterion⁽²⁾ that provides for EGF intervention in the case of at least 1000 redundancies in an enterprise, over a four-month period, including workers made redundant from its suppliers or downstream producers.

In accordance with Article 5(5) of the Regulation⁽³⁾, the two requests are in the process of being examined within the Commission. This examination, which is designed to determine whether or not the conditions under which a financial contribution may be made have been met, should soon be completed. Where appropriate, a proposal for authorising appropriations corresponding to the sum of the contribution concerned will be submitted by the Commission to the budgetary authority, as provided for in Article 12(3) of the Regulation⁽⁴⁾.

The recent events in Estonia clearly show that Russia is consciously worsening its relations with the European Union. The European Union must not be silent when one of its Members, in this case Estonia, is threatened.

How will the Commission react to the events in Estonia? What is the opinion of the Commission concerning the events in Estonia and future implementation of agreements with Russia on readmission and visa facilitation in particular?

(EN) The Commission has immediately called on Russia to honour its obligations under the Vienna Convention to protect Estonian diplomats in Moscow and participated in a demarche on 2 May to that effect. The EU has strongly contested Russian claims that Estonia has breached international obligations when Russia raised the matter at the human rights consultations in Berlin on 3 May. The Commission calls for restraint and for Estonia and Russia to discuss in good faith their differing interpretations of this part of history. The matter will also be discussed at the EU-Russia Summit of 17/18 May 2007.

The Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements with Russia will enter into force on 1 June. We shall certainly take full account of Parliament’s concerns on respecting human rights in the implementation of the Agreements. This is reflected in the joint Council/Commission statement which has been presented to Parliament.