Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 12 July 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 9.30 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Negotiation mandate: enhanced EC-Ukraine agreement (debate)

  President. The first item is the debate on the report by Michał Tomasz Kamiński, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a recommendation from the European Parliament to the Council on the negotiation mandate for a new enhanced agreement between the European Community and its Member States of the one part and Ukraine of the other part (2007/2015(INI)) (A6-0217/2007).

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (UEN), rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, the report we are discussing and on which we will be voting today concerns the agreement on enhanced cooperation between the European Union and Ukraine. I do not want to repeat the contents of this report. In my speech, I would like to focus on the broader context within which this report should be considered.

First of all, the report contains a realistic assessment of the situation in Ukraine and, thus, on the one hand, it acknowledges that we should appreciate the huge effort made by the Ukrainian people and the state along the path to full democracy, a market economy and respect for human rights. It should be added that, during the dozen or so years of independence, Ukraine has made a great deal of progress in terms of creating a modern European Society.

Today, Ukraine is a tolerant, free, democratic country. It is, ultimately, a country where the majority of people support integration with the European Union, as all opinion polls reflect. As we have revealed everything in the report, it should also be stressed that Ukraine does face certain problems. We call on the Ukrainian Government to deal with these issues. The problems are related to, amongst others, the free and proper functioning of foreign companies, including European Union companies, in Ukraine. There are cases of criminal activity. The Ukrainian Government has declared that it will try to combat crime and we should applaud this move.

I would also like to stress that in the course of our work on the report, colleagues from all groups interested in Ukraine’s troubles showed a great deal of solidarity. I would like to thank, amongst others, Mr Siwiec from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, who is with us today. As the vice-president of the European Parliament and responsible for relations with Ukraine, he has helped me a great deal.

From the outset, I wanted this report to be a document which would unite, rather than divide, this House. I wanted it to be a document on which we would try to reach a consensus. Today, it seems worthwhile for the European Parliament, which is an institution that Ukrainians pay attention to, to send a signal which would show the Ukrainian people that the European Parliament does not want to close its doors to Ukrainians, although, at the same time, it does assess Ukrainian membership in realistic terms, namely as something that will not happen in the nearest future.

This great nation is a European nation and anyone who has been to Ukraine can easily see how much of Europe's cultural heritage can be found there. It is enough to see Kiev as the cradle of a very important Christian denomination in Eastern Europe in order to realise that Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian state, fully deserve to be described as a European nation and that we, as the European Parliament, as the European Union, should treat this country with friendship and respect.

I hope that, as I have pointed out, the report will be treated by this House as a compromise document, a document reflecting the good will of our institution, the European Parliament, towards the Ukrainian people.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, who I am replacing today, I welcome this opportunity to discuss relations between the European Union and the Ukraine based on the very good report by Mr Kamiński.

This report is a balanced political document which contains clear messages. As you know, the situation in Ukraine remains difficult. It is crucial that the agreement of 27 May between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yanukovych to hold early elections on 30 September is fulfilled. The main players have to stabilise the country’s political situation, and they must establish a viable constitutional system. Only in this way can they create the conditions for the country to move forward with political and economic reforms, based on respect for the principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the market economy.

In relation to the elections, it is paramount to ensure they are conducted in a democratic manner in accordance with international standards. We have been in regular contact with the various political sides in Ukraine to pass on these messages. We regularly continue to do so. For instance, my colleague Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner met Prime Minister Yanukovych at the Cooperation Council on 18 June, and she will meet Foreign Minister Yatsenyuk next week. The EU-Ukraine Summit on 14 September in Kiev, just two weeks before the elections, will be a key event to reaffirm these messages at the highest level.

We strongly welcome the fact that the report by Mr Kamiński emphasises these crucial messages. This document, along with the recent visit of a European Parliament delegation to Ukraine, led by Mr Severin, the chairman of the Parliament’s delegation for relations with Ukraine, is a valuable contribution towards ensuring stabilisation of the situation in Ukraine and emphasising the importance of constitutional reform. Close coordination between the European Parliament and the Commission on these steps is particularly welcome.

As regards the new enhanced agreement, the political crisis has not had a detrimental effect on the negotiations for the time being. Both political sides in Ukraine attach high importance to the negotiations, four rounds of which have already taken place. The last round took place only last week, on 2 to 4 July in Kiev, and good progress has been achieved on political, justice-related, freedom and security-related and other sectoral aspects of the agreement.

The Ukrainian side, for whom the European perspective is a key concern, is emphasising its objective of ‘political association and economic integration’ in these negotiations. The Summit on 14 September will be an important occasion to assess the overall status of negotiations and provide political momentum for further progress. As it is pointed out in Mr Kamiński’s report, negotiations on a deep and comprehensive free trade area, which will be a core element of the new enhanced agreement, will start as soon as Ukraine’s WTO accession process is finalised. There are still some outstanding issues to discuss, not only with the European Union, but also with other parties, but with some goodwill on the Ukrainian side, their efforts should come to fruition during the course of this year.

In conclusion, we very much welcome this report and the key messages it sends to the Ukrainian side. On the main issue you raise, i.e. the EU response to Ukraine’s European aspirations, our position is clear: our aim in the negotiations is to bring Ukraine as close as possible to the European Union in as many areas as possible, while not prejudging any possible future developments in EU-Ukraine relations.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group I warmly welcome the Kamiński report. Ukraine, as well as being the EU’s immediate strategic neighbour, is our vital trading partner in energy matters. Right now, it is in the middle of a constitutional crisis in terms of divisions of power between the President and Parliament, and between the Ukrainian-speaking western and central regions, mainly supporting President Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, and the south and east, which are Russian speaking and mainly support Prime Minister Yanukovych.

Resolving this will be a test of the maturity of Ukrainian democracy and a challenge to the enduring legacy of the Orange Revolution and the rule of law, but so far, to Ukraine’s great credit, no violence has erupted. Sadly, the Constitutional Court has failed, as a result of undue politicisation, to resolve the dispute over the presidential powers to dissolve the Rada. The current cross-party agreement for fresh elections to the Rada due for 30 September may clear the air, or at least confirm that all major players are essentially for the continuing unity of the nation and in favour of imminent WTO membership, as well as a much deeper economic relationship with the European Union.

The Kamiński report supports these objectives and goes further by keeping the possibility of EU membership open for the longer term. For now, the EU is rightly building on the 2005 ENP action plan and following on from the recent visa facilitation and readmission agreement aiming to develop with Ukraine a deep free-trade agreement, possibly in the form of an association agreement to replace the outdated PCA post-Soviet model.

I now call on the EU to boost ENPI financial assistance to Ukraine, and on Ukraine to redouble its efforts to combat corruption in public life, to strengthen judicial independence, whilst demonstrating at the same time its firm commitment to getting closer to the European Union by working towards approximating its laws with the European Union’s acquis communautaire.

  Marek Siwiec, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, the report everyone is applauding appeared as a result of reflection on what Ukraine is and what it means to Europe. The European Parliament began to reflect on these matters almost three years ago, well before there was ever any talk of the Orange Revolution.

We have reached a point where we want to put pen to paper and to draw up a plan. We want to call it an agreement, perhaps an association agreement, which would bring Ukraine closer to the European Union. As the Commissioner said, we should bring Ukraine as close as possible. “As close as possible” – this may even be no distance at all. In other words, it may involve future membership of the European Union. We should not be afraid to mention this. We should not be afraid to state that such a prospect exists. Let us also tell Ukrainians about it. This report, which is the first official European Union document on the subject, contains such a statement.

In order for these plans to become reality, Ukraine faces a mammoth task and needs a sense of responsibility and duty towards its own citizens. These reforms will be difficult and painful. We want to help with these reforms. The European Union, Ukraine’s membership of the Union and its European aspirations should become a rallying point rather than a cause of dispute.

Ukrainian political parties taking part in the elections need to clearly tell the Ukrainian people that they support European Union membership, and that, instead of arguing, they will work towards this objective.

I feel comfortable enough to say these words because the European Union, through the consensus reached at the last summit, has clearly shown that it is open to further enlargement. The European Union has shown that it wants to apply the enlargement procedure in a sensible and considered manner that is beneficial to both the Member States, candidate countries and countries which intend to apply for European Union membership in the future.

I encourage you to adopt this report without additional amendments. I hope that it will send an important signal to Ukraine and to the people of the European Union. I hope that we can view the future of Ukraine not in terms of threats and with fear, but in terms of the great opportunities and challenges that face both Europeans and Ukrainians.

  István Szent-Iványi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (HU) At the end of 2004, it was with great joy and hope that we welcomed the news that Ukraine opted for European values and democracy. Since then, experience has shown that strengthening the rule of law, democracy and the free market is not an easy process, and Ukraine must be very careful to safeguard the results achieved, for these are still fragile.

It is precisely for this reason that we strongly approve of what Mr Kamiński’s report has also stated, namely that the European Union does not turn its back on Ukraine in this difficult period, but offers even stronger cooperation. For our part, it is fundamentally in our interest that Ukraine be an independent country oriented towards Europe. It is in our interest for the country to be a solid democracy that rests on the rule of law and for it to have a functioning market economy. It is to this end that we wish to offer assistance by means of the agreement.

Ukraine must see that it too has obligations and tasks to perform, and that this agreement makes sense only if Ukraine is able to master the difficulties and is capable of facing the problems. It is our opinion that the relations between the European Union and Ukraine should not take the form of a partnership, but rather the form of an association agreement. We hope that in subsequent stages such an association agreement will replace this partnership one.

Later it would be important for the Free Trade Area between Ukraine and Europe to be expanded, since economic ties are growing ever larger and closer. We consider it important that in the course of reviewing the neighbourhood policy instrument, the support guaranteed to Ukraine be increased. Thus we deem it essential that after the review period, and even now, the major part of this support be devoted to the construction of civil society, that is, to strengthening the independent media, since there is unfailing need for this in Ukraine.

Ukraine also has work to do in the area of the market economy. The untransparent system of state aids need to be transformed, and greater protection given to intellectual property and foreign investments, for there are a great many problems in this area.

We gladly welcome the agreement on visa facilitation, which we have signed, but we consider this only the first step. We believe that this can truly bring Ukraine and Europe closer together. In this spirit, we support Mr Kamiński’s broad, consensus-based report.

  Adam Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the author of the report we are discussing, our brilliant colleague Michał Kamiński, for drawing up this incredibly important document.

Today’s report is very significant, as it calls on the Council to present Ukraine with clear European prospects, so that the new enhanced agreement will provide the right framework for integrating Ukraine with the Union and, in the future, open the way for its full membership of the European Union.

As Mr Marek Siwiec from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament already noted, this is, in principle, the first official document of the European Union which mentions full membership.

We are discussing this report at a moment which is very important for Ukraine. In just over two months, parliamentary elections will take place there. We have to admit that our failure to send a clear signal to Kiev could be used by those who oppose reform and the pro-Western attitude of Ukraine.

Mr Kaminski’s report sends precisely such a signal and is another pro-Ukrainian voice in Parliament. I am sure that the adoption of today’s report will further strengthen the European Union’s relations with Ukraine.

We sometimes hear sceptical voices in Ukraine, who claim that their country has no choice and can only move eastwards because the West does not want it. I hope that today’s vote will show that these politicians are wrong. Ukraine must be given priority status, if only because of the key role it plays in ensuring the stability and energy security of the European Union. This is particularly important at this time, when we need to support the decision on changing the direction of the Odessa-Brody pipeline and activities to extend it to the European Union.

I would like to remind you that a significant example of the faith we are placing in Ukraine as a valuable member of the European democratic community is the UEFA decision to allow Poland and Ukraine to co-host the European Football Championships in 2012.

Finally, I would like to highlight the fact that Ukraine forms part of Europe through its historical connections with its neighbours. Since gaining independence, Ukraine has chosen a democratic path for the development of its state. All European countries share this trait. I hope that Parliament will confirm today that the choice Ukraine made was the right one.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report. Before delivering my speech today, which will be highly critical of the political system in Ukraine, let me say this: a glance at the map or a history book provides clear evidence that Ukraine is a European country and that, in actual fact, the question of its membership of the European Union can only be linked to the progress being made with the democratic reforms in Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine is a part of Europe should go without saying for every one of us.

After many visits, both before and after the Orange Revolution, I have to say that the political system, or rather the system of political elites in Ukraine, is in an absolutely deplorable state. The party blocs, without exception, have been utterly discredited. The reputation of the core institutions, the reputation of the presidency and that of Parliament have suffered greatly from the fact that, over the last two years, the public interest has effectively become immaterial within those institutions, which have focused their entire attention on the interests of the elite groups that have now commandeered them. This has left a power vacuum in Ukraine.

There are reports, for example, of a second wave of enrichment taking place in the shadows of the altercations in Parliament. That has got to change. After the elections we must employ our best efforts to ensure that the path to genuine democratic compromises between the blocs is pursued, because there will be another stalemate. Action must be taken to thwart the attempt to introduce a sort of tyranny of the majority in Ukraine.

There are nevertheless hopeful signs too. I think it is a very good thing that the people of Ukraine are taking this whole conflict calmly and that they no longer run the risk of being driven to violent action. I hope this remains the case, and I believe the situation will become more stable if we continue to present the Ukrainians with an honest appraisal of their membership prospects. In this respect I am very pleased with the signals regarding an association agreement and with the present report.

  Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) I too would like to thank the rapporteur for the outstanding piece of work he has produced. We have in the meantime all agreed in our debate that Ukraine, as one of our neighbours, should be a stable, democratic and developing state. I feel that the report rather lost sight of three points which I would like to focus on. The first point is that we should push for stabilisation in the socio-economic sphere, especially regarding the health situation in Ukraine. I am not sure that we are sufficiently aware of the seriousness of the fact that, due to the weakness of its economy, Ukraine has experienced increased levels of very dangerous diseases, and especially infectious diseases. These diseases also present a threat to other countries, and especially the countries of the European Union, due to high levels of migration. I consider it very important for us to step up our assistance to Ukraine in the area of health in the immediate future.

The second point concerns Ukraine’s neighbours, Moldova and Belarus. The EU has put a lot of political effort as well as financial resources into resolving the situation in the Transnistria region. I feel we should pay more attention to how these financial and human resources are being put to use on the Ukrainian side towards a positive solution to the situation in Transnistria, especially as regards controlling the black market and other problem issues in this border area where Ukraine has great potential for intervening in a positive way.

Concerning Belarus I feel particularly that we should focus on getting Ukraine to cooperate more as regards addressing the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, and also to cooperate more with Belarus on resolving immigration issues, as it is clear that Ukraine has become a major conduit for illegal immigrants coming into the EU. I feel that our common wish should be for the forthcoming elections in Ukraine to be free of external interference, to be truly democratic and to show that Ukraine is a good and stable partner for the European Union.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, I would ask of the apparently absent Portuguese Presidency one thing, and one thing only: clarity about the boundaries of the European Union. In my view, Ukraine clearly falls within these. Needless to say, such an open message from Brussels to Kiev requires a helping hand from Europe in the shape of commitment, something which is clearly present in Kiev, as I learnt during a delegation visit in late May. This visit constituted an informative and inspiring European–Ukrainian initiative, on which I should like to congratulate the Commission. Ukraine is equally helped on its way to Europe by the solid report by Mr Kamiński, which I will be happy to support, because it informs the Ukrainian state and administrative institutions quite clearly of the European reform requirements.

It is a huge responsibility on the part of the current Ukrainian political elite to rid itself of the evil, self-interested stench, both tangible and intangible. This self-cleansing process will give the national cause the indispensable public support it needs to join the European Union. The European institutions must make a concrete contribution to this beckoning European perspective for Ukraine, particularly during this exciting, yet polarising, election time. The Kamiński report sets the right example. It points Ukraine, which, undoubtedly, has a long way to go yet, in the direction of Europe in a very clear and concise manner. Let us make sure that country’s journey is smooth, and also join it on its journey.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I fully endorse the report by Mr Kamińsky, which describes the situation just as it has been observed recently by myself and other members of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee in meetings with the Ukrainian parliament, the government and President Yushchenko. The report also describes the Union’s hitherto uncertain position regarding Ukraine. Following our support for the Orange Revolution in December 2005 and the welcome given to President Yushchenko in this Parliament, we should have gone further. We should have said clearly that we do not just support Ukraine but we stand shoulder to shoulder with it as well. Despite all of the problems that our eastern neighbour is encountering, I firmly believe that Ukraine can become a member of the European Union in the foreseeable future. Not only does it have strong historical, cultural and economic ties with the Member States, but it also plays a key role in providing energy security for this area.

Just like the rapporteur, I support an agreement between the European Union and Ukraine that sets out specific terms and conditions as well as a timetable for the development of relations and for reforms leading to the integration of Ukraine into the Union. I am also in favour of increasing financial assistance to Ukraine, while continuing our calls for the thorough implementation of reforms, for the tackling of corruption and for the creation of a stable, reliable and predictable investment environment. I hope that the new Member States in particular will take part in this process, as they share with Ukraine not just linguistic and geographical proximity, but also a totalitarian past and a reformist present.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one need only look at the map to realise that Ukraine is one of the most important countries for us in strategic terms. This is why we are bound to have a great interest in ensuring that Ukraine follows a democratic course, based on the rule of law, and enjoys economic success, because these are the best signs that a country is on the right path.

At the same time, it also has to be said that Ukraine, as an independent nation, is free to chart its own course and that no one – not even a large neighbour – has any right to exert influence. The age of spheres of influence is past, and every country in Europe can take free decisions. That is why it is important that Ukraine is being offered this enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement, which will significantly increase Ukraine’s scope for free decision-making.

I see this agreement in the context of accession to the WTO, of a future free-trade area, of the continuing development of the European neighbourhood policy and of the possibility of an extended European Economic Area, or whatever we called it here in Parliament. It is a matter of paving the way for a free Ukraine that is focused on Europe and is part of the Euro-Atlantic community.

How far that way leads will depend on the development of the European Union and on that of Ukraine. We all have our homework to do. But we should not make any false promises, with no one knowing whether we can keep them, for that will lead to disappointment. On the contrary, we must now implement this partnership and cooperation agreement so that the Ukrainian citizens realise, today and tomorrow and in the days to come, that progress is being made and that people benefit from living in freedom and democracy under the rule of law in a country with a Western orientation. And it is here that we must help.

As Mrs Harms said, the political elite in Ukraine must also come to appreciate this, and an end must be put to all this tactical manoeuvring that is motivated by sheer personal vanity and achieves nothing.

I believe we have an obligation and must fulfil it and that we should not make any false promises but remain realistic, so that our statements possess credibility.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, we too deem it important that the Commission be ambitious when it comes to concluding a new agreement with Ukraine. In this respect, far-reaching and continuing economic integration in particular, combined with the development of cooperation in as many other areas as possible, should, as we see it, be centre stage.

The message which the European Union should send out is that we would like to continue deepening our relations with Ukraine. If we want to do this properly, it is, of course, important that something be done within Ukraine as well because, ultimately, the key to successful cooperation lies with Kiev itself. This also means that we must bring pressure to bear with a view to redressing the political balance in that country. What we should actually work towards or help create is a kind of historic compromise between the east and west. If the political conflict in Ukraine is not resolved, I foresee major problems in the further development of cooperation with the European Union.

The text of the report is cautious where the longer term is concerned, but does not close the door completely. It is also extremely important that we send this message to Ukraine today, again under the caveat that the key lies with Kiev itself. It depends on that country’s reform capacity whether the request for membership will ever become an actual question. Whilst we should not slam the door today, we should remain realistic. What is important, as I have already mentioned, is for Ukraine to develop its own reform agenda, in which, above all, not only the fight against corruption and the creation of more transparent structures in that country are important, but also the phasing out of oligarchic structures.

I should like to finish off with two comments. I think that Ukraine can play a role as key country in that region. This is something we have to nurture and is also mentioned in Mr Kamiński’s report. If we look at the Black Sea region, which is racked with problems such as energy, trade and the fight against crime, and where cooperation between countries is called for with support from the European Union, then Ukraine can play a major role there.

Finally, something else that is also reflected well in the report is that Ukraine plays a key role in Europe’s energy supply where distribution and transit are concerned, but also when it comes to putting its own energy household in order. In fact, the Commission, and the European Union, can also play a major role in this.

  Grażyna Staniszewska (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, the mandate we are discussing is, finally, a positive and constructive signal from the European Community which those seeking reform in Ukraine have long been waiting for.

Ukraine is a very young country, barely twenty years old. It is only beginning to learn how to function, to build and respect its own structures and institutions, and is learning the rules of democracy. Prior to that, for hundreds of years, Ukrainians were deprived of their own state and this country’s situation is utterly different to that of the Baltic states, which lost their statehood for a period of forty years.

The issue of which principles will be used to shape the young Ukrainian state is vitally important as Ukraine is the European Union’s biggest direct neighbour. The question arises as to who will be able to mobilise Ukrainians and to what ends. Will it be Russia, a non-democratic country with a corrupt economy which is used as a tool for exerting political influence, or a democratic and free European Union?

To date, the European Union has, at most, been indifferent to Ukraine’s European aspirations. Apart from its short-term, constructive involvement during the Orange Revolution, the statements of consecutive Commissioners have, so far, revealed the European Union to be indifferent and distant. The mandate we are debating is an opportunity to change this attitude. It creates long-term prospects of European Union membership, pledges more financial aid, following an interim assessment, the creation of a free trade zone and moves to make obtaining visas easier.

However, everything has its price. In exchange, the Community has made it clear that it expects Ukraine to continue along the path to democracy. Ukraine is expected to focus on building the institutions which are characteristic of a democratic country that is able to independently solve crises. The European Union expects Ukraine to reform and, first and foremost, to grant the judiciary independence from political influence so that the country finally has a fully independent constitutional court. It also wants Ukraine to separate politics from economics and to effectively fight corruption.

This is an enormous amount of work, which will be difficult for Ukrainians to complete and will involve many years of toil. However, I am convinced that Ukraine will only be able to meet these challenges if it has a clear, albeit distant, prospect of European integration.

(Applause)

  Gintaras Didžiokas (UEN). – (LT) First of all, I would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kaminski, for preparing this, to my mind, very important and necessary report. Ukraine has played and will continue to play a very important role, not just in the economic but also in the geopolitical sense. The stability of Europe will depend on how and with whom Ukraine will evolve. It is enough to look at history to convince us of this. If Europe wishes to create real stability and security, it will have to pay due attention to Ukraine. Europe needs Ukraine, and Ukraine, without a doubt, needs Europe. We need to extend a hand to the people of Ukraine, we need to help them get over the fear instilled in them by Soviet and Russian propaganda, we need to do away with the remnants of the Cold War, and Ukraine needs to become a reliable, stable, safe and truly European country. We need more multi-faceted programs and more contacts for this; we need to send very clear signals to the people of Ukraine because there are forces at work scaring the people of Ukraine about Europe, sowing discord and tension. Europe needs to overcome this.

  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, We approve the report on Ukraine. In some places, however, I would have preferred some even plainer language.

Ukraine is going through a phase of upheaval, even if the agreement reached by the conflicting parties on fresh elections at the end of September has helped to relax tension. There is no guarantee that a newly elected Verkhovna Rada will be the key to solving the political problems. Will there be more cooperation and mutual trust between the Blue and Orange camps?

On the way to urgently needed stability in Ukraine there are political and institutional hurdles that still have to be surmounted. A clear European perspective can create the necessary impetus towards democratisation and modernisation. The fact that Ukraine falls far short of compliance with international human-rights standards must be mentioned, as must the fact that corrupt structures, particularly in politics and the judiciary, along with the impenetrable web of collusion with business are obstructing a successful reform process.

The prospect of accession is very important and necessary, both to Ukraine and to the EU. The European ideal of creating a continent in which peace, democracy, prosperity and human rights prevail applies to all European countries, and we are addressing that clear message to Ukraine too.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. Three years after the Orange Revolution we have the right to be dissatisfied with the progress made in the fields of democracy, free market and the rule of law in Ukraine. However, those who themselves lived through the communist era in the second half of the twentieth century – and here in the European Union there are ten countries which have experience of this – know how difficult it is to free oneself, both psychologically and institutionally, from the oppressive and overpowering system of real socialism.

Let us remember that Ukraine now has a free and diverse media, which is always the most important guarantee of progress. I agree with most of the previous comments. If we all agree on this matter, why do we not dot our ‘i’s? Why do we not write clearly about Ukraine’s future membership of the European Union which, it goes without saying, lies in the distant future?

If we, the European Union, want to promote our system of values, namely democracy, the free market and the rule of law in eastern Europe, especially in Belarus, Russia or in the Caspian Sea basin, we must have a clear position concerning Ukraine. We have to be explicit about its future membership. If we fail to do this, we will lose the opportunity to create long-term, beneficial stability in eastern Europe.

Our proposals concerning Ukraine’s future membership of the European Union do not force Ukraine into anything. The decision will still be up to the Ukrainians. I particularly wanted to stress this point. Neither are these proposals false promises.

Today, we still have two specific tasks ahead of us. First of all, we should ensure, by means of diplomatic efforts, that the elections planned for 30 August do actually take place. Secondly, a significant, rather than a purely symbolic, group of observers should be sent to the elections. This is our duty and it is what all the Ukrainians I have spoken to have requested.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Allow me to begin by welcoming the Council’s decision to start negotiating a new treaty between the EU and Ukraine, aimed at extending political cooperation and achieving the gradual economic integration of Ukraine into the internal market of the EU. I share the rapporteur’s view that the fulfilment of these ambitious goals, which are important to both sides, will require the establishment of specific procedures, conditions and priorities. Among these priorities are entry to the WTO and the gradual creation of an integrated free trade zone, which should be based on a common regulatory basis and which in my view should include all trade in goods, services and capital. The second priority in the economic sphere should be to integrate Ukraine as quickly as possible into the European energy community.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, today we are discussing the agreement between the European Union and the largest country in Europe, after Russia. Ukraine is, geographically speaking, the biggest country in Europe, and for thousands of years it has participated in and helped to shape European culture. For years it has been expressing its very clear aspirations to join the European Union, as it believes that the provisions of our Treaties, which state that any European country has the right to join the European Union, are more than just empty words.

The Ukraine is also very important to Europe. This point has been mentioned on a number of occasions in this House and also features in the draft report. If only because of energy issues, Ukraine should already form part of the European energy security system and actions such as the construction of the Odessa-Brody pipeline, Ukraine's involvement in the Nabokov pipeline project or incentives for action within the framework of GUAM are perfectly appropriate.

It has been mentioned here that Ukrainian political institutions are not mature enough for European Union membership. This may be true today, but I do not think that Ukraine's institutions and Ukrainian democracy are in a worse state than the situation we are dealing with in Turkey. We should also remember that, if we do not count the Baltic states, Ukraine is the most democratic of all the countries which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is why we should give Ukraine the green light.

  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. First of all I would like to express my congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Kamiński. The rapporteur’s deep personal interest in the development of events in Ukraine and in fostering relations between the European Union and Ukraine has certainly been beneficial for the formulation of Parliament’s position. Ukraine has always attracted the special attention of the European Union. It has an important geopolitical role, which stretches far beyond its borders. The European Union has a vital interest in a democratic and economically flourishing Ukraine. Setting out a perspective for Ukraine’s proposed goal of becoming a European Union Member State would be a significant contribution towards attaining these goals. This would constitute highly significant support for the development of democratic processes in Ukraine, would help internal political processes within the country to acquire stability, and would foster the process of uniting Ukraine’s society. The directions set out in the report, for reform in the country and tasks for improving democracy, the rule of law, entrepreneurial activity and investment to improve the environment, are important elements of support for Ukraine’s long-term stabilisation. Ever closer cooperation with the European Union will point the way for resolving these issues and will establish the pace of Ukraine’s progress towards integration with the European Union. Thank you.

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, we Members of the European Parliament have emphasised on numerous occasions in plenary and in our committees how important our Ukrainian neighbour is to us. We followed the encouraging developments that resulted from the Orange Revolution with great sympathy and tried to nurture them wherever we could. We are continuing this effort today by approving the construction of an enhanced partnership between Ukraine and the EU.

Ukraine is undergoing what is potentially a highly promising transformation process. It is still far short, however, of the stage reached by our newer Member States in the EU. Ukraine itself can influence the pace of the process. We are prepared to assist it in its efforts.

I see the forthcoming parliamentary elections and the subsequent formation of a government in part as a litmus test of the country’s future orientation. If a European perspective is to be adopted, a political culture compatible with European standards must be developed. The elements that have rigged elections in the past and indulge today in shopping sprees in Parliament to buy missing votes must change their behaviour radically. The same applies, of course, to those who allow themselves to be bought.

All political forces are called upon to respect and protect the country’s institutions, their assigned powers and their integrity and not to use them as pawns and bargaining counters in the domestic political struggle. Only if that goal can be consistently achieved will people gain confidence in democracy as a form of government that is worth supporting.

Mrs Harms has already referred to the institutions, and I too am deeply concerned about the way in which the Ukrainian institutions are treated. I believe we in the European Union cannot begin to imagine the scale these practices have attained. That is why our report is peppered with detailed demands that we expect Ukraine to meet on its way to Europe. These expectations must be fulfilled.

  Adrian Severin (PSE). – Mr President, Ukraine is a rich country, a huge market, a dynamic society formed by a large number of citizens, an impressive source of natural richness and a major transit route for energy and basic goods. It is a great European culture and a large territory with a crucial geo-strategic position.

We must decide if we want Ukraine to be a mere buffer zone behind a parochial European Union hiding its structural weaknesses, or an advanced post of a strong, proud, democratic, political union at the contact-point – rather than at the demarcation line – between Europe and Eurasia, between Europe and Russia.

Most Ukrainians, irrespective of their political and ideological affiliation understand that only within relations with the European Union can their individual, social, national and international security be consolidated. We must tell them in response to their legitimate aspirations and in accordance with our fundamental interests that we are ready to share all our resources and policies with them once the legal, political, legislative, institutional and moral interoperability between Ukraine and the European Union are in place. We must also tell them that we are ready to consider the possibility of eventually even sharing our institutions with them under the appropriate circumstances and at the right time.

For these goals and expectations to be realistic, the European Union must bring its institutional reforms to a successful conclusion. At the same time, Ukraine must dramatically improve its democratic structures firstly with its check-and-balance mechanisms, separate policy from business, thus freeing public policies from oligarchic control, and bridge the cultural divides between its eastern and western territories.

The European Union must establish a clear relationship between the internal progress of Ukraine and its progress in acceding to the opportunities presented by the European Union. The document proposed to us is based on these ideas, therefore it is important to adopt it, thus passing on the right messages to all those concerned.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Mr President, I warmly welcome the progress made by Ukraine over the past few years to get closer to Europe and to our fundamental values. However, we should not disregard the serious problems that the country is facing: corruption is rampant, mutual distrust is strong and the judicial system is dysfunctional and totally discredited. In this context, we must encourage reforms, but Ukraine should also ensure that its declarations are followed by practical actions and that deeds follow words.

The proof of this is Ukraine’s attitude towards Romania and Bulgaria with regard to visa policy. Last month, the EU signed two agreements on visa facilitation and readmission with Ukraine. However, I recently learned that our privileged partner refuses to extend visa facilitation to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. This is totally unacceptable. Ukraine’s authorities may have forgotten that Romania and Bulgaria are now full members of the European Union and, as such, their citizens are entitled to equal treatment. This is a basic principle that Ukraine should take on board as soon as possible if it wants to be taken as a serious partner.

I therefore call on the Council and the Commission to commit to their undertaking not to ratify this agreement before Ukraine has lifted the visa obligation for the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria. Ukraine must understand that this should be resolved as a matter of urgency or it might wholly jeopardise its credibility. I hope we can expect positive developments for the next September summit.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, to a large extent, today’s debate deals with the future of Europe, namely whether it will be based on Christian traditions or whether it will lose its past and its future.

Ukraine is part of Europe. It shares European traditions, the values of our ancestors and its place is among us. I am surprised that the Middle East is more important to some Members. You can imagine Europe in Asia but fail to see a large part of our continent. Today, Ukraine is in the throes of political and economic crisis. That is why we now need to send it a clear signal that we want it to be on our side, that we want Ukrainian society to make the right political choice, in order to stabilise the situation in the eastern territories of the Union.

I would like to congratulate Mr Kamiński on his report. Its contents show a desire to strengthen Europe, a Europe of traditions and values, as well as the economic and geopolitical potential of an enlarged Community.

  Bogdan Klich (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union has certain responsibilities towards Ukraine. Two years ago, we played a significant part in supporting the Orange Revolution in Kiev. Back then, the aim was to bring democracy back to this country. Now, the aim is to consolidate it. In order for this to happen, Ukraine should have clear prospects for the future. We cannot say, as the Commissioner stated, that Ukraine should be as close to the European Union as possible. No. We need to be explicit. Ukraine needs, and I would like to stress this fact, the prospect of European Union membership.

In the meantime, we should support economic progress in Ukraine by signing an association agreement, an agreement on a free trade zone and support Ukraine’s membership of the WTO.

We should also be clear on another matter. The Union has its own agenda regarding Ukraine and we are fully entitled to expect Ukrainians to introduce European economic standards, to separate politics and the economy, to solve the current political crisis by democratic means and make sure that the upcoming elections are held lege artis.

We are also entitled to expect the current Ukrainian Parliament's inter-party team, which is dealing with adapting Ukrainian law to European Union standards, to be reactivated during the next Parliamentary term and to be a significant partner for us in the future.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I congratulate the rapporteur, and I fully agree that the time is right for a new agreement between the EU and Ukraine. I am certain that Ukraine will not falter on the path to Europe. However, such floundering about as conflicts and tensions, which occurred this spring, do not advance Ukraine toward its destination. I would support the proposed EU-Black Sea Dimension initiative, the core axis of which would be Ukraine and Turkey attracting Russia and some other countries. The accrued experience of the Baltic Sea countries' cooperation and the Northern Dimension would be very helpful in this. There has been much discussion for a long while about changing the direction of the Odessa-Brody oil pipeline and bringing it closer to the EU, but now it is time to actually do the work. I support the suggested amendment, which underlines the fact that the success of Ukraine's integration into EU institutions will depend on reforms not only in Ukraine, but in the EU itself. Whether they intended it or not, the machinations of Poland, the United Kingdom and some other countries concerning a reform agreement with Ukraine have acted against Ukraine's interests in its goal of an unwavering approach to the EU.

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Relaţiile dintre Uniunea Europeană şi Ucraina se află în prezent în pragul unor decizii cruciale pentru viitorul lor. Odată cu aderarea României la Uniunea Europeană, frontiera comună cu Ucraina s-a extins, ambele părţi devenind tot mai conştiente de avantajele şi oportunităţile unor relaţii aprofundate şi consolidate. Îi mulţumesc, în acest sens, domnului raportor pentru examinarea tuturor elementelor cheie în această direcţie.

Aş dori să atrag atenţia că o relaţie aprofundată şi mutual avantajoasă presupune responsabilitate crescândă şi angajament ferm din partea ambelor părţi. Îmi exprim astfel speranţa că Ucraina îşi va continua eforturile de conformare la standardele şi valorile europene atât pe plan intern, cât şi pe plan internaţional.

Pe plan intern, stabilitatea politică şi consolidarea principiilor democratice constituie o prioritate. Printre ele, respectarea drepturilor omului şi libertăţilor fundamentale, mai ales a minorităţilor şi a drepturilor acestora de a-şi vorbi limba şi de a-şi promova cultura, trebuie să stea la baza eforturilor Ucrainei de a deveni o societate multiculturală democratică, partener credibil al Uniunii Europene. Pentru a nu vorbi la modul general, doresc să atrag atenţia asupra încălcării drepturilor minorităţii române din Ucraina. Dreptul la educaţie în ţară şi în străinătate, dreptul la cultură şi religie sunt grav încălcate de către statul ucrainean care, în acelaşi timp, depune eforturi susţinute de divizare a acestei minorităţi în minoritatea română şi moldovenească, fără nicio raţiune istorică sau ştiinţifică.

Nu mai puţin importantă este acţiunea Ucrainei la nivel regional şi internaţional, în conformitate cu obligaţiile asumate. Ucraina şi-a demonstrat deja capacitatea de a fi un partener credibil şi eficient prin eforturile de pregătire pentru aderarea la Organizaţia Mondială a Comerţului, precum şi prin cooperarea cu Uniunea Europeană şi Moldova în cadrul Misiunii Uniunii Europene de asistenţă la frontieră.

Noua iniţiativă a Uniunii Europene de consolidare a cooperării regionale la Marea Neagră va fi, în sfârşit, o nouă şansă pentru toţi actorii din regiune pentru a-şi uni eforturile în crearea unui spaţiu de democraţie, stabilitate şi prosperitate în zona Mării Negre.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) As the leader of the Moldova delegation, I would like to emphasise Ukraine’s role as the preserver of stability in the European Union. The frozen conflict in Trans-Dnistria is a relic of the Cold War in Europe. The separatist regime is kept in power by revenues from smuggling, as well as by Russian forces.

Ukraine’s readiness to cooperate with the European Union’s border assistance mission has helped bring us closer to securing the departure of illegal governments, by reducing the Trans-Dnistrian regime’s budget revenues by one third.

I support granting the Council the authority to conclude a new and expanded agreement. Although the situation is far from ideal, Ukraine has nonetheless made advances in respecting human rights and in extending the rule of law. The conflict between the President and the Prime Minister will be resolved in Kiev within a democratic framework, as befits a country aspiring to join Europe.

In order to become a serious candidate for membership of the European Union, Ukraine must strengthen its civil society, safeguard the freedom of the media, increase the independence of the judiciary and make democratic monitoring the norm.

May these objectives be important both for Ukraine and for all of us in the European Union who communicate with Ukraine. I would like to thank Mr Kamiński for a constructive report.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – (SV) A lot has happened since the Orange Revolution, in both Ukraine and the EU. The report that we are debating today describes what has happened in Ukraine and the problems and challenges that the country faces and that it has been presented with, as well as the work that still has to be done and the reforms that still have to be implemented. As with most of our debates on the EU’s relations with various countries, we are describing the situation in Ukraine and making demands and issuing exhortations.

Too rarely do we reflect, however, on the fact that the EU has changed over time. In the less than three years that I have been a Member of the European Parliament, Europe has already become less open, cooperative and generous and more chilly and introverted. We think too often about what things cost and too rarely about what they mean for ourselves and for the Europe of our children. That applies in particular when we begin to talk about a country’s prospects in relation to the EU or the possibility of future membership. I am therefore pleased that this report supports Ukraine’s desire and ambitions to draw closer to the EU and one day also to be reunited with the rest of Europe.

I consciously use the word ‘reunification’ instead of ‘enlargement’ because Ukraine, just like the rest of Eastern Europe, is, and always has been, a part of Europe. It is just that, for several decades, these countries had been kidnapped by Communism. It is time that we now corrected this mistake, and in the case of Ukraine the best way of doing that is to support this report, support the further development of relations between Ukraine and the EU and give Ukraine clear prospects in relation to the EU – prospects that obviously should not exclude membership once all the conditions for membership have been complied with.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

  Francisco Assis (PSE). – (PT) Madam President, for someone like me, who comes from the far western edge of the continent, I cannot fail to manifest a deep respect for a people whose destiny has so often been tragic, in particular throughout the twentieth century, and who are now making a tremendous effort to find their way to becoming a democratic state based upon the rule of law.

This was demonstrated on the streets of Kiev three years ago and continues to be apparent from the Ukrainian people’s desire one day to join the European Union. We must look upon this desire with respect, and give signals, which include both strengthening our cooperation with the Ukraine and supporting the Ukraine’s development on the widest possible range of levels.

It is true that it is not our job to take over tasks that are the responsibility of the Ukrainians: the solidification of their democracy, the full institutionalisation of their democratic rule of law, and the overcoming of the problems they are still facing. Yet whilst it is true that this is a task for the Ukrainians, we must send signals and I am convinced that we are sending the Ukraine a good political signal through this report. For this reason, I congratulate the rapporteur.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the prerequisite for political success is, first and foremost, having clear aims and working consistently to fulfil them. Consistency is particularly important in the case of the complicated political system of the European Union.

In the case of Ukraine, a region of great political, economic and strategic significance, the European Union has to show steely determination in terms of implementing its existing aims. The European Union assisted Ukraine at a key moment in its history, during the Orange Revolution, when decisions were made concerning the path that that country would follow, namely towards the East or the West, towards the European Union or Russia. We made the right decision and consistent implementation is now necessary.

The situation is considerably less dramatic now. However, the European Union needs to take decisive action aimed at integrating Ukraine into the Union’s structures. Acting on the principles of partnership and solidarity, the European Union should support the young Ukrainian democracy and protect it from internal threats. Further integration into the structures of the European Union requires Ukraine to make more of an effort, including in fields such as fighting corruption and modernising the Ukrainian legal system and infrastructure. Without our help, Ukraine will not be able to achieve European Union standards in the fields of democracy and the free market, and will not succeed creating a state based on the rule of law or separating politics from economics.

It saddens me to see that Ukraine is not a priority for the Portuguese presidency. Ukraine is mentioned in the document we have received, but it is a shame that, unlike Brazil, there is no separate chapter dedicated to it. Ukraine is the largest European country which remains outside the European Union. We need to provide it with long-term prospects of European Union membership, as we have done with Turkey.

I would also like to say something more about European hypocrisy. Supporters of the constitutional treaty criticised the Treaty of Nice. One of their main criticisms was that it could not provide the basis for enlarging the European Union. Let them, then, be consistent and stress in the same way that reforming the treaty will allow us to make a historic decision regarding Ukraine’s future membership of the European Union.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – Ucraina se află la intersecţia marilor axe rutiere, feroviare şi de transport de hidrocarburi. Dispunând de cea mai mare densitate de gazoducte şi oleoducte din Europa, Ucraina este un actor important pentru securitatea energetică a Uniunii Europene. Referitor la energia nucleară, Ucraina trebuie să facă dovada securităţii reactoarelor nucleare aflate pe teritoriul său.

În 2007, Grupul de nivel înalt a decis ca axa centrală prin care se va face integrarea sistemului comunitar de transport cu cele ale statelor vecine va asigura conectarea cu Ucraina şi Marea Neagră. Această axă include şi o conexiune prin Ucraina cu calea ferată transsiberiană şi utilizând fluviile Don şi Volga, o cale navigabilă internă către Marea Caspică.

Uniunea Europeană trebuie să fructifice ieşirea la Marea Neagră a României şi Bulgariei. Pentru România, Acordul consolidat este extrem de important şi solicităm asigurări că dezvoltarea infrastructurii de transport fluvial din Ucraina se va face cu protejarea biodiversităţii Deltei Dunării.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I warmly welcome the political angle of the report. It shows that Ukraine is not a threat but an opportunity for the EU. I know that Europe will not be whole until Ukraine becomes part of the European Union. We are united by a common history and hundreds of thousands of family ties. I am truly delighted that Ukraine is taking the path of democracy. I hope that the start of the accession process will not be hurried, as was the case with Turkey, when not all of the Copenhagen criteria were fulfilled, leading to the current disenchantment on both sides. I hope that also the opposition in Ukraine will declare clearly that EU membership is an important goal for the inhabitants of the eastern part of the country as well. This long-term goal requires a change in thinking on the part of millions of citizens, who must also agree with this goal. It would be easy to promise membership to Ukraine today, but the main thing is first to assist it in joining NATO and the WTO.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to make two comments, the first on the future of Ukraine and the second on financial assistance from the European Union. The wording used in the Kamiński report about the European Union perspective is clear and well balanced. There are many important steps ahead that we cannot ignore.

We are in an intensive phase of negotiations on the new enhanced agreement. Ukraine is in the final phase of WTO accession negotiations, which would also open the way for free trade area negotiations. We are talking about visa facilitation, where equal treatment with regard to the requirements of all EU citizens should be taken into account.

I know from my own experience that, while democratic reforms are more than necessary in Ukraine, it is far from an easy way ahead, so we have to work hard, we have to work together and we have to work with an open mind and open hearts. I also know from my own experience that clear messages of support and readiness to help on the difficult way ahead are of utmost importance for success. The report we are discussing today is sending exactly those signals and important messages about the future of Ukraine.

My second point concerns financial assistance to Ukraine. As you know, Ukraine is entering a new phase, the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), and almost EUR 500 million over the four-year period 2007-2010 will be granted to help Ukraine. If you compare the Tacis help from a few years ago, in 2002, to the figure now, in 2007, you will see that it has trebled over that five-year period.

However, it is not only a question of technical assistance. Now we are upgrading that help and focusing on strengthening good governance, democratic development, regulatory and legal approximation, infrastructure, development, in particular in the field of energy, and modern management, including readmission-related issues. In addition, the extension of the EIB mandate to include Ukraine means that it will have also access to substantial funds in that area. We in the EU will certainly give financial assistance to help Ukraine access these funds.

I would like to thank you, the Members of the European Parliament, for your comments, which show your keen interest in one of our key neighbours. Mr Kamiński’s report and today’s debate are truly valuable contributions to the EU’s ongoing development of relations with the country. It is important that we work together to encourage Ukraine to continue firmly on the path of reform for their benefit and for their future.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE), in writing. – Ukraine is a country with acknowledged European traditions and a significant pawn in the development of a viable regional and intra-regional policy within the ENP.

Significant progress has been recently made in the EU-Ukraine relationship, such as the opening of negotiations for a new enhanced agreement and the recently signed agreements on visa facilitation and readmission.

The turmoil caused by recent events should not have repercussions in ensuring the continuation of a good relationship in the same framework of partnership in compliance with European democratic principles.

I believe Ukraine will eventually manage to get out of this current crisis.

To ensure that happens, the political class in Ukraine should act in line with the provisions of the 27 May agreement: hold the planned early parliamentary elections and amend the existing Constitution.

I welcome the signing of the Declaration of Unification of Democratic Forces and its stated goal to ensure a thriving European future for Ukraine and to see democratic forces firm in protecting their rights and dedicated to providing European social-economic standards in Ukraine.

Ukraine should see the Kamiński report as an incentive and a message of support from the Union.

I believe the future agreement should be an Association Agreement.

4. Budget calendar: see Minutes

5. Reducing disparities in the poorest regions of the EU (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0241/2007) by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the role and effectiveness of cohesion policy in reducing disparities in the poorest regions of the EU (2006/2176(INI)).

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE), rapporteur. – (PL) Madam President, I would like to warmly congratulate you on having taken up this honourable office.

The European Union consists not only of 27 countries, but also of 268 regions, which have extremely different levels of development. As a result of the most recent enlargement to create a Union of 27 countries, the population of the Community rose to nearly 493 million. Around 30% of these people live in 100 of the poorest regions, namely those covered by the convergence objectives.

Each consecutive enlargement has resulted in greater inequality between the richest and the poorest regions in the Community. Now, in a Union of 27 countries, differences in the levels of GDP between the regions are significantly more pronounced than they were in the old fifteen, and amount to 24% in north-eastern Romania to 303% in central London.

The reasons for the economic under-development of specific regions vary greatly. The poorest regions mainly lack the basic infrastructure necessary for sustainable, long-term development, further investment and the necessary human resources. As statistics show, the existing European Union cohesion policy has effectively contributed to the development of many regions of countries which have long been included within its framework, such as Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.

In accordance with the aims of the Community, as stated in Article 158 of the Treaty on European Union, which include harmonised development and the reduction of disparities between levels of development in different regions, we the European Parliament call for decisive action aimed at reducing the most serious cases of under-development in the poorest regions of the European Union.

The new Member States have been particularly affected by the difficulties related to absorbing EU funds, as the fact that they have been granted does not guarantee that they will be used properly, and the authorities in poor regions often do not have the ability, experience or resources required to fully benefit from the funds to which they are entitled.

The application procedures for structural fund aid are often extremely complicated and in no way transparent for the end user. We therefore call for these procedures to be simplified at all levels, namely at European, national and regional level.

The implementation of cohesion policy should take into account the varied needs of the regions, especially urban and rural areas, regions that are difficult to access, islands and ultraperipheral regions. It should adapt the aid provided to their conditions and specific characteristics, exploiting their potential for sustainable and long-term growth.

The Member States and the regions should therefore ensure that priority is granted to those projects that contribute to improving accessibility to the poorest regions, ensuring that they have a proper transport and information technology infrastructure. Cohesion policy should support entrepreneurship and investment in the poorest regions. New financial instruments, such as JEREMY and JESSICA, can successfully contribute to regional development, but awareness of how to use these instruments at a local and regional level is still very limited.

It is important to encourage Member States to form public-private partnerships and exchange good practice concepts in this field. The Commission and the Member States should effectively support projects that increase the regions' abilities to generate and absorb new technologies, while paying particular attention to protecting the natural environment.

An incredibly important problem for the poorest regions of the Union has been high levels of unemployment, up to 20%. In view of this, there is an urgent need to invest in human capital in poor regions through better education, constantly improving qualifications, especially for young people, women, and older people, as well as minorities at risk of social exclusion.

Support for equal opportunities for all should form part of all Community programmes, especially those which influence economic and social cohesion, as well as at all levels of planning and implementing projects within the framework of the European Union's cohesion policy.

The Commission and the Member States should ensure that accurate, comprehensive and comparable statistical data is available. This is something that we are currently lacking. The Commission should draw up a new method of measuring regional development, not only on the basis of GDP and unemployment rates, but also on the basis of other qualitative and quantitative indicators which reflect the real living standards of the population. We should also improve our methods of calculating purchasing power parity by developing regional rather than national indicators.

Taking advantage of the interim review of the Community budget in 2009, the Commission should analyse the effects of cohesion policy and investigate possible causes of undesirable results.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this report. I would like to thank you for your valuable amendments, which have enriched the document, and I sincerely hope that this own initiative report will provide the Member States and the regions with a host of valuable guidelines, as well as stimulating the European Commission to improve the effectiveness of cohesion policy in the most needy regions.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Madam President, it is a pleasure to come before Parliament to exchange views on the Geringer de Oedenberg report on the role and effectiveness of cohesion policy in reducing disparities in the poorest regions of the European Union.

Once again, as in the case of other own-initiative reports adopted by the Committee on Regional Development, this proves the excellent collaboration between our two institutions. I am speaking on behalf of Mrs Hübner, who has had to go to Romania, and she sends you her best wishes.

I welcome this report and I appreciate its positive contribution to the debate on the impact and effectiveness of cohesion policy at a critical moment of the 2007-2013 programming period and on the eve of the budgetary review to be carried out in the year 2008/09. I fully share the view that the cohesion policy is not only essential but also effective in reducing socioeconomic and territorial disparities and in tapping the development potential of all EU regions.

The value added of cohesion policy has already been proved, and we all recognise that it goes well beyond financial transfers to include, among other things, the development of partnerships, exchanges of best practice, budgetary stability and a strategic approach.

I particularly appreciate the theme and the content of your report because it touches on the backbone of cohesion policy. Indeed, the main goal of our policy is to reduce the socioeconomic and territorial disparities in the poorest EU regions. The challenge is not negligible. These disparities have dramatically increased following the recent enlargements, and cohesion policy is the only Community instrument specially designed to this aim. For instance, disparities in GDP per head between the top and bottom 10% EU regions have almost doubled after the two most recent enlargements.

In fact, regional disparities in the EU are very important, much more than within the United States or Japan, or of a similar dimension to that in China and India for instance.

Despite impressive growth rates in the new Member States and the convergence of many regions of the EU-15, there are still 70 regions – home to 123 million Europeans – with a GDP per head below 75% of the EU average. In addition, there are a number of regions – the majority of which are among the most developed ones – which are losing ground. In 27 regions, GDP per head declined in real terms between the years 2000 and 2004 and, in another 24, growth was under 0.5% per year.

Nevertheless, as explained in full in the recently published Fourth Cohesion Report, convergence is taking place. This is due both to the accelerated growth of most of the new Member States and to the sometimes sluggish performance of some of the most advanced ones. On the whole, the periphery of the EU is catching up with the core of Europe not only in terms of GDP per head but also of employment, productivity and other indicators, and this is good news. This includes the former cohesion countries which, with the exception of Portugal, in the last few years have experienced impressive progress.

This phenomenon – the long-term convergence process – is especially occurring at EU level between Member States and regions. We know that, at national level, the picture is somehow different, since in many cases growth is increasingly concentrated in the capital region or in the main metropolitan areas, which deepens the internal disparities and causes problems related to agglomeration, like transport congestion, pollution, housing price rises and so on.

Let me underline the substantial contribution of our policy to this overall positive convergence process. Independent evaluation studies have shown that cohesion policy has supported much-needed investment in infrastructure, human resources, modernisation and diversification of regional economies. Between 2000 and 2005, public investment in the four cohesion countries has been around 25% higher than it would have been without cohesion policy. It has contributed to the growth of GDP. Increasing GDP levels attributable to regional policy ranged from 10% in Greece and 8.5% in Portugal in the period 1989-1999, and 6% for Greece and Portugal, 4% in the German Länder and 2.4% in Spain in the period 2000-2006. Preliminary estimates for 2007-2013 suggest an impact of between 5% and 9% in the new Member States.

It has also contributed to reduced social exclusion and poverty. Cohesion policy cofinances the training of nine million people annually. More than half of them are women, leading to better employment conditions and higher income. For example, over 450 000 gross jobs were generated in six countries: Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Between 2000 and 2005 it accounted for two thirds of Objective 2 funding. It has helped shift the policy mix of public investment in Member States towards growth-enhancing investment.

According to the most recent data, the amount of cohesion investment earmarked for research and development, innovation and information and communication technologies (ICTs) for 2007-2013 has more than doubled in comparison with the years 2000-2006. Clearly, it remains to be seen how these plans will be implemented, but we already see, among both the Member States and the regions, an increasing awareness in their development strategies for the next financial period.

Certainly, one of the keys of this success lies in the fact that cohesion policy is an integrated, fully-fledged policy; it is not a sectoral policy, or a disjointed bundle of sectoral policies, but an integrated instrument aimed at delivering specific tailor-made solutions for each European region or territory. At the same time, it is not just an EU policy that operates in isolation but it certainly depends on the active involvement of partners at national, regional and local level.

Your report correctly points to a number of issues which are particularly relevant for the poorest regions if they are to make the best use of the allocated funds. I shall mention just a few likely to provide them with appropriate technical assistance. The importance of designing tailor-made development strategies, or the value of implementing effective partnership and encouraging good practices.

I took note of your proposals. I am convinced that some of them will find their way into the current legislative framework that has given rise to the new initiatives recently adopted by the Commission, like the three ‘J’s – Jasper, Jeremy and Jessica – or Regions for economic change. The flexibility of cohesion policy makes it possible to implement the best measures adopted for each case. In this regard, Mrs Hübner will ensure that the Commission pays particular attention to the needs of the poorest regions in the ongoing negotiations on the programming documents for the years 2007-2013.

I also appreciate the contribution of your report to the debate on future cohesion policy, which was launched by the publication of the fourth cohesion report. I welcome these valuable recommendations aiming at increasing the efficiency of cohesion policy.

As you know, we are now at the initial stage of reflection on the future of cohesion policy. This debate aims at nurturing the review of the EU budget that the Commission has to undertake in the years 2008 and 2009.

In conclusion, you are aware that the public consultation on the future of cohesion policy will be launched following the cohesion forum to be held at the end of September. A dedicated internet site will collect the contributions of Member States, regions, cities, EU institutions, economic and social partners and, of course, civil society organisations. The Commission intends to present the results of this consultation in spring 2008, together with the fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion. On the basis of this and other own-initiative reports recently approved, I am very much looking forward to Parliament’s contribution to this debate.

  Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (CS) Madam President, Mr Potočnik, ladies and gentlemen, the differences between the poor and the rich regions of the Community are truly enormous. These regional differences are more apparent in today’s enlarged European Union than they were in the original fifteen. There may be various reasons for this, such as geographical location, the type of residential infrastructure, the sector-by-sector structure of the economy, the stratification of society or other reasons relating to the history of a given area. These differences can be smoothed out to some extent through structural policies, but we will always have richer and poorer regions. In my view it is therefore very important to aim chiefly for a situation where all of the regions in the European Union have more or less achieved definite economic progress and social development. We should target structural funds at clearly boosting GDP growth, increasing employment and contributing to sustainable development. In this regard, I would ask the following questions. What were the structural measures that contributed to the growth of successful regions such as Ireland? What causes regions such as Mezzogiorno in Italy, where decades of structural funding have failed to bring about any major change, to continue to lag behind? How can we make sure that European funds are not squandered in the present but invested for the future?

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not entirely sure that the report we are discussing today provides us with clear guidelines in this issue. The fact of the matter is, however, that only by providing answers to the above questions can we prevent a repetition of the errors of the past in today’s poorest regions, thereby ensuring that European funding will bring real added value to regional economies and societies. It is, however, too soon to make a full assessment of the benefits that structural policies have brought to the poorest regions, because the poorest countries have only just joined the Union. There is still a problem with the complexity of the overall structure.

  Constanze Angela Krehl, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, allow me also to congratulate you once again on your election yesterday and on your first session in the chair here in the Chamber.

I would like to thank the rapporteur most warmly for this engrossing report, because at the end of the day we all have the one aim, namely to eliminate the disparities between the regions of the European Union. That is not only in the interests of the poorest regions of the European Union but in the interests of all regions, because the development of the Union as a whole would otherwise stagnate. The fact is that we have huge potential in the regions we are supporting. People there want to get involved and to play their part in the European Union, but we must also give them the opportunity to do so.

I would like to focus on a few points which the rapporteur mentioned in her report and which seem quite important to me. The European Union needs to provide rapid assistance, which means that we must build up the administration and must not tread on each other’s toes in the various tiers of government. This also requires a functioning system of cross-border cooperation. I am eager to see how the Member States actually achieve that aim in the coming weeks and months.

I would be delighted if the new financial instruments, Jessica, Jeremy and Jasper, which were invented some years ago, finally became familiar in the Member States and were used to good effect. Of more than 400 applications submitted so far for operational programmes, however, a quarter at most have been approved. I would be pleased if that went more quickly; perhaps it could incorporate scope for subsequent adjustment.

There is one thing I would like to stress: getting rid of disparities between regions also means working to eliminate differences in the opportunities available to men and women. I therefore urge the House to support the relevant motions here in plenary.

  Jean Marie Beaupuy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, like my fellow Member, Mrs Krehl, I congratulate you on your election and on your first sitting as President.

Commissioner Potočnik, I should like to say to you that this report, which has been presented exceedingly well by our fellow Member, Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg, is first and foremost a cry from the heart. Next, it is a necessity for the European Union, as Mrs Krehl just said, and it is an appeal to the Commission. It is a cry from the heart because the development of poor regions is not just about the development of regions but about the taking account of the situations – tragic situations in some cases – of people who are unemployed or who have to move, etc. It is therefore a human cry from the heart. It is also a necessity – the report explains this well – where the development of the European Union is concerned.

That being said, Commissioner, we need to go further, and please do not regard my remark as a criticism, but as an observation; you yourself made various observations, in six minutes or so, culminating in these words: ‘I await proposals from Parliament’. Well, in the report by our fellow Member, there are a number of proposals. What I would like to convey in these few seconds granted to me is that we need clarification from the Commission, today, on the following: who does what, when and how?

Who? What is the European Union’s role? I believe that, until now, we have for the most part successfully laid down the conditions in terms of funding, regulations and so on. The report by our fellow Member contains some additional initiatives relating in particular to financial aspects, to technical assistance aspects, etc., with the aim of strengthening the pivotal role played by the Commission and of putting it in a stronger position to make proposals and to provide assistance. But then, nothing, or almost nothing, is said about the role played by the Member States. The fact is, if we want to help regions in difficulty, it is not enough to say ‘there are European funds’, it also requires the Member States to assume their responsibilities. At this level, the Commission cannot impose things, given the constraints of the subsidiarity principle. However, in the light of what has taken place in Ireland and in the south of Italy, etc., some observations and suggestions can be made.

I must say that, yesterday, I myself actually hosted some mayors of very small local councils of disadvantaged regions, and it is down to them to build projects – they just need to be told how to do so.

To conclude, Commissioner, what I personally expect, in addition to what is given in the report by our fellow Member, is that the Commission does as it should do and clearly indicates to us who does what, and how.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I, too, congratulate you on your new office, Madam President.

One reform leads to another. That was the reason why we in the Committee on Regional Development, immediately after the reform of the Structural Fund and for the umpteenth time, asked the question how we were to assess Europe’s poorest regions in future. The aim was to give the cohesion policy a future in the light of present-day experience with regard to the new reform of the Structural Funds in 2014, for we know that the willingness of the wealthy Member States to pay into the Solidarity Pact is waning. At the same time, our common commitment to the poorest regions through the cohesion policy is the very thing that keeps the heart of the European Union beating.

Unfortunately, this report hardly deals with these issues concerning the future. It concentrates on the implementation problems in the new Member States in connection with the current Structural Funds Regulation. It illustrates what happens when a solid decentralised administrative structure is considered expendable. I regard it as naive, however, to believe that banks are a substitute for a greater degree of involvement as a panacea for the absorption and administration problems in the very poorest regions.

The Jasper and Jessica initiatives must be used in such a way that democratic action is not abandoned and that the public purse is not saddled with debts for generations to come. This would mean the European Union keeping the poorest regions permanently on life support, and that cannot be our intention.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) I would firstly like to commend the rapporteur for her own-initiative report, which underlines some aspects that we consider important, although we disagree with others, namely with regard to the debate on the future of the cohesion policy and the fourth report on the economic and social cohesion of the European Union.

It is necessary here to stress that disparities, in particular regional ones, have increased dramatically with the successive rounds of EU enlargement, that the increase in regional disparities and the growth in the effects of polarisation at an internal level in each country has been proven, and that, in general terms, there is still a rich centre and a poor periphery, which has now been further expanded.

By stressing these aspects we seek to make a clear case for the existence of a strong regional policy as an essential tool for the reduction of disparities and the promotion of real, as opposed to nominal, convergence in the poorest regions of the European Union. A strong regional cohesion policy is all the more necessary with the heightened costs of the internal market, the policy of liberalisation of markets and competition, and European and Monetary Union, as well as of the euro and its Stability Pact for the poorest regions of the European Union.

It is essential that the regional cohesion policy is strengthened, with the much-vaunted social and economic cohesion and real convergence set as a central objective and policy of the European Union, reinforcing the redistributive role of the community budget and providing adequate funding so that the objectives proposed may effectively be achieved.

If regional cohesion policy is to be effective then acts that detract from its value, such as the diversion of its funds to finance other policies and priorities which in no way contribute to achieving the objectives previously expressed, must be rejected.

  Georgios Karatzaferis, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Madam President, can you imagine a family setting the table at home for lunch, with lobster for the father, salmon for the mother, meat for one child, beans for another child, greens for another child and nothing for the other child? It simply cannot be and yet that is what is happening in the big European family, which we want to unite under one Constitution.

There are 80 million citizens in Europe living below the poverty line. There are pensioners in Greece living on EUR 300 a month and they feel just fine, because in neighbouring countries other pensioners are living on EUR 80.

This is the policy of Europe. Certain inaccessible areas in Greece, such as Ipiros, or certain other isolated islands near Turkey have suddenly become rich, precisely because the new incoming countries have brought down the average. This is not logical. We must find a way of developing the economy equally for everyone.

When there is a racist attitude on the part of the ministers who create the economy, such as the Minister of Finance, Mr Alogoskoufis, who the other day said that blacks are not people, repulsively and insultingly referring to them as ‘niggers’; when they have this sort of racist attitude, they cannot impose an economy of equality, an economy which will be developed throughout the world.

Poor people have the right to life and we must find solutions. We are not going to measure standards in Europe by how many people drive a Mercedes 500, but by how many children do not have a glass of milk to drink in the morning.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, since 2004, economic growth in the new Member States has been in the order of 5.3%, which is 2% higher than in the old Member States. Export levels have doubled. Investments are increasing considerably. These results, which, as Mr Potočnik stated a moment ago, are emphatically and demonstrably underpinned by cohesion policy, are excellent. Statistically speaking, the number of poor regions is declining.

Having said this, the regional differences in the Member States themselves are still massive. The Geringer de Oedenberg report is right to draw attention to this. I also notice that we have to be more critical of the commitment in the Member States themselves. Too much concentration in central, urban regions does not do much to further the cause of peripheral regions. The Member States too, together with the European Union, must opt in favour of a territorial approach towards their cohesion policy. When effectiveness is under scrutiny, we should make far more political assessments of the national plans that are submitted. Far more political because, ultimately, we fail to accelerate the economic development and cohesion in poor regions. A reassessment is therefore called for. A fourth cohesion report offers the framework in which this can be discussed. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will need to help take the lead in this. On 8 November, we will be organising a hearing on this in this House.

By way of conclusion, I should like to say that there are good results, good opportunities for cohesion policy, provided we focus more on synergy at European, national and regional level for the benefit of these poorer regions and resist a multi-speed Europe. Poorer regions, too, must find their rightful place in the knowledge economy and globalisation.

  Evgeni Kirilov (PSE). – Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg on her excellent report. These regions face a dual challenge in the implementation of the EU regional policy to absorb properly the allocated funds and to achieve the outcomes which are set in the aims for economic and social cohesion.

Special measures for these regions should be taken by the European Commission, governments and local authorities at all levels in order to achieve the best results for the citizens and the whole economic sector. What is mainly needed is specific technical support that will focus on the development of administrative capacity and improvement of coordination between management bodies at state and local levels. Otherwise, I agree with the Commissioner. Specific tailor-made solutions are needed reducing the institutional, administrative and economic shortcomings of these regions will increase the efficiency of EU financial assistance as a whole. The poorest regions must be encouraged to elaborate integrated plans for development as national documents which could serve as a basis for relating their specific features and potential.

The Member States should be encouraged to improve the legislative framework in the field of public-private partnerships, making it a good basis for simple and transparent rules. But what the institution and the beneficiaries of these different programmes, including in my own country Bulgaria, need most is an even more active exchange of good practices, mainly amongst the new Member States, know-how transfer towards the central, regional and lowest possible local administrations and organisation of specific training on the whole cycle of project-making and implementation.

There are four key elements we should keep in mind: convergence, assistance, capacity for financial absorption and simplification of the rules. To conclude, all measures in the report are very important, including, of course, equal rights for men and women, which is a serious problem in these regions. I fully support the initiative for the adoption of a resolution specifically directed at the poorest EU regions.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the fourth report on cohesion, recently published by the Commission, confirms that developmental disparities between the richest and the poorest regions in Europe are decreasing, something which was noted earlier.

Assuming that the strongest regions maintain a high, steady rate of economic growth, consolidated by a great deal of investment in innovation, we have to conclude that the weakest regions are displaying an increased rate of growth, allowing them to not only avoid lagging further behind, but even to make significant progress in terms of catching up. These facts also confirm the theory concerning the effectiveness of the European Union’s cohesion policy and the need to manage and develop it during the next programming periods.

The report we are discussing concerns the poorest regions in the European Union not the poorest regions in the Member States, which are often relatively rich, on a European scale. Inter-regional disparities at a national level mainly fall within the remit of the national authorities and dealing with them should, especially in the so-called cohesion countries, be supported through European intervention.

A separate and courageous political decision needs to be taken to define what regions we consider to be the poorest and which require specific action to promote development. Let us remember that the Treaty provisions mention disparities between regions and that cohesion policy needs to cover not only the poorest regions in terms of per capita GDP, but also regions that have fallen behind others in terms of the level of innovation, development of a knowledge-based economy, attractiveness in relation to investment, geographical location and others.

Certain disparities may decrease with economic growth and a deeper common market, but new ones will appear. Cohesion policy has never been, and is not, a charitable activity and has to remain a flexible intervention tool for the European Union.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, today, seven months after the start of the fourth programming period, and in the run-up to the debate on the future of political cohesion, the European Parliament emphasises in this report, on which I congratulate the rapporteur, that there is no room for failure in the new programming period.

Cohesion policy must not only achieve the objectives it has set and strengthen growth and employment in the poorer regions; it must also manage to make its results visible, perceptible and acceptable to everyone at all levels.

Giving grants and earmarking funds alone does not guarantee proper use of resources or a reduction in the current widespread inequalities between the European regions. Proper use requires coordination and participation at all levels.

We are going through a period of acute economic changes and challenges. We must protect and promote the policy that puts solidarity and cohesion into practice and strengthen its efficacy.

This report contains important recommendations in this direction. Let us make use of them.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) First of all, allow me to congratulate the rapporteur for this highly successful, excellent report.

In order for the developments to take place in the regions that truly need them most, we need to take account of their distinctive features. It is evident that in the initial phase, inequalities within the countries showed an increase. Growth on a national average can be said to be good, although it is concentrated in the capital and in urban regions. Meanwhile, in the typically rural, village areas, there is increasing poverty and classic ghettoes have emerged.

This problem far surpasses the potential for rural development, and therefore any hope for change can be based only on deliberate harmonisation of the foundations and on complex developments. For this reason I consider it necessary to give priority to rural areas. Similarly, greater emphasis must be placed on helping minorities catch up, and on the training and retraining programmes related to this goal.

Further, I consider it important to increase the absorption capacity of the new Member States, and to further expand the technical aid that this demands. It is in this way that integration can become a tool for integrating the Europe of the regions.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). (PT) Madam President, Mrs de Oedenberg’s report is not only excellent, resulting from her complete openness and ability to negotiate consensuses, but also highlights the strong regional disparities that exist throughout Europe, both in the new Member States and in the old ones, where a large part of the regions found themselves excluded from the group of poorest regions purely on the grounds of statistics that are not always complete or adequately compared and that, therefore, need to be improved.

Coming, as I do, from an ultra-peripheral region, the island of Madeira, I have made several contributions with the following aims: guaranteeing the adaptation of the cohesion policy to the outermost regions, as mentioned in Article 29, section 2; achieving a clearer definition of the criteria for defining which regions are rich and which are poor; and reinforcing research and education as the path to development, because the regions in question need to find an effective way out of the situation in which they find themselves.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Madam President, without any doubt the poorest regions of Europe need attention. Some regions in Europe need special attention, for example, regions at a statistical disadvantage, the outermost and isolated regions and cities. It is important to focus on restructuring structural assistance and to pay more attention to the Lisbon goals of innovation, research and development, as these are activities which will create a solid base for the future economies of those regions. We should also pay heed to lowering energy consumption through renewable energies, which will provide a solid basis for the sustainable future of the relevant countries.

Gender mainstreaming is a horizontal principle that we will follow in all our actions undertaken under all the structural funds. Absorption capacity is something on which we are focusing constantly. All this has received, and will continue to receive, constant attention.

Solidarity with the poorest in Europe is the backbone of the European Union, especially after the two recent enlargements. We should not deny the problems, but we should not forget the good results we have achieved in the past. It is important to talk about both successes and problems, because this is a way of securing even greater recognition for cohesion policy and eliminating future problems.

I should like thank you for the excellent Geringer report, your comments and your critical remarks. It is our duty to address the problems of the poorest in Europe. The Commission will certainly focus on that. Solidarity should remain one of the areas where we show the human face of Europe as a whole.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at voting time, in a few minutes’ time.

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, the sooner we vote, the sooner you can start your well-earned recess. But of course there is still this afternoon’s sitting to come. I must ask our honourable colleague Robert Atkins to ensure next time that the Members are all here punctually.

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Mr President, on a point of order, I am sure that Sir Robert will be delighted to do that if you can ensure that we will start on time!

  President. – Your remarks do not apply today, Mr Wise, because Sir Robert has not yet been able to ensure that the ladies and gentlemen of the House toe the line, although he will surely try to do so in future. We shall then be able to judge each other fairly and objectively.

  Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am sure that if whoever was in the Chair started on time, Members would soon realise that they had to be here on time!

(Applause)

  Giles Chichester (PPE-DE). – Mr President, many of us were very envious of your skill in extricating yourself from the Chair at lunchtime yesterday. When we stayed here voting, you went away for lunch. Are you going to do the same today?

(Laughter)

  President. I do not know, Mr Chichester, whether you aspire to the office of President of the European Parliament. Should you be President one day, you will realise that my purpose was not so much to go for a meal as to fulfil numerous obligations.

6. Voting time

  President. The next item is voting time.

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

6.1. Community Statistical Programme (2008-2012) (vote)

– Becsey report (A6-0240/2007)

6.2. Darfur (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0311/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Josep Borrell Fontelles (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, this resolution is brought to plenary under Rule 91, as a result of urgency, without debate. It is certainly urgent and on my own behalf and on behalf of the five Members who have spent five days in Darfur, I would like very briefly to point out the reasons for this urgency.

Darfur today is a lawless territory, in which everybody is waging war against everybody else. The great problems of our times are condensed there: the conflict between central and peripheral areas, ethnic conflicts, the cynical exploitation of rivalries between groups for political purposes, and perhaps the first war in the world to be caused by climate change.

But it is urgent because security is deteriorating even further, and if that continues, humanitarian workers will not be able to carry on doing their work. The fate of two and a half million people depends on that work, since they are fed each day thanks to their efforts, and partly thanks to European Union money.

If there is no improvement in security between now and the end of the year, we may find that two million people have been abandoned to their fate in the desert, in danger of creating the greatest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen.

It is therefore important, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that United Nations forces, which we have asked to be sent to Darfur so many times, finally go, now that the Sudanese Government has no objection. The Sudanese Government is no longer saying no. It is now saying yes. It says that they should go as soon as possible, because it is no longer capable – as if it ever wanted to – of guaranteeing the least security.

The Janjaweed have not been disarmed. Quite the opposite. The Sudanese Government is not going to increase security in Darfur. If we want to avoid the risk of total humanitarian crisis, we must exert pressure in order to ensure that that force gets there as soon as possible.

However, since it will take at least a year to get there, we must support the African Union and we must at least ensure that its soldiers are paid, because you should be aware that we have spent more money on supporting that force than on humanitarian aid.

Those are the reasons for the urgency, Mr President.

(Applause)

  President. Thank you very much, Josep Borrell, for this report and for your untiring commitment.

6.3. Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union (vote)

– Piecyk report (A6-0235/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Willi Piecyk (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) I beg to point out that Amendment 1 should not be placed after paragraph 4 but after paragraph 146; that was agreed with the author of the amendment. This paragraph does not belong at the beginning but at the end of the resolution. I would be grateful if you could arrange for that to be done.

  President. Our efficient staff have already seen to that.

6.4. First railway package (vote)

– Cramer report (A6-0219/2007)

6.5. Sustainable mobility (vote)

– Barsi-Pataky report (A6-0190/2007)

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, this report is still appearing on the monitors as Krahmer, when in fact it is the Barsi-Pataky report. That may create some confusion. It confused me.

  President. It is correct now. Thank you for drawing my attention to what is happening behind the scenes.

6.6. Action to tackle cardiovascular disease (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0277/2007)

6.7. PNR agreement with the United States of America (vote)

– Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0278/2007)

– Before the vote on citation 4:

  Manfred Weber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the four oral amendments we moved are a last attempt to obtain a joint resolution. Let me make it clear, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, that we endorse the criticism. Criticism alone, however, will not stop the terrorists. That is why we want to add a constructive dimension to this resolution. Accordingly, we move firstly that the following specific wording be added:

‘Having regard to the joint ruling of the European Court of Justice of 30 May 2006 on cases C-317/04 and C-318/04,’

(DE) In this way we want to include a serious reference to the ruling that we ourselves in Parliament applied pressure to obtain. That is the first oral amendment I ask the House to support.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on citation 6:

  Manfred Weber (PPE-DE). – (DE) The addition at this point would be as follows:

‘... and the responses he received from Minister Dr Wolfgang Schäuble and Commission Director-General JLS Jonathan Faull of 29 June and 3 July 2007,’

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– After recital A:

  Manfred Weber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Then we are moving that another recital be added, as follows:

‘whereas the PNR agreement is meant to help prevent and combat terrorism and international crime,’

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– After recital B:

  Manfred Weber (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to move the following oral amendment: ‘whereas the PNR agreement provides the legal framework for the transfer of EU PNR data to the US and, by doing so, provides a basis for the air carriers to operate their business with the US,’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

6.8. Eurozone (2007) (vote)

– Rosati report (A6-0264/2007)

6.9. European Central Bank (2006) (vote)

– Mitchell report (A6-0266/2007)

6.10. Palestine (vote)

– Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0268/2007)

6.11. Situation in Pakistan (vote)

– Joint motion for a resolution (RC-B6-0279/2007)

– Before the vote on paragraph 1:

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, I apologise for this, but colleagues will recognise that this situation is changing daily and the oral amendment is not quite the same as that listed on some people’s sheets so I will read it out: ‘Expresses its solidarity with the people of Pakistan who are victims of the violence perpetrated by the armed extremists; is deeply concerned for the safety of the 1800 or more people in the Red Mosque, some of whom were held as hostages; recognises the challenges the siege posed to the Government of Pakistan; expresses its grave concern about the still unknown number of victims and supports the efforts to bring those responsible to justice’.

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Since the storming of the Red Mosque has now been carried out, should we not use the past tense, at least in the second part?

(The oral amendment was accepted)

6.12. 2006 Progress Report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (vote)

– Meijer report (A6-214/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – Mr President, at the start of the vote on my report, I have to inform the House of two issues. First, when the vote was being prepared in the AFET Committee, all political groups agreed to use in this report only one term for the state which calls itself the Republic of Macedonia. It is the long sentence ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, without any abbreviation, such as the English FYROM or the French ARYM. I therefore propose that if parts of the final adopted text include any other terms, those terms should be replaced on the basis of this broad agreement.

Secondly, the PPE-DE Group proposed that I should merge two amendments on paragraph 13 into one – my amendment 22 and the PSE amendment 6. With this is mind, I should like to move an oral amendment to my amendment 22. As the vote on amendment 22 is due to be taken after the vote on amendment 6, this solution is only possible if amendment 6 is rejected.

I should therefore like to ask that the order of voting on the amendments be changed. Mr Pinior of the PSE Group said yesterday evening that he would be in favour of this arrangement.

  President. I hope everyone understood that correctly. In that case we shall do as you request.

6.13. TRIPS agreement and access to medicines (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0288/2007)

6.14. Democratic scrutiny under the Development Cooperation Instrument (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0310/2007)

6.15. Negotiation mandate: enhanced EC-Ukraine agreement (vote)

– Kamiński report (A6-0217/2007)

– Before the vote on Amendment 4:

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, it is with a heavy heart that I move this compromise amendment, but it may be the key to a clear majority. At the end of the amendment, after ‘open the corresponding process’, should be added the words ‘including the possibility of membership’.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) The revised Amendment 6 has been withdrawn.

  President. (DE) Then paragraph 11 will stay as it was.

6.16. Reducing disparities in the poorest regions of the EU (vote)

– Geringer de Oedenberg report (A6-0241/2007)

  President. – I hope you all have a good break, but only after you have voted this afternoon!

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to point out that I cannot be held responsible for the first part of the vote on the Barsi-Pataky report as, at the time, the name of the previous rapporteur, Mr Cramer, was still on the board. As a result, I may have made an error in the vote on the Barsi-Pataky report.

  President. – That will be recorded in the Minutes.

7. Explanations of vote

- Darfur (B6-0311/2007)

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Madam President, I appreciated the fact that the notion of ‘responsibility to protect’ was raised in the resolution we voted on. This is not always about military intervention, but, obviously, the United Nations has this duty. Without it, the organisation would be reduced to a club of those who abuse the system and those who nod their approval.

Unfortunately, there are signs that the UN is incapable. The human tragedy that is the crisis in Darfur is a new blot in the copybook for the international community. Why is the UN more ready to address the problems of the Middle East than those of Africa? One reason for the crisis is ethnic marginalisation. and the key to a political solution lies in our ability to get all the parties concerned committed to peace talks. The background is also one of underdevelopment and environmental disaster. The crisis is the first climate change war. A humanitarian solution is also essential, therefore.

It is of value that the EU should wish to take responsibility for resolving the problems of Darfur and other problems in Africa. I would hope that one day we will be able to say the same of the United States of America. Some might say that Europe suffers from a bad conscience on account of our history. That may be true, but it does not kill people. Silence and apathy kill.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this resolution on the situation in Darfur. In particular, I support the focus on closer monitoring of the arms embargo against Khartoum and enforcement of a no-fly zone over the region. I support the call for an in-depth investigation into unpaid African Union mission soldiers.

- Report: Piecyk (A6-0235/2007)

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – Madam President, I would like to register that the pattern of voting with regard to maritime integration takes into account the fact that the Frontex issue has become almost a farcical one.

As is known, the level of solidarity granted to the Frontex, which is part of this integrated policy, has become almost a joke. Only one helicopter – the German helicopter – has been pledged, and perhaps it has not been noted that two neighbouring countries of Malta have, to all intents and purposes, closed their airspace. One has periodically refused entry of the German helicopter into its airspace; another has even threatened to bring it down. That is why I voted in this manner.

  Philip Claeys (ITS). – (NL) Madam President, it is, of course, the case that maritime Europe is facing all kinds of economic, social and ecological challenges that require a shared approach, but that is not what is at issue here. The question is whether a comprehensive European integrated maritime policy, with all the further rules and regulations that this will eventually entail, is necessary to address this issue.

As I see it, maritime policy and management in Europe would benefit far more from practice-based campaigns among Member States and other players aimed at far-reaching cooperation than from all kinds of new rules and regulations. What matters is coordination, exchange of information among the Member States, reducing the administrative burden and promoting maritime research. Under no circumstances, however, can the European Union interfere in matters that fall within the subsidiarity principle or market forces, such as coastal defence, physical planning or market regulation of sea ports.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I fully support the report by my fellow Member, Mr Piecyk.

This text, which is the European Parliament’s response to the Commission Green Paper on EU maritime policy, addresses many important points.

It deals, in particular, with the challenge of climate change for maritime policy. European maritime policy must play an important role in this area by relying on a reduction in the CO2 emissions of ships, the possible integration of ships into the system of trading in emissions quotas and the promotion of renewable energy sources.

It is crucial that a lasting balance be found between the protection of the environment and the commercial exploitation of Europe’s oceans. Furthermore, I believe, as we have voted for it, that the Commission must reinforce all measures relating to civil and criminal liability in the event of an accident or incident and tighten vigilance with regard to the application of the rules on the mandatory use of double hulls.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report based on the Commission’s Green Paper towards a future maritime policy for the Union: a European vision for the oceans and seas, because I consider the promotion of a prosperous and sustainable maritime economy to be fundamental.

This report presents an integrated political approach to the subject, putting forward concrete proposals with respect to navigation, naval and maritime security, tourism, fishing, ports policy, the marine environment, research, industry and land use, namely the proposal for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases emanating from ships, and the creation of a European coastguard.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Political measures designed to combat climate change are obviously important. When it comes to some of the measures proposed in this resolution, other than the legislative procedures, the majority in the European Parliament is, however, as usual going a bit over the top. The proposals increase bureaucracy and confirm the picture of the European Parliament as an institution with a pathological tendency to expand out of all proportion.

A number of the proposals in this report go too far, and I have therefore chosen to vote against this ‘opinion-soliciting report’ because I believe that it could have been drawn up in a pithier and more succinct way. As it stands, its view of a future maritime policy for the EU is characterised by an inability to leave things alone.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We believe that a maritime policy based on cooperation between the different Member States and which, at community level, would mean a coordination of synergies to boost and give added value to the sea-related policies and measures defined by each country (such as fishing, transport, the environment and energy, among others) could have a positive impact.

However, this is not the option of Parliament’s own-initiative report, which chooses to promote the creation of a future ‘common maritime policy’, seeking to transfer central competencies of the Member States to the supranational level of the EU, an approach that, clearly, we reject.

To this end, we firmly reject amendment proposals affecting matters of principle on which we stand firm, such as:

- Full respect for the sovereignty and competence of each Member State with regard to the management of its territorial waters and economic exclusion zones, specifically with respect to marine resources – namely biological resources – and questions of security, rescue and the inspection and control of shipping in their waters;

- Increased worth for the fishing sector, given its strategic importance for different countries, such as Portugal, guaranteeing the socio-economic sustainability of the sector through adequate political and financial means;

This is why we have voted against.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. While I can applaud the environmental aspects and proposals for practical forms of cooperation in the Piecyk Report 'Towards a Future Maritime Policy', I however cannot support the calls for many proposals that this report contains, such as the setting up of an 'EU Coastguard Service'. I fear the excessive regulation that would result from the report would fall foul of the subsidiarity principle and I have decided to reserve our position at this time.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of all the amendments that emphasised the environmental dimension of this maritime policy.

It is imperative that the environmental pillar of the maritime strategy not be a mere add-on for spiritual enrichment purposes, but that the restoration of the good ecological status of the seas and oceans be an essential objective on which the judgments in the other policies of the EU and the Member States depend.

The deterioration of the oceans’ ecosystem has serious consequences for the planet and human activities: fishery stocks are disappearing and the role of the climate and the oceans as regulators is diminishing. This is primarily due to the pollution created by human activities. Therefore, the priority of the environment must be forcefully affirmed, and the future framework directive on marine waters must be binding on the Member States and on EU policies.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) I am voting against Amendment 34 because the biological diversity of the sea is not a strictly national issue. Marine resources are constantly on the move, and overfishing in one area affects the whole sea and can destroy areas and ecosystems on a much more than national scale. Restrictive international regulations governing the exploitation of marine resources must therefore be accepted.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. I warmly support the Piecyk report on maritime policy and congratulate the rapporteur on his inclusive approach.

The report is vitally important in trying to highlight a new approach to protecting our marine environment. This approach is urgently required to protect environmentally sensitive areas against ship-to-ship oil transfer. Currently the Firth of Forth, in my home country of Scotland, faces a threat from a ship-to-ship oil transfer proposal. I hope that the Habitats Directive will be properly implemented in order to protect sea birds, sea mammals and other species. However, the need for a comprehensive approach to our marine environment with clear and transparent lines of accountability is essential to protecting our marine environment for future generations.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), în scris. Am votat pentru raportul Piecyk privind o viitoare politică maritimă a Uniunii şi felicit raportorul pentru calitatea activităţii desfăşurate. Integrarea politicilor, acţiunilor şi deciziilor legate de politica maritimă va asigura o mai strânsă cooperare între toţi actorii ale căror acţiuni au un impact asupra oceanelor şi mărilor europene. Consider, de asemenea, că sectoarele maritime ale fluviilor europene trebuie şi ele incluse în politica maritimă a Uniunii Europene.

Autostrăzile maritime se numără încă din 2004 printre cele 30 de proiecte prioritare ale reţelei transeuropene de transport.

Aderarea României şi a Bulgariei asigură Uniunii Europene vecinătatea cu Marea Neagra şi aproape întreg cursul Dunării se află în interiorul sau. Pentru Uniunea Europeană dezvoltarea cooperării la Marea Neagră va fi extrem de importantă. Regiunea Mării Negre joacă un rol important pentru securitatea energetică a Uniunii Europene şi pentru extinderea pieţei interne de transport către statele vecine Uniunii Europene.

Sper ca Uniunea Europeană să includă prevederi ale politicii maritime comunitare, de exemplu protejarea mediului şi a biodiversităţii zonelor de coastă şi de delte sau estuare, în politica sa de vecinătate şi în acordurile bilaterale pe care le semnează cu terţe ţări. În acest context menţionez ca deosebit de importantă protejarea biodiversităţii Deltei Dunării.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. While there are many useful observations in the report, I reject any idea that the EU should claim authority over what should properly be British territorial waters or that military activities should be incorporated into an EU maritime policy. Furthermore, the common fisheries policy has been a disaster for our fishing industry and for marine life, and its powers should be repatriated to the nations.

- Report: Cramer (A6-0219/2007)

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) I generally adopt a positive attitude towards the development of the railways. Such development is important in terms of the environment. I cannot, however, support the proposal in paragraph 4 of the report to the effect that the European Parliament should oppose ultra-long lorries (known as gigaliners). In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States must themselves be allowed to adopt a position on whether or not such lorries can properly be part of the overall road traffic scene. I hope that the Commission and the Council will allow the Member States to decide about this issue for themselves.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The first railway package was launched with the announced objective of ‘launching the bases of modal shift’. In other words, it promoted a shift from road transport to railway transport. But what it actually sought to do, in the manner of a Trojan horse, was to hide the opening up of railway transport, namely goods transport, to competition and private interests as a first step towards the total liberalisation of the railway sector at EU level.

We have denounced and rejected the intentions of this process right from the word ‘go’.

As with other EU-promoted liberalisations, whatever is going badly at any given moment is used as a starting point (concealing the true causes of such situations, namely the systematic policies to dismantle and weaken the public transport sector) to justify liberalising methods and point to the said ‘competition’ – with no clear explanation as to how or why – as the solution for all ills, some kind of miracle worker, but which, in the end, bears the consequences that we have already pointed out.

Public investment in the railway sector in accordance with the needs and options defined by each country is undoubtedly of vital importance, but not for the purpose of handing it over to the profit logic of the large public interests, which seek to dominate this public sector, fundamental in every country, by means of its liberalisation at EU internal market level.

  Jens Holm, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Erik Meijer, Esko Seppänen, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. The Cramer report states correctly that, in the transport of goods, environmental issues have been neglected. That is the consequence of the expansion of freight transport on the highways and by air, and at the same time the continuing reduction of transport by rail. The report recalls the promotion of road and air transport by means of financial instruments, which are also used to reduce rail transport. We would point out that many railway links to factories and harbours have recently been closed. However, we differ with the rapporteur on the capacities of the free market to solve this problem. The rapporteur, together with the rightist groups in this Parliament, is of the opinion that free competition in trans-border transport is the best solution. The advocates of this view refer to the situation on the road and in the air, and expect that competition automatically attracts a new wave of companies interested. In practice we have seen that, until now, there have been no such positive results. Despite this lack of reality, the rest of the report deserves our full support.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. (DE) I am voting for a revitalisation of rail transport as the core element of EU transport policy.

The report on the implementation of the first railway package showed that the package had resulted in neither a sustained reinvigoration of rail transport nor a perceptible shift of freight transport from road to rail.

It is, however, essential that rail transport should become the core element of EU transport policy for the following reasons: a growing traffic problem, rising emission levels, limited energy resources and an increase in the death toll from transport accidents.

I therefore call for the presentation of the second directive on transport infrastructure costs by 2008, prescribing a uniform system of tolls on all roads in the EU for goods vehicles weighing 3.5 tonnes or more. In addition, the so-called external costs, in other words the environmental costs arising from transport operations, must be factored into infrastructure charges. In this context I must also refer to the extremely beneficial Swiss system of the emission-linked HGV levy, through which Switzerland has achieved remarkable success in shifting transport from road to rail, while the improved efficiency of road haulage has restricted the increase in consumer costs to half a percentage point.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The first railway package, which was intended to open up the market to international goods transport by rail by 15 March 2003 has had some degree of success. However, shortcomings and delays in transposition by the Member States can still be observed. Well, the consequences of these delays have repercussions on the restructuring of the railway enterprises and on the creation of a truly competitive market.

As a number of aspects are still lacking for us to be able to reap the positive effects of the first railway package, we believe that resources must be created to correct the failings with regard to the execution of the legislation by the Member States. To achieve this, is it going to be necessary for us to have an independent and transparent national monitoring body with sufficient resources at its disposal to take an active stance against the existing distortions of the competition? We also need measures related to the creation of true interoperability – the lack of which in the railway networks is still the main obstacle to the realisation of an integrated European railway area – such as the rapid installation of the European Rail Traffic Management system, especially in the priority rail transport corridors.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), în scris. Am votat pentru raportul Cramer şi consider acest document ca fiind deosebit de important. Având în vedere că transportul contribuie la 15%-30% din emisiile de CO2, dezvoltarea modalităţilor mai puţin poluante de transport trebuie să constituie o prioritate la nivel european. De altfel, 70% din proiectele prioritare de transport transeuropean sunt destinate transportului feroviar şi transportului naval, mai puţin generatoare de gaze cu efect de seră.

Dezvoltarea transportului feroviar de mare viteză pentru pasageri trebuie să se realizeze cu prioritate în toate statele Uniunii Europene. Investiţiile în infrastructura de transport şi pentru modernizarea sistemului rulant sunt foarte mari, dar şi beneficiile aduse vor fi pe măsură.

De asemenea, pentru dezvoltarea transportului feroviar, va fi esenţială asigurarea interoperabilităţii, dezvoltarea şi implementarea sistemului ERTMS.

Felicit raportorul şi doresc să îl asigur că avem aşteptari foarte mari de la transportul feroviar.

- Report: Barsi-Pataky (A6-0190/2007)

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Madam President, the report on sustainable mobility for our continent, which we have just voted on, not only stresses the need to build up a better infrastructure, but implies that this must be done responsibly and respectfully. It points out that Member States must keep an eye on the environmental impact of improved infrastructure as well as examining transport, while taking into account socio-economic factors vis-à-vis safety.

This is particularly relevant to my own country, Ireland, where we are currently badly in need of making the preservation of natural, historic landmarks a priority. The Irish authorities are in the process of destroying one of the most important archaeological sites in Europe in a bid to improve transport systems in Ireland. Forty-one sites which comprise European heritage, including the national monument at Lismullen, will be demolished due to a motorway that is unnecessarily routed through it. Once these monuments are destroyed, there is no way to replace the cultural heritage that will be lost with them.

According to the sustainable mobility report, future transport policy will have to optimise each country’s own potential to meet the objectives of clean and efficient transport systems. Ireland can achieve this, but a motorway through Tara is not the answer.

The Irish authorities have not considered alternative routes and, instead, by road construction are destroying significant historical locations like the site at Baronstown which was destroyed six days ago at 4 a.m. in the morning. Nor have they considered reviving an old rail line in the area to carry commuters to Dublin, thus reducing road traffic and fuel consumption. We should return to the old methods of transport like the train that used to be operated near Tara.

While I agree with this sustainable Europe and better transport infrastructure, I firmly believe that we cannot and should not sacrifice one of our most precious archaeological sites for a misplaced motorway.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. (DE) Following the production of a detailed review by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, six years after the publication of the White Paper on Transport, I wish to express my support for the realisation of the trans-European networks and for the use of intelligent transport systems and technological innovations.

I deplore the lack of financial activity in the development of infrastructure, which poses a great risk to economic growth in Europe. EU funds for the trans-European networks remain limited, and yet the real benefit of the TEN-T programme can only be achieved if the entire network is built. I therefore call on the Commission to present proposals for a possible extension of new options and of innovative funding mechanisms.

With regard to the adverse environmental effects of transport, it has been demonstrated that even a modest shift in the modal balance would considerably reduce congestion on the roads. For this reason I eagerly await the assessment of external environmental costs which the Commission is to present by 2008.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. (DE) The Barsi-Pataky report does not really bring us any further forward, which is why I have abstained from voting. It is all well and good to renew our commitment to the trans-European transport network and to proclaim that even a small shift in the modal balance would considerably reduce congestion on the roads. It must be remembered, however, that many routes, particularly within cities, are congested because the state of local public transport makes it an unappealing alternative. Apart from paying mere lip service to the principle, the EU has scarcely come up with any intelligent solutions in this domain.

As regards the highly controversial gigaliners, there is no reason why the general public should pay the price in terms of higher road-maintenance costs and increased safety risks for the sake of possible savings for hauliers. If we want environmental protection to be writ large – and indeed environmental arguments are being advanced for these gigantic HGVs – intensified efforts are needed to forge ahead with environment-friendly propulsion systems. The European Parliament could set a good example in this respect with its own pool of chauffeur-driven vehicles.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Dissatisfaction with the application and results of the European transport policy is not a denial of improvements that have been made, from safety of the transport to the quality of the service or in terms of the environment.

However, much remains to be done.

Restrictions in community funding are among the main causes of the shortcomings of this policy. The only way to avoid delays and the reorientation of priorities would be by adopting innovative forms of funding, such as public-private partnerships and the subsidising of the projects by the Member States.

Community funds for the financing of trans-European transport projects are limited. This is why they should be focused on trans-border stretches whose added value will enable the realisation of an interlinked and interoperable trans-European transport network.

It is, however, fundamental to avoid creating a patchwork of national networks, so the Commission must, in cooperation with the Member States, ensure the application and execution of the European transport legislation.

Finally, reinforced cooperation at European, national, regional and local levels is necessary for links between good practices and between the transport policy and other national or community policies on matters such as energy, the environment, tourism and innovation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), în scris. Domeniul transporturilor este esenţial pentru dezvoltarea economică a tuturor regiunilor Uniunii Europene, prin crearea de locuri de muncă, asigurarea liberei circulaţii a persoanelor şi a mărfurilor şi dezvoltarea întreprinderilor.

Calea navigabilă interioară Uniunii Europene formată din Rhin, canalul Main şi Dunăre scurtează distanţa dintre partea de nord-vest si partea de sud-est a Uniunii Europene cu aproape 4000 de kilometri, asigurând în acelaşi timp dezvoltarea unui mod de transport mai puţin poluant. Sper ca programele NAIADES şi Marco Polo II să sprijine mai mult statele membre să îşi dezvolte transportul naval.

Interoperabilitatea, interconectarea reţelelor europene de infrastructură şi dezvoltarea de terminale multi-modale vor contribui la o dezvoltare echilibrată a tuturor modalităţilor de transport.

Nu trebuie însa să uităm că una din cauzele schimbărilor climatice este poluarea datorată mijloacelor de transport. Este important că 70% din cele 30 de proiecte prioritare sunt dedicate transportului feroviar şi celui naval. Sper însa ca lista celor 30 de proiecte prioritare să fie extinsă în curând pentru a include mai multe proiecte ale noilor state membre şi pentru a fructifica ieşirea Uniunii Europene la Marea Neagra.

- Action to tackle cardiovascular disease (B6-0277/2007)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We voted in favour of this Resolution because we know that the reality of cardiovascular disease is a concern. It is important to increase knowledge about the prevention of the risk factors for these diseases. Thus, it is important that the actions contained in this Resolution be taken into consideration.

We know that health is complete physical, mental and social well-being. Major contradictions are to be found, however, in today’s stress-ridden society, where there is little time to rest, to spend with our families, to take care of our physical health and psychological equilibrium, further added to poor nutrition and a lack of time for physical exercise, as well as a loss of rights in the workplace, namely overloaded working hours and a reduction in holiday entitlement, not to mention unemployment or the permanent threat thereof. All this has serious repercussions on peoples’ lives, on their equilibrium and, consequently, on the proliferation of cardiovascular disease.

However, this awareness and prevention campaign for cardiovascular disease should not be transformed into a banner for communitising health. What we want is the defence of the public health service and the responsibility of each Member State in its upkeep and management in order to guarantee the right to health for all and not merely for those who have money to pay for it.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this resolution which aims to tackle today's biggest killer in Europe: cardiovascular disease. Prevention strategies, public awareness campaigns and the promotion of healthy lifestyles were all recommended in the resolution, and I give my support to this.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. With cardiovascular disease accounting for more than 40% of all deaths in the EU, it is necessary that we address the issue urgently at both national and EU level. Member States themselves can do much in terms of improving risk surveillance, producing prevention guidelines, etc. However, this is clearly an area where the EU can add value by promoting the exchange of information between Member States. I welcome the call in the resolution for the establishment of an EU-wide database to monitor cardiovascular disease prevalence, mortality, morbidity and risk factors. Such a database has the potential to do much to facilitate better prevention at Member State level.

- The PNR agreement with the United States (RC-B6-0278/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Unacceptable is the least that one can say about the recent agreement between the EU and the USA with regard to airlines transferring data contained in the Passenger Name Records (PNR) to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The following stand out amongst many deplorable aspects:

The transfer of data is based upon non-binding guarantees that may be unilaterally amended by the DHS at any time.

The data may be used for non-specified purposes and the period for which it will be kept will be increased from three and a half years to fifteen years. Further, there are no guarantees whatsoever that following the storage period of fifteen years – seven ‘active’ years and eight ‘latent’ years – the data will effectively be destroyed.

Sensitive data (for example, personal details concerning racial or ethnic origins, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs and union membership, as well as other information relating to a people’s health and sex life) will be placed at the disposal of the DHS.

The agreement also refers to a possible future PNR system at EU level in one or more Member States, stating that this data could also be placed at the disposal of the DHS.

In a word, intolerable.

  Martine Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that the European Union has reached an agreement with the United States on the transfer of passenger data. I recognise that a European agreement was necessary before the interim agreement came to an end. I regret, however, that this agreement presents significant shortcomings in areas of crucial importance to Parliament.

The reduction in the amount of data transferred is only a minor detail. The switch over from the pull system to the push system is a 2004 achievement - this should have taken place a long time ago.

I am pleased that the US data protection law has been extended to Europeans, because we requested this. It is, however, threatened by the fact that these are non-binding assurances, not a legally binding agreement. Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security reserves the right to introduce derogations, without any precise criteria, for data protection.

Lastly, I condemn the lack of democratic control, the significant increase in the time in which personal data are held, up to a period of 15 years, and the absence of an evaluation in due form of this agreement. We asked for these points to form the basis of the new PNR agreement; I regret that the Council did not hear these requests from Parliament.

- Report: Rosati (A6-0264/2007)

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I voted for the Dariusz Rosati report on the eurozone in 2007, which has come up for debate in European Parliament at a time when it is imperative to encourage other Member States to keep up their efforts in preparation for joining the eurozone.

Following Malta and Cyprus, Slovakia’s bid to join the eurozone will be reviewed next year. Under the previous government of Mikuláš Dzurinda, Slovakia was rated as one of the ten new Member States best prepared for the introduction of the euro. Drawing on the experience of Lithuania, whose bid faltered only because of a failure to match the inflation benchmark, and encouraged by Slovenia’s accession to the eurozone on 1 January 2007, I believe that Slovakia take a responsible position and ensure sustainable compliance with the Maastricht criteria.

With regard to the introduction of the single European currency in the new Member States, I would like again to draw your attention to the written statement on the need to launch one euro and two-euro banknotes, which was adopted by the European Parliament in October 2005. The absence of such banknotes undermines the ability of European citizens, whose monthly pay in Slovakia, for instance, amounts to just several hundred euros, to fully appreciate the higher value of eurocents.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mr Rosati in reponse to the Commission’s 2007 annual declaration on the euro area. I shall start by saluting the technical and financial success of the euro and the smooth running of the eurozone. I congratulate Slovenia – which I hope will soon have my friend, Mr Peterle, as its President, making him the next President-in-Office of the European Union – on qualifying for the euro area on 1 January 2007, and I wish Cyprus and Malta the same success on 1 January 2008.

It is becoming imperative, as French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, regulary highlights, that the running of the euro area be strengthened, both in its structures and in practical economic governance. Equally, certain Member States, including France, must take advantage of the positive economic climate to put their public finances in order. Finally, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) must urgently consult with the European Central Bank (ECB) in order to introduce more consistency between monetary policy, growth and employment, as provided for in the treaties.

  Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), in writing. The British Conservative Party is firmly against the entry of the UK into the eurozone, and in common with normal practice we have abstained on the final vote of the Rosati report. We are, nevertheless, vigilant of the need for sound monetary policy in the EU trading bloc and we are opposed, in particular, to efforts to subject the application of monetary policy to political ends.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report ‘welcomes the favourable economic developments achieved in 2006’ in the euro zone but fails to disguise certain concerns and risks relating to the future development of the euro zone. The truth is that the profits, as a percentage of GDP, are at one of the highest ever levels, whilst salaries continue to slow down and grow below the rate of labour productivity; in other words, the gains in productivity are still going to the employers.

The report ignores social tensions and says little about the increase in inequality and poverty in the EU, about increasingly precarious employment and about high unemployment rates. It is increasingly difficult to justify new salary freezes and ask for further tightening of the belt when the fruits of wealth continue, as ever, to go to the financial and economic groups.

In truth, what they seek to ignore is that the main issue to consolidate this moment in the economic cycle is to make salaries rise and public investment increase in order to stimulate demand. This is precisely what the report fails to do, insisting on the argument of budgetary consolidation and price stability; in other words, less public investment and more salary moderation.

We reject this strategy, which is why we are voting against the report.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. - (SV) The report provides a clear picture of how EMU goes hand in hand with the creation of an EU state. The report seeks closer coordination of the economic policies of the Member States. The euro area’s external representation is viewed as needing to be strengthened, and internal coordination in the external scene as needing to be improved.

At the same time, it is noted that, for example, competitiveness is developing in different directions within the euro area and that the euro’s increase in value against, for example, the US dollar has had different effects in different Member States depending on the latter’s economic structures and the elasticity of their manufacturing industries. The report also points out that the ECB’s monetary policy can never be completely in tune with the situation in any particular Member State.

It was precisely these factors that were put forward as arguments by the ‘no’ side in the referendum on EMU in Sweden in 2003 and that met with sympathy among a large majority of Swedish voters.

I can only state that the ‘no’ side in the referendum argued quite correctly in pointing out that EMU was a large step along the road towards a United States of Europe.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. (PL) I would like to vote in favour of Mr Rosati's report on the review of the situation in the eurozone in 2007.

Professor Rosati presented an excellently drafted report. It will certainly provide a good basis for discussing the general economic situation in the eurozone, as well as further actions and the challenges that lie before us.

In 2006, the eurozone experienced dynamic growth in terms of exports. There was a revival in internal demand, faster GDP growth and a fall in the unemployment rate. Two million new jobs were created and the inflation rate remained steady. Meanwhile, the budget deficit decreased.

At the same time, and this was taken into account in the report, the largest economies still have high budget deficits. A failure to maintain budgetary discipline could lead to stricter monetary policy and increasing disparity in the levels of economic growth, productivity and competitiveness between the Member States.

The rapporteur rightly noted that structural reforms are necessary, as are activities aimed at developing competitiveness and opening up the services market, which could have a beneficial impact on growth and the creation of new jobs.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), în scris. Am votat pentru raportul Rosati privind "zona Euro" şi felicit raportorul.

Consider că introducerea euro a determinat o mai mare coeziune între cele 318 milioane de cetăţeni ai Uniunii Europene care utilizează această monedă în viaţa de zi cu zi. Creşterea economică realizată precum şi creşterea gradului de angajare (aproape 2 milioane de noi locuri de muncă) din această zonă sunt dovezi clare că Uniunea Economică şi Monetară a contribuit la stabilitatea macroeconomică a statelor aderente.

Felicit Slovenia pentru aderarea la zona euro începând cu 1 ianuarie 2007. Raportorul propune reanalizarea criteriilor de convergenţă în cazul noilor state membre, având în vedere că inflaţia ar putea face o parte din procesul de relansare economică, dar subliniază că acestea trebuie aplicate conform Tratatului. De asemenea, este nevoie de o mai buna coordonare în domeniul politicii de schimb valutar.

În ciuda performanţelor zonei euro, totalul cheltuielilor pentru cercetare şi dezvoltare ale statelor din zona euro nu depăşeşte 2% din PIB, ceea ce este sub ţinta de 3% stabilita de Strategia de la Lisabona.

Statele din zona euro trebuie să reprezinte un model de dezvoltare economică şi socială pentru celelalte state membre ale Uniunii Europene.

- Report: Mitchell (A6-0266/2007)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on the own-initiative report by Mr Mitchell on the 2006 annual report of the European Central Bank (ECB). I am very keen on the independence of the ECB since our economic and monetary history teaches us that we must never again entrust monetary control to the politicians. I am, however, of the opinion that this report does not satisfactorily tackle the extent to which the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) does not attach sufficient emphasis to economic growth. We must not forget that Article 105 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community makes provision for the ESCB to support the general economic policies in the Community, without prejudice to the objective of price stability, with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 2. That is, in particular, to promote balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and social protection and a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance. Although we need a solid euro in order to preserve our assets, we must not have a euro that is too strong for lasting economic growth to develop, particularly in the field of exports.

  Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), in writing. The British Conservative Party is firmly against the entry of the UK into the eurozone, and, in common with normal practice, we have abstained on the final vote of the Mitchell report. We are nevertheless vigilant as regards the need for sound monetary policy in the EU trading bloc and we are opposed in particular to efforts to subject the application of monetary policy to political ends.

- Report: Rosati (A6-0264/2007) and Mitchell (A6-0266/2007)

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) I have two remarks to make about the two reports on which we have voted today, on the work of the European Central Bank and the euro zone.

The first is that one has the impression that nothing is being controlled where the single currency is concerned. True, it exists, but then what? It does not lead to growth – the budgetary and structural reforms linked to it are supposed to do that – any more than it leads to a convergence of economic cycles, of results, of the interest rates set by the banks. As for European monetary policy, one can only continue to deplore its failure to meet the needs of the Member States of the euro zone, the eight increases in the European Central Bank’s reference rate in 18 months, their dubious motives and the continued absence of any exchange-rate policy.

It may be noted above all, and this is my second remark, that, despite the process – which I consider unwarranted – of reforming the Treaties, there is no question whatsoever of calling into question the stated objective of this policy in order to finally force the Frankfurt-based Bank to support growth and employment over the ideological creation of a European monetary area. Mr Sarkozy, who is playing the part of finance minister on this occasion, does not seem able to move this situation forward.

- Palestine (RC-B6-0268/2007)

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on the situation in the Middle East.

I remain very concerned about the humanitarian situation of the entire Palestinian civilian population. Practical measures – in the form of paying back all taxes, partially lifting the 500 barriers in the West Bank and opening up the crossings in the Gaza Strip to international aid – must be taken in order to improve the living conditions of all Palestinians.

As a French member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I would urge the European Parliament and the international community to do all they can to ensure that humanitarian aid and emergency aid reach the people of Gaza.

Finally, I would like to call for the resumption of internal political dialogue among the Palestinians, dialogue that must aim at the formation of a new government in a spirit of reconciliation and national unity in order to prevent the geographical and political division of the West Bank and Gaza.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this resolution, which expressed condemnation for the Hamas takeover of Gaza. In particular I support the emphasis on the fact that the current crisis should not be used as an excuse to halt efforts to reach a lasting peace.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) The situation in Palestine is a cause for great concern. Apart from proving that the nub of the issue is not Israel – something that a great many people have said many times – it also demonstrates two unfortunate truths. On the one hand, there are groups ready and willing to do anything to get power by force and to use it violently; on the other, since the Authority’s very survival is threatened, it is a partner that is unable to make agreements or to set its own house in order.

What we all need – the Middle East, Israel and Europe – is to have a partner across the table that is reliable enough to negotiate with and strong enough to implement what is agreed. Without that, we cannot have successful peace negotiations. Yet it is also impossible to agree on peace and security without determination. Our unequivocal aim should be nothing less than to guarantee the peaceful and secure coexistence of two States. To achieve that, we have to acknowledge what the real obstacles to peace and security are, instead of handing out blame, as often happens, as if all actions were equivalent.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) We are voting against the motion for a resolution on the situation in the Middle East.

The resolution by the European Parliament on the situation in the Middle East endeavours through hypocritical crowing to conceal the imperialist policy of the EU in the area. It hides the huge responsibility of the ΕU, the policy of equating perpetrators with victims and the imperialist interventions by the EU/USA and ΝΑΤΟ which are perpetuating the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the crimes by the Israeli Government against the Palestinian people.

The imperialist interventions by the USA/ΝΑΤΟ and the EU for a ‘New Middle East’ and the adventurous policy of Israel in the area as a whole are responsible for the dangerous situation in the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon and in the area as a whole. The immediate withdrawal of the Israeli occupying army from the Palestinian territories, the foundation of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and an end to imperialist interventions in the countries of the Middle East are basic demands of the fight of the people in the area.

- Situation in Pakistan (RC-B6-0279/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This explanation of vote serves only to emphasise that, despite reference in the resolution of some of the most important aspects of the current situation in Pakistan, its content effectively conceals the participation by the Pakistani Government in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the USA and its allies, and in their subsequent ‘replacement’ by NATO. There is no mention of the pressure that the Pakistani authorities have already admitted to having suffered at the hands of the USA and its European allies to aid in the attack on Afghanistan. Likewise, there is no mention of the bombardments carried out by NATO on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians on both sides of the border.

A case of double standards ...

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Just because Europe, the United States and the world in general need Pakistan’s collaboration in the important fight against terrorism, and Al-Qaeda in particular, this does not mean that the Pakistani Government, today an actual presidential regime, has our unconditional support. Quite the contrary. The fundamental values and the non-renounceable nature of democracy are worthy of our defence and it is in this spirit that the European Union will handle its relations with Pakistan, especially on the eve of elections. That said, it is nevertheless necessary to underline the fact that recent events at the Red Mosque prove – as if any proof were still needed – that radical Islamism is a very real, very dangerous and very active threat.

- Report: Meijer (A6-0214/2007)

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) The Macedonia that I got to know for the first time in 1962 boasted many features dating back to previous centuries, with traditional cottages, dirt tracks, transport by horse and cart, traditional dress and different ethnic groups living juxtaposed to one another. The Macedonia 45 years on is the result of far-reaching developments since.

In the 1990s, the European Union, as I see it, made serious mistakes when Yugoslavia inevitably fell apart. This break-up was denied for too long and, when it was recognised, we chose to ignore the remaining ethnic diversity. In some cases, the wrong borders were recognised, military means were deployed unnecessarily and a decision was made in favour of inappropriate interference. This damage was proportionately limited in Macedonia. As rapporteur, I hope I can contribute to peace, democracy, reconciliation and progress in that country. The 558 votes with which this House supported my report are a step in the right direction of Macedonia’s accession to the European Union, which was previously pledged but has so far been unsuccessful. I hope that in the next annual report we will be able to read that major obstacles to accession have been removed and that the Council has opened the accession negotiations.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) We voted against the report, not only because we are against the ΕU and the integration of the FYROM in it, but also because we consider that the intervention of the ΕU dangerously complicates the situation in the area and undermines the procedures for finding a mutual and jointly acceptable solution within the framework of the UN.

We are not focusing our attention on the name, insofar as it is a geographical designation and any references to minorities and irredentist views are removed.

The source of the problems lies in the imperialist plans, the interventions by the ΕU, the USA and ΝΑΤΟ in the Balkans and the changes to the borders. The integration of the FYROM and other Balkan countries into the ΕU and ΝΑΤΟ will create new problems at the expense of the peoples. The history of relations between our country and the FYROM, developments on the issues of the Aegean and Cyprus prove that the ΕU, ΝΑΤΟ and the USA are no guarantee for peace and security; on the contrary, they are undermining national independence and involving our country and other countries in the area in dangerous situations.

The New Democracy, PASOK, Synaspismos and Laos parties are misleading the people with cheap patriotism on the question of the name, while at the same time applying a policy of going along with the imperialists responsible for the situation in the Balkans.

Our people and the people in the area can ...

(Deleted as 200-word limit exceeded)

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I did not vote in favour of the Meijer report in its final form, because I wanted greater account to be taken of the positions and sensibilities of the Greek side and the bilateral negotiations on the name of our neighbouring country currently under way under the aegis of the UN.

I greatly fear that the historic opportunity for a satisfactory compromise with the FYROM, with a composite name acceptable to both sides, was lost once and for all in 1992. My party continues to support a solution in the form of a composite name acceptable to both sides and any relevant constructive initiatives. Nonetheless, we do not consider the name of the neighbouring country to be a central priority of our foreign policy.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) I voted against the report from my fellow group member, Erik Meijer, on the ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ because, contrary to the opinion of the rapporteur, the Committee on Foreign Affairs inserted the following wording in point 3 of the report: the European Parliament, it says, ‘commends the Macedonian Government for its cooperation in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), notably its participation in the EU mission Althea and its willingness to contribute to the development of the ESDP capabilities and future EU-led civilian and military crisis-management missions’.

This is a catastrophic position to adopt. This point welcomes the ‘CFSP’, which in reality is a militarisation of the EU. The adopted formula obliges a potential applicant country to take part already in the military component of the EU and to arm itself in order to contribute to the development of ‘ESDP capabilities’. It welcomes the Althea mission. Among other things, the Althea mission symbolises the financial fiddling that takes place in connection with military missions of the EU through mechanisms, such as Athena, which are not subject to parliamentary control. The European Parliament should not be a party to measures designed to perpetuate the militarisation of the EU. The rest of the report is better than the usual European Parliament reports on Balkan countries.

- TRIPS Agreement and access to medicines (B6-0269/2007)

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on the TRIPS Agreement and access to medicines.

I believe that access to pharmaceutical products at affordable prices in poor developing countries and in the least developed countries is an essential condition when it comes to formalising the development objectives proposed by the European Union. In my view, the provision of these medicines would help to reduce poverty, to increase human security and to promote human rights and sustainable development. Accordingly, European Union policy should aim at making the maximum amount of affordable pharmaceutical products available within developing countries.

Finally, I would like to call on the Council to support developing countries that resort to the flexibilities integrated into the TRIPS Agreement and recognised by the Doha Declaration, so that they are able to provide essential medicines at affordable prices as part of their national public health programmes.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) After the Doha Declaration, the application of the mechanism intended to give access to drugs was a failure, having served above all as an alibi for including the less-developed countries, especially in Africa, in a business agenda for the liberalisation of world trade.

The large pharmaceutical monopolies have no inclination to lose out on the fabulous profits arising from patents and the sizeable health ‘business’.

Thus, millions of human beings are being deprived of their right to health. Research into finding a cure is orientated towards the ‘palliative’, since ongoing disease is more lucrative. Capitalism commercialises life.

The World Bank and the IMF make loans and aid conditional on the privatisation and liberalisation of national health sectors, increasingly in the hands of the major multinational operators.

Health cannot come under the jurisdiction of the WTO, the leading body in competition and commerce.

The right of each country to guarantee the right to health must be ensured.

The public sector plays an irreplaceable role in guaranteeing this right, namely in the provision of preventative and primary health care, and in the encouragement of research for the benefit of all but, equally, in the manufacture of drugs and vaccines free from the restrictions of patents and other forms of licensing that limit people’s access to essential goods and services.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this Resolution which asked that more be done to allow developing countries and LDCs to access medicines. In particular I believe the Council should support the developing countries which use the flexibilities enshrined in the TRIPS Agreement. Further, I support the request in the resolution that the Commission and the Member States should provide financial support for local production of pharmaceuticals in developing countries.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS), in writing. – (FR) The pairing of ‘Medicines and poor countries of the South’ poses a problem in terms of the reconciling of ‘Intellectual property law of pharmaceutical laboratories and human rights to health care’.

In Hong Kong, the WTO summit reached an agreement, the results of which have yet to be felt in the areas of tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS. Medicines, whether generic or not, are not accessible to the people.

However, the substance of this audacious solution presupposes that the ‘common heritage of mankind’ concept, dating back to the 1960s, has been taken up here.

Major diseases are spread worldwide by people migrating and travelling. These diseases can strike down mankind. We saw this with SARS and avian influenza. Therefore, for worldwide diseases, we need worldwide medicines.

Medicines that are used to treat worldwide diseases must have a ‘common heritage of mankind patent’.

The legal status of these 21st century patents would be open, as would the tax to be paid from intergovernmental contributions. Thought may be given to ‘public-private partnerships’ involving ‘multinational pharmaceutical companies and the WHO’ or governments. Thought may be also given to a ‘Company’ with international status, of the type stipulated for sea bed exploitation.

The important thing is the innovative principle of the worldwide management of the risks of worldwide pandemics.

- Democratic scrutiny of the implementation of the Financing Instrument for Development Cooperation (B6-0310/2007)

  Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. (DE) Today’s resolution is already the fourth within a few months and demonstrates the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure on development cooperation. In its development cooperation, the European Union must prioritise the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It is regrettable that many of the country strategy papers do not focus sharply enough on combating poverty. The Commission should provide Parliament with information indicating the effects of planned activities on efforts to combat poverty.

- Report: Kamiński (A6-0217/2007)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I was grateful that the proposals made by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats were not blocked, as they have placed the political gesture contained in the report on a sounder footing. We all know that accession talks with Ukraine cannot start right away, but rather over the next ten years or more, despite the fact that everyone here, except for the extremist politicians, wants Ukraine to join. I refuse to make cheap gestures and therefore welcome the sensible amendments to the report. This will become an important signal for democratic activity prior to the elections in Ukraine, and it will, in particular, promote the conclusion of the treaty on strengthening economic cooperation, and that is a very real step towards integration with Europe. I would like to thank Mr Kamińsky and Mr Brok for their readiness to make this compromise.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The report by fellow Member Mr Kamiñski is the result of reflections on the future shape of Europe, and on whether we will manage to build a Europe based on Christian principles.

What does Ukraine mean to the European Union? In my opinion, Ukraine is one of the European Union’s most important strategic partners, and it is therefore gratifying that through this report the European Parliament is extending a helping hand to Kiev. Only the prospect of a European future can assist Ukraine in continuing with the process of reform. The report is the first official document to send a positive, constructive signal to Ukraine, and in particular to the pro-European and pro-democratic forces there, encouraging the country, three years after the Orange Revolution, to complete the task of European integration.

I was delighted to vote for this report, and as a member of the delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee I will be working to implement it. The post-communist countries, having experienced a totalitarian past and knowing how challenging and difficult it is to meet all of the criteria required to join the European family, are showing particular solidarity with Ukraine and offer a guarantee that the door to the European home will forever remain wide open to Ukraine.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, I should like to deliver an oral explanation of vote on behalf of my group.

Ukraine is an important European country, the democratic, constitutional, economic and social development of which must be supported, not least in the interests of the EU itself.

An enhanced agreement between Ukraine and the EU is an important means to that end.

We now need many practical steps such as accession to the WTO, a free-trade area, an enhanced neighbourhood policy and a kind of European Economic Area. People in Ukraine must be aware that democracy works to their advantage.

The extent to which the EU can hold out the prospect of a European future depends not only on the capacity of Ukraine to reform itself but also on that of the EU.

The people of Ukraine have no need of promises that may be unrealistic or that may deliver nothing in the way of practical progress in the foreseeable future.

This is why no binding pledge of EU membership can be made today, but the possibility must not be ruled out either.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, we have adopted an incredibly important report on the negotiating mandate concerning the new, enhanced agreement between the European Community, its Member States and Ukraine.

I am convinced that this large and beautiful country will become a member of the European Union in the future. This will take place as long as it continues to press ahead with its social, economic and political reforms and continues to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights.

We should deepen our relations with our eastern neighbour, especially in connection with economic and cultural matters. We should foster youth projects, as well as student and academic exchanges. It is incredibly important for us to support the integration of Ukraine's energy sector into the European Union’s energy market. It is high time that the European Union became more open towards Ukraine. The adopted report is a good example of this sort of attitude.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Mr Kamiński’s report on the negotiating mandate for the new, enhanced agreement between the European Union, its Member States and Ukraine is a good step towards bringing the Union and Ukraine closer. However, it is a shame that this report has been drawn up so late in the day. Fear of Russia and its designs, including those which involve Ukraine, has meant that a new iron curtain has appeared, this time on Ukraine's western borders. It is time that this changed.

It seems to me that Ukraine, rather than Turkey, should have priority in terms of European Union membership. Ukraine, rather than Turkey, is a European country. It is part of European culture and its state is based on the rule of law. Moreover, Ukraine recognises all the Member States of the European Union. Turkey, for example, does not recognise the independence of Cyprus. Therefore, in terms of future accession negotiations, Ukraine should have priority, and not Turkey, whose culture is alien to us.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I wanted to stress that Mr Kamiński’s report is the most important statement that the European Parliament has made during this session. It comes at a particularly appropriate time, although there is currently a lack of political stability in Ukraine. We, the European Union, are sending out a clear and comprehensible signal. ‘Yes, we are united, we invite you to closely cooperate with us in the future and, in time, we will probably invite you to join us.’

This sends a signal to all pro-European, pro-Western politicians in Ukraine that it is worth investing in reforms, developing democracy and changing the country’s image. I would also like to stress that the voice of the European Parliament is particularly important from a moral point of view. This is because we are turning to one more country that was within the Soviet zone, within the USSR.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report on Ukraine contains aspects that recur whenever the question arises of relations between the EU and the Eastern European countries. An example is the recommendation to deepen internal reform with a view to these countries adapting completely to the EU’s neoliberal doctrine.

In this instance, ‘the gradual economic integration of the Ukraine into the EU’s internal market’, ensuring ‘the creation of a competitive market economy’ (with emphasis on the energy sector) and ‘Ukraine’s close involvement the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy’, is indicated as the primary objective. To which we would add the elimination of the reality (and, if possible, memory) of any trace that might act as a reminder of the advances made in civilisation resulting from the world’s first experience of socialist construction.

Despite the ambitions of the USA/NATO/main EU powers with regard to this country – whose strategic importance in Europe is particularly significant – they will always have to face those in the Ukraine who resist them. Hence the importance of expressing solidarity with the Ukrainian people and the recent demonstrations in Odessa, in protest against the USA/NATO Sea Breeze 2007 military exercise in Ukraine.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this report on looking at Ukrainian EU membership. I support the call for a resolution to the current crisis, for the government to tackle problems of corruption and to further integrate the country's energy markets with the Union.

- Report: Geringer de Oedenberg (A6-0241/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We regret the rejection of our proposals which:

- Recommended that, besides attention being given to the specific situation of the regions affected by the so-called ‘statistical effect’, which have suffered cuts in funding under the current Financial Framework, the need for review should be put forward so that these regions may receive the same level of support that they would have received had the eligibility criteria been based on the EU-15;

- Requested that the Commission rapidly specify the content of the ‘reinforced partnership’ which it announced with regard to the outermost regions, including the introduction of permanent, flexible and adequately-financed policies and measures capable of adapting to the needs of each of these regions and helping to counteract the permanent restraints on development which they face;

In addition:

- Urged the Commission to study new means of evaluating the different aspects of regional development, based not only on GDP per capita but also on other indicators such as unemployment rates and quantitative and qualitative indicators of a social nature (such as the poverty rate, education levels and income inequality), simultaneously perfecting the methodology used in calculating purchasing power parities through the development of better regional and national indicators.

  Miloš Koterec (PSE), in writing. (SK) I have fully supported the report as drafted by the rapporteur. In particular, I subscribe to the demand for serious measures to be taken to eliminate the major shortcomings in the development of the EU’s poorest regions, to which many areas in Slovakia belong. I would like to emphasise that such regions require special support in view of their persistent institutional, administrative and economic difficulties.

I would like to reiterate that it is extremely important to avoid the mistakes made in the old Member States, and repeated in the new Member States in 2004–2006 as well, and I call on the Commission to come up with a compendium of best and worst practice and a broad list of concise case studies, which should inter alia minimise the risk of Community assistance being poorly targeted in some regions. It is also important for Member States to take the best course of action and tap the natural and cultural riches of the poorest regions in an effort to transform them into areas attractive to investors. This is a field where innovative approaches may play an important role.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Despite the oft-asserted ‘European crisis’, one of the policies defining principles, values and strategies has happily not been called into question. In general, both citizens and political leaders remain firm in their conviction that efforts towards cohesion respond to a need for solidarity between partners in the same community whilst also representing an investment in spreading the conditions of economic growth in the whole of which we are a part.

There are, however, two points which must be put forward. Firstly, it is necessary to emphasise the issue of statistical discrepancy. There are several regions that have become statistically richer than they really are purely as a result of enlargement. To withdraw them from the support framework would not only be unfair but also an error with regard to the political objectives adhered to thus far. Secondly, it is important that the cohesion policies be adapted to the new economic reality. The causes of underdevelopment and poverty, or, to put it another way, the factors contributing to such a situation, are different today, hence the need to tailor and adapt these policies, so that current funding does not only respond to old imbalances.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I am grateful to Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg for having agreed to support my amendments aimed at pointing out, once again, that most of the outermost regions are still among the poorest regions of the European Union.

In this regard, Article 299(2) of the Treaty states that the Community must adapt its policies and decide on specific measures designed to benefit the outermost regions, in view of their permanent and combined structural and geographical handicaps.

I support the strategy deployed by the Union to help its outermost regions, but I call on the Commission to clarify quickly the content of the ‘strengthened partnership’ that it has adopted – not least in terms of improving the regions’ competitiveness – and the action plan for the wider neighbourhood.

The structural policies conducted in the outermost regions would have an even greater impact if the Commission demonstrated greater flexibility by agreeing to rid itself, as and when necessary, of certain ‘Community dogmas’ and by taking greater account of the particular characteristics of these regions.

I look forward to the new communication on the outermost regions, which the Commission has promised for this year, and hope that it will breathe new life into the regions suffering from handicaps caused by their outlying location.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party is radically opposed to and voted against the report on the effectiveness of the EU’s cohesion policy. The EU data used in the report prove precisely the opposite. The contrasts and inequalities between the Member States and the various regions of the EU are increasing and deepening. One revealing example when it comes to the myth of the alleged convergence and cohesion between the Member States of the EU is Greece, where the per capita gross domestic product was 44.78% of the Community average in 1960, 71.79% in 1980 before it joined what was then the EEC and just 66.59% twenty-plus years later in 2002.

EU policy not only fails to reduce inequalities and poverty; on the contrary, it increases them to the utmost degree. It paves the way for the plundering by monopoly capital of the wealth-producing resources of the Member States of the EU and for stepping up the exploitation of their people. The objective of the so-called ‘cohesion policy’ is not the alleged cohesion; it is to formulate the terms of survival of the workers at the lowest possible level, just one step before poverty, in order to contain social outcry, which is, however, inevitable.

  President. – I have no other explanations of vote.

8. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

9. Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, excuse me, but I would just like to explain my voting on the report on Macedonia, if that is possible.

  President. – Mr Rogalski, you were not on the list, and I have closed the explanations of vote. I am sorry. Next time, please let us know within the prescribed time. I would also point out to you that you can explain your vote in writing.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELAN
Vice- President

10. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

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

11.1. The humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees

  President. The next item is the debate on the six motions for a resolution on the humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, Commissioner, Iraq is today in a catastrophic abyss and the Iraqi people find themselves in a state of utter despair and shock. The confirmed statistics provided by international agencies, such as the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq and other UN organisations, are truly grim and heartbreaking. Every day on average one hundred people are killed and two hundred wounded; 50% of the population is living on less than one dollar a day and unemployment affects more than 80% of the population. Only a minority have access to adequate water supplies and effective sanitation. Electricity supply is severely restricted and is subject to frequent interruptions without warning. Four out of five doctors have left their hospitals and three out of four children are not at school.

Almost three million people are internally displaced, i.e. they are refugees in their own country, and this number increases by about 2000 every day. A further two million Iraqis are refugees in neighbouring states, namely Syria, Jordan, the Gulf region, Egypt and Iran. These people have no formal refugee protection status.

The EU and the international community in general have a moral duty to show compassion and understanding for the miserable circumstances the Iraqi refugees find themselves in. Additionally, and more importantly, they must take much more effective measures to ensure that these poor people are given the help and support they so desperately need in order to survive indignity and the calamity that has fallen upon them.

This joint motion for a resolution lists a number of measures that are of importance in helping the Iraqi refugees have a more human existence.

So far, I have spoken as a representative of my group, now permit me to say a few words on a personal basis. Iraq is a relatively new country: it only became independent from Britain in 1932. It then followed a history of turmoil and, eventually, Saddam Hussein came to power. He was a tyrant and a criminal but he was assisted in gaining power by the West, including, unfortunately, some European states.

Sadly, though, even the worst days of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian rule seem nothing in comparison to the death, destruction and suffering that has fallen on the Iraqi people following the Bush-Blair invasion and continued occupation of the country. These two ‘peacekeepers’ ordered an attack on Iraq, promising to bring happiness and prosperity to the Iraqi people. Instead, they succeeded in bringing a calamity of gigantic proportions. Yet some EU circles continue to applaud this invasion and, recently, they have even agreed to rewarding Mr Blair for his ‘peace’ services to the Arab world by appointing him Special Representative of the Quartet to the Middle East. May God bring some sanity to such circles and may God save us from the Bushes and Blairs of this world !

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL), deputising for the author. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I shall read Tobias Pflüger’s speech. ‘Sadly, not until today have we held a debate on assistance for the Iraqi refugees. I deeply regret that. Why did the liberal, right-wing nationalist and conservative groups drop the subject from the agenda of the last plenary part-session? Instead, the House engaged in ideological debates about Cuba.

The situation in Iraq is desperate. Since the US invasion and the formation of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’, more than 600 000 people have been killed. More than two million Iraqis have fled the country. To these may be added two million within the country who have been driven from their homes and more than 40 000 non-Iraqi refugees. The number of US service personnel who have lost their lives rises daily and has now reached 3 600. Regrettably, through their participation in the war and their support of the war, Member States of the EU – and Germany is one of the foremost culprits – bear a substantial share of responsibility for the situation in Iraq.

Real help must now be given to the refugees. That cannot be the task of the neighbouring countries alone. The EU must commit funds for this purpose. Deportations to Iraq must be brought to an immediate halt. The troops of the United States and its allies in the so-called coalition of the willing must be withdrawn. EU Member States must stop supporting the war. An end to the illegal war and the occupation of Iraq is imperative.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), author. – Mr President, I was one of those politicians who supported the Iraq war back in 2003 in the belief that Saddam Hussein posed a serious long-term risk to regional stability, but also because of the horrendous brutality of his Baathist regime. I believed this would be replaced by democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

But I, like many others, sadly underestimated the ferocity of the subsequent insurgency and the serious lack of peace planning, post-invasion, by our US allies, in particular their disastrous dismantling of the Iraqi army as a de-Baathification measure, which unleashed disgruntled Sunni officers to lend their expertise to the insurgency. There was also a failure to secure the Jordanian and Syrian borders against jihadi extremists flocking in to have a bash at the allies, not to mention that Saddam opened his jails before his fall, which added organised crime to this lethal cocktail, and always with the fingers of Iran meddling on the side of the Shias in what has now become virtually a civil war.

Curiously, immediately after the invasion, there was little in the way of internally displaced persons or refugees compared to the previous exodus of Kurds in the Saddam days. Paradoxically, the Kurdish flow has now stopped, as this is one of the few remaining peaceful areas of the country.

Sadly, in the last two years, huge numbers of Iraqis – perhaps over two million – have left, particularly the long-suffering, persecuted Christian Assyrian minorities who have been squeezed on all sides by Islamists, who accuse them of collaborating with the crusaders, and by the Kurds, who want their lands. Canon Andrew White, who ran Iraq’s only Anglican Church, left Baghdad yesterday amid fears for his life and safety after trying to secure the release of five kidnapped Britons.

But the EU must now do more to alleviate the crisis by boosting financial aid to the surrounding Arab states, which have received the bulk of the refugees, in particular Jordan and Syria, and they have been particularly good at taking in the Assyrians. The EU Member States must also accept, within reason, more refugees on a temporary basis.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE), author. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Iraqi brothers and sisters, an initial word in memory of all those who have been deprived of their most precious asset because of their ethnic or religious origin, their real or presumed convictions, or for being a symbol of democratic courage and public spirit. Allow me to put the spotlight on my comrade, companion and friend, the Member of Parliament Mohammad Hossein Ahwad, the very embodiment of the fight against theocratic fascism, who was assassinated on 12 April in the Iraqi parliament.

In order that the blinding tears of pain do not prevent us from seeing those women who still fight to keep their children alive on the pathways of ethnic cleansing, the countless thousands of Iraqis gazing into infinity on the streets of Amman, Damascus and Cairo, profoundly affected victims of post-traumatic syndromes, the camps set up in squares or in the buttresses of ruined churches or mosques, I would like to send a message of solidarity, love, affection and hope to all.

We cannot begin to imagine, nor can these words express, the barbarity of the forces of darkness who rehearsed their plan for the entire greater Middle East on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The common resolution which we now put forward is a vital first step towards reversing the situation.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), author. – Mr President, I welcome the resolution and, like others, I am really concerned about the truly tragic situation that we see in Iraq and on its borders at the moment. This is a people that have already suffered war, ethnic cleansing, a brutal dictatorship, an illegal invasion and communal violence, and are now seeing borders closing both externally and internally, seeing little chance of resettlement, and seeing a very mixed reception should any of them make it to the European Union.

We should not be surprised when war produces refugees – it always does – and indeed, as has already been said, some of our Member States have a very grave responsibility for that situation. I would agree, for once, with Mr Tannock, certainly on the question of the lack of post-war planning.

I particularly welcome, in this resolution, the statement that there should be no forced return of Iraqi refugees, or of those who have had their claims turned down that are currently living in the European Union, and at present we certainly need to find a status for such people, rather than leaving them destitute in our own Member States, as is happening in some places.

I would say that there is no part of Iraq which is currently safe. Even in Kurdistan we see Turkish troops at the moment massing on the borders there, undermining the possibility of return to destroyed villages and undermining efforts to increase economic stability in that area. Indeed, some of those that have been returned were sent back wearing flak jackets and helmets, which, to me, says it is not exactly a safe area. We also had a report from Human Rights Watch only last week saying that, despite the efforts of authorities in Kurdistan, partisan security forces continue the practice of kidnap and torture, so there is no real safe area in Iraq.

We know that we have to increase our support to the countries dealing with refugees on the border, and to the UNHCR, because we know what happens when you ignore the plight of refugees at the border. We only have to look at our experience when we more or less turned our back on two million Afghan refugees on the Pakistani border and left them without adequate support – that vacuum is filled, and we do not always like the result.

I welcome the call, in the resolution, for the Commission to explain to Parliament’s Committee on Budgets in more detail exactly how we are helping in Iraq and how we are aiming to support those surrounding countries. But, equally, I think we should be looking at our own resettlement policies to at least offer assistance to some of those who, once again, are finding their lives absolutely in turmoil.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, the humanitarian and human rights situation in Iraq is constantly deteriorating. This is what the reports of the UN aid mission to Iraq reveal.

The statistics are horrifying. On average, around one hundred people die every day and over two hundred are injured. 50% of the population live on less than a dollar a day and the unemployment rate stands at 80%. There are insufficient water supplies and the sewage systems are inefficient, which encourages the spread of disease. Three quarters of children do not attend school. Criminal activity, armed attacks, kidnappings, killings of people involved in political activities or rebuilding the country are all everyday occurrences. That is why many Iraqis flee their country and over two million people have become internally displaced. It should also be highlighted that there are over forty thousand refugees from other countries on Iraqi soil, including fifteen thousand Palestinians. This is what Iraq looks like today.

We therefore need immediate political and humanitarian action in order to alleviate the tragic situation faced by the refugees. We should remember that half a million of the refugees are children. We should ensure that internally displaced people are registered, which will give them the right to obtain food rations. Today, they are denied this right. We should also exert influence on neighbouring countries, so that they cease to place entry restrictions on the refugees, thus forcing many to remain on the borders.

The Union must make sure that the aid we send to Iraq, to the Iraqi people, is comprehensive, sustainable and coordinated with the actions of the United States. The Union should, once and for all, reject anti-American prejudice. It is the only way in which we will be able to relieve the incredibly difficult situation faced by millions of refugees and therefore avoid a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

We also call on the Iraqi Government to take immediate action to ensure the safety of displaced people and to cease to discriminate against people on the basis of their background. The European Commission, meanwhile, should increase humanitarian aid to all displaced people in Iraq and provide support to neighbouring countries that already provide this kind of aid.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FI) Mr President, the plight of the Iraqi refugees is still a serious one, except for one move in the right direction. The recommendation by the UN’s main delegate for refugee affairs to give refugee status to the asylum seekers of southern and central Iraq under the 1951 Convention was a welcome solution. As is the offer of additional forms of protection in cases where refugee status is not given.

I wish to raise two matters in particular, from within Iraq’s borders. Firstly, the status of religious minorities is becoming ever more intolerable. Assyrian, Armenian, Orthodox and other Christian groups, as well as Mandaeans and Jews are being glaringly discriminated against in the labour market and elsewhere. In certain areas the authorities are totally incapable of protecting minorities from violence inflicted by Muslim soldiers. Freedom of religion is in fact virtually non-existent.

Secondly, I find incredible the threats which the Iraqi authorities have made to freeze the supply of vital goods to Iranian refugees. These members of the opposition have refugee status under international law and an inalienable right to protection.

  John Attard-Montalto, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, we must admit that what is happening and what has happened in Iraq is much worse than civil war – a question that is often posed. Of course, there is not civil war. It is worse. There is total chaos. Nobody has any idea or any plan as to how to unravel the mess we put Iraq in. I use the word ‘put’ because what went on was not needed, not required, nor was it wanted. It was an invasion which has proved a terrible nightmare for those who have participated in it.

When one makes a mistake, one has to carry the responsibility for it. It is about time that those people who participated, those countries in the coalition as well as the willing partners, show responsibility for what has happened to the Iraqi people, especially the refugees who are seeking help – even if they find any help, they find only a minimum amount.

It is about time that those people who made the initial mistake, who are responsible for the chaotic situation, show that responsibility and the first people who should be helped are the refugees.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, almost hidden amongst the constant news of violence in Iraq is the almost unheard voice of Iraq’s Christian minority. This small population has no protection and is almost unknown to the international community. They are experiencing intense waves of violent persecution. Christian Iraqis are faced with the choice of exile – if they can manage to escape – conversion or persecution.

The persecution takes many forms: violence, discrimination in the workplace, confiscation of property, etc. For a Chaldean Christian priest, Ragheed Aziz Ganni, this persecution resulted in death.

What will the European Community do to help the Chaldean, Assyrian and Orthodox Christian communities? The Iraqi Government states its commitment to ending violence, but the lack of security makes it impossible to enforce peace on the ground and impossible to protect vulnerable populations. They need our help.

  Jean-Claude Martinez, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (FR) Mr President, it is a good thing to table a resolution on Iraq for the sake of the humanitarian situation, refugees, international aid and so on. Who would not agree, moreover, with recital A and its finding that 100 people are killed and 200 are wounded each day, 70% of the population is without water, 3 million people are undernourished and 2 million are refugees, including 500 000 children in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere?

Who has done this, though? Who is responsible? Who has spread chaos? Is it Saddam Hussein? Is it the Ba’ath Party? Chaos stems from war, an unjust war in the eyes of the theologians of the Middle Ages, an illegal war according to the UN Charter, a war started on the back of a lie told by two Heads of State, those of the US and the United Kingdom. Who supported this war, here, in the European Parliament? Who justified, who requested, who approved the intervention that led to chaos? The current French foreign affairs minister, Mr Kouchner, and some of the signatories to this resolution did.

What are we supposed to say? That it is good to be humanitarian and to deal with the effects, but that it is better to be preventive and to avert the causes? This is the problem of political Europe! In Europe we are so fond of human rights that, everywhere – in Palestine, in Iraq, in Africa, in the field of economic globalisation – we support policies that, violating as they do these human rights, enable us to reaffirm our immense love of these very human rights, which are ultimately violated with our prior support. It is therefore good that post-trauma centres for refugees are being proposed in paragraph 16, but provision must also be made for political prevention centres, here, for our leaders, so that they can be taught wisdom, lucidity and the courage to say 'no', and taught to reject naïve optimism, which destroys everything in its wake.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I support the resolution, and I sympathise with more than four million Iraqis who have been forced to flee from their birthplaces. That is more people than there are in my homeland, Lithuania. The number of refugees is growing, and half of them are forced to flee abroad. The situation in Iraq is not improving. The refugees are condemned to vegetate in poverty, usually without employment, while their children grow up illiterate. For these reasons, terrorist organisations are able to successfully recruit followers.

Humanitarian assistance for refugees is shamefully small compared to the amount spent on weapons by the USA and UK, the countries that launched the war on Iraq. The 60 million US dollars contributed by donors in the USA is just a drop in the ocean.

This year about 40 000 refugees from Iraq will arrive in European Union countries – twice as many as last year – while the USA has accepted barely a several dozen Iraqis this year.

It would be good for US and UK leaders to visit Iraq and neighbouring countries and see with their own eyes the suffering of the refugees. Maybe then they would behave differently.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the security deterioration in Iraq has provoked a large scale displacement: approximately two million Iraqis have fled within the borders of Iraq and approximately two million into the neighbouring countries, with 750 000 people in Jordan and 1.4 million people in Syria. This displacement may result in a humanitarian crisis, and could present a threat to regional stability and the Commission is extremely concerned about the scale of human suffering.

We are following the situation closely on the ground and constantly reviewing any developments. We are in close contact with other key players of the international community, such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. In this regard, the Commission has actively participated at the UNHCR International Conference last April in Geneva.

In terms of existing assistance, in order to alleviate the difficulties of the displaced, the Commission, via EuropeAid, allocated EUR 10 million in 2006 to support internally displaced persons. In February 2007, as a rapid response to the deteriorating situation and following the UNHCR appeal in January, the Commission, via ECHO, announced an additional allocation of EUR 10.2 million, composed of EUR 4 million for the internally displaced and EUR 6.2 million for the externally displaced Iraqis. Furthermore, the Commission is continuing its support of the delivery of basic services inside Iraq.

We understand that this support remains limited in the face of the scale of human suffering. Nevertheless, it constitutes only a first, immediate response to the humanitarian situation. The Commission is currently looking at various options on how to better assist the Iraqi refugees in the future. However, delivery of assistance inside Iraq is severely constrained by the security situation. Many of our partners, including UNHCR, have only a very minimal presence in Iraq.

Through various technical and political missions, the Commission attempts to better assess the situation and, at the same time, convey its readiness to further support the Iraqi refugees. Commissioner Michel visited the region himself at the end of April. Several technical missions to Jordan and Syria have also followed since then.

We remain, therefore, committed to working with the countries that are accommodating Iraqi refugees. The Commission has already and will retain regular discussions with the Syrian and Jordan authorities about the situation.

We are looking forward particularly to participate in the Sharm El-Sheikh agreed Working Group on Refugees, which, according to the latest indication, is scheduled to meet on 22 July in Amman. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner has already expressed the Commission’s readiness to provide technical assistance to the working group in order to facilitate the process.

We believe that the only durable solution for the refugees is peace and reconciliation inside Iraq. Towards this end, we will continue our support to the Iraqi refugees. I agree with you that we have a moral duty to help.

  President. The debate is closed.

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

11.2. Human rights violations in Transnistria (Moldova)

  President. The next item is the debate on the six motions for a resolution on human rights abuses in Transnistria (Moldova).

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, Moldova, and in particular the Transnistrian region, have been the subject of previous resolutions of this House. Since the 1992 conflict in Moldova, which led to the establishment of the separatist and illegitimate regime in the Transnistrian region, there have been numerous and serious violations of the human rights of the affected citizens of Moldova. These violations, which continue to happen today, range from severe limitations of the freedom of speech to arbitrary arrest and detention and use of torture on political opponents and civil rights activists.

Calls by the international community in defence of the human rights of the Moldovian citizens living in Transnistria have, to a large extent, been ignored. Even the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Moldova and its allied Russian Federation in respect of violations that have taken place in Transnistria, have been completely ignored by the separatist Transnistrian regime.

We strongly condemn the repression, harassment and persecution of citizens and NGOs currently taking place in Transnistria and which is the work of the totalitarian Transnistrian regime. We call for a rapid settlement of the frozen conflict in that region pointing out adamantly that the territorial integrity of Moldova must never be put in doubt, and that the regime in Tiraspol is illegal and unrecognised, and so it will remain in our eyes and in our decisions.

Since Moldova is located in the EU’s immediate neighbourhood, and especially since this country has apparent EU membership aspirations, the EU must continue to be a key player in assisting the Moldovan people to achieve eventually the peace and prosperity they so much deserve in a unified and a conflict-free democratic nation.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, today we are dealing with the sort of unwanted legacy that was left behind after the fall of the Soviet Union. In order to strengthen its internal power, the Soviet Union tried to ensure that there was as much migration within its borders as possible. This is the cause of the problems in all of the former republics, where the Russian minority forms a large part of the local community. It is also the reason behind the problems in the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Transnistria.

However, whereas in those countries the Russian minorities pose a real threat, as they generally side with Russia and, as the heirs of the former Soviet Union, seek Russian support, in Moldova the integrity of the state has, to a large extent, been destroyed because the Russian minority was so large that it led to the creation of a separate territory within Moldova which proclaimed itself the Republic of Transnistria.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to be aware that this political lawlessness, which the Russian leaders in Transnistria have allowed, is clearly and directly reflected in infringements of basic human rights and the persecution of the Moldavian people (de facto Romanians) and has clearly also led to another kind of lawlessness, as political lawlessness does not stand alone for long and criminal lawlessness soon follows. The numerous gangs that control public life in Moldova as well as the various violations of the law that occur there particularly affect the lives of the inhabitants of this part of the country.

I would simply like to point out that possible future independence, following the example of Kosovo, where the majority is made up of Albanians in an autonomous Serbian territory, could result in the Russian people in the Transnistrian region maintaining their resistance to the rightful Moldovan authorities.

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL), author. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, to the EU Commissioner for Science and Research I would first like to say that they will still one day undertake scientific ventures in Moldova and Transnistria I am sure, but before then they have to have peace, bread and human rights.

Along with the Balkan region, Europe’s centres of political grievances are Moldova and its enclave, Transnistria. No peaceful solution has been found to stabilise the situation, even though a good deal of external forces with their many international declarations have been helping to seek one.

We are paying special attention to the conclusions of the meetings of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilascu and others versus Moldova and the Russian Federation.

It is only right that here in the European Parliament we should be once again focusing our attention on the need for stability in the region and people’s security, and so ultimately, the prevention of poverty. Poverty leads to the violation of human rights and, in the case of Moldova, large-scale, illegal human trafficking.

Our group’s resolution calls on the Council of the European Union and the Commission to step up efforts to find a solution to the conflict in Transnistria which is acceptable to all parties and makes it the responsibility of all those involved to prevent problems from escalating. We need to get this region, Europe’s poorest, back on its feet.

  Maria Petre (PPE-DE), Autor. – Am generat dezbaterea pentru că noi credem că nu trebuie să rămânem fără reacţie în faţa unei realităţi care poate fi un precedent periculos. O hotărâre a Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului este ignorată din iulie 2004 până în iulie 2007.

La eliberarea ultimilor doi deţinuţi din grupul Ilaşcu sunt în continuare violate drepturile omului, sunt bătuţi, predaţi poliţiei din Moldova şi împiedicaţi să se întoarcă la domiciliul aflat pe teritoriul transnistrean de către nişte aşa-zise autorităţi nerecunoscute de nimeni. Credem că soluţionarea rapidă şi definitivă a conflictului din Transnistria presupune implicarea mai activă a Comisiei, a Consiliului şi a Parlamentului European. Aspiraţiile europene proclamate de Republica Moldova trebuie însoţite de crearea unui spaţiu al democraţiei şi de respectarea deplină a drepturilor omului pe întreg teritoriul acesteia şi acest subiect trebuie abordat nu doar în procesul de negociere din formula actuală pentru rezolvarea conflictului, ci şi în toate contactele cu oficialii din Moldova şi Federaţia Rusă.

Doar astfel, concluziile summit-ului OSCE de la Istanbul şi ale Consiliului ministerial de la Porto şi hotărârea Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului vor fi cu adevărat aplicate.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE), author. – (ET) To our knowledge, there are at present no political prisoners in Trans-Dnistria. We may, however, expect to hear of new arrests at any moment.

Valentin Besleag spent two weeks in prison because he wished to stand, as provided for in Moldovan legislation, in the local elections that were held at the beginning of June. The authorities in Tiraspol arrested him for importing election brochures from Moldova, as the illegal regime has prohibited the importation of publications of a political nature from abroad.

The situation is not improving. The authorities in Trans-Dnistria ignored the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, as mentioned above, which acquitted Tudor Petrov Popa and Andrei Ivantoc three years ago. Both fighters for Moldovan territorial integrity were recently released only because the imprisonment assigned by the illegal regime expired. In addition, the dissidents were prohibited from returning to Trans-Dnistria, so that they are essentially in exile.

The European Parliament has repeatedly confirmed its support for the territorial integrity of Moldova. The Trans-Dnistrian regime has no legal basis for existing. The element of cynicism in the situation is all the greater inasmuch as negotiations with a view to solving the conflict were interrupted by the Tiraspol regime more than a year ago.

Russia could perhaps convince the regime to return to the negotiating table, but it does not. Moreover, Russian forces are still on Moldovan/Trans-Dnistrian territory, although the Istanbul decision by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe called for the withdrawal of forces by the end of 2002.

With the accession of Romania to the European Union, Trans-Dnistria is directly on the border of the European Union. It is no longer appropriate for us to continue to adopt the role of observers. The European Union must participate in the negotiations concerning the Trans-Dnistria conflict as an equal partner and as an active party.

  Gérard Onesta (Verts/ALE), author. – (FR) Mr President, I dream, ladies and gentlemen, of a Thursday afternoon when here, in plenary, against the backdrop of these emergencies, we will no longer have to speak of the suspicious role played by Russia. When it is not Chechnya, it is Transnistria; when it is not Transnistria, it is the disposing of journalists. I believe that we have a big problem on our doorstep, and that problem is Russia, because, on this matter as on so many others, the solution lies with Moscow. Everyone here, in this House, knows this. I believe that the Commission must put its foot down, because these continuous destabilisation attempts that Russia is making to try to regain the power of its Soviet-era empire are no longer acceptable in the third millennium.

This situation has been going on for almost 15 years now. Fifteen years, that is a huge amount of time! That means that there are entire sections of the population of that country that have known only destabilisation and this authoritarian and self-proclaimed regime. I shall not go into all the human rights violations because other speakers have done so, although, like them, I must point out that action absolutely must be taken in the cases of Mr Tudor Petrov-Popa and of Mr Andrei Ivantoc. Having said that, this matter really must be addressed from an overall perspective.

This is a frozen conflict. I hate that word, as if a conflict could be frozen, as if a conflict were something cold, languishing somewhere in a cupboard. Men and women are suffering because the law is not being upheld. Let us not forget that Moldova is hardly far away; it is on the edge of the European Union. Talking about Transnistria is just like looking across the street. I genuinely call on the Commission to look at what is taking place across the street.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Bessarabia, cradle of the Republic of Moldova and of the adjacent territories of Ukraine, was a flourishing Europe in miniature, in which Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians and Germans – the family of the incumbent President of the Federal Republic comes from there – as well as the Gagauz and many other peoples lived together in peace. This makes it all the more appalling that we are confronted there today with the criminal legacy of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. If that pact had not been made between Hitler and Stalin, that territory would have joined the European Union at the start of this year as part of Romania. We must not forget that, and it means that we have a particular responsibility.

The criminal Stalinist construct known as Transnistria has absolutely nothing to do with what we are seeing in Kosovo. On that count I must take issue for once with my honourable Polish colleague Mr Libicki. Kosovo is a democratic country in which genocide took place, in which the UN and NATO intervened to stop the killing. Comparing that with the situation in the criminal Stalinist construct known as Transnistria is truly a matter of confusing chalk and cheese.

We must dissolve that criminal construct in Transnistria, and we must integrate the area into Europe, step by step. That is our historic responsibility. And in particular we must remind Russia that it made certain commitments at the OSCE summit in Istanbul all of eight years ago, not a single one of which has been honoured to this day. We cannot accept this, and we must do some plain talking to our Russian partners who uphold that construct in Transnistria, because without them that criminal construct would have been consigned to history long ago.

  Józef Pinior, on behalf of the PSE Group – (PL) Mr President, the European Parliament is once again dealing with the issue of human rights in Transnistria. I myself have already spoken on this issue on a number of occasions. This territory is in the centre of what we consider as Europe, the centre of the European continent. There is no freedom of information in this territory. None of the liberal and democratic freedoms which we in the European Union take for granted exist. Russia is involved in the region’s affairs, as it is only thanks to the protection of the Russian state that this bizarre situation, this strange territory, this peculiar power is able to maintain itself. I would like to remind you that, this year, Gazprom took over control of Moldova’s national gas company, Moldova Gas.

As a result of Romania’s membership of the European Union, the matter of Transnistria is, at the moment, one of the European Union's basic problems. I appeal to the European Parliament to ask the European Union institutions to properly take this matter in hand. I would like to ask for plans to be drawn up to change this strange and very dangerous situation, which is a threat to peace, democracy and stability on the European continent. Let us take real action to change the situation on the European Union’s borders.

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Atunci când privim dintr-o perspectivă globală sau regională conflictul îngheţat din Transnistria, obişnuim să spunem că este o zonă generatoare de instabilitate şi insecuritate aflată sub controlul unui regim autoritar şi nelegitim. În viaţa de zi cu zi a oamenilor de acolo, acest lucru se traduce prin a nu putea să mergi la şcoală, prin a nu putea să-ţi vizitezi mama sau prin a trăi într-o lume controlată cu arma la brâu, în care doar cei care vor să vorbească despre ordine şi libertate intră în închisori, sfârşim prin a fi torturaţi chiar de aşa-zisele autorităţi. De aceea, dezbaterea de astăzi este una foarte importantă.

În demersul nostru am pornit de la un exemplu care a ajuns să fie cunoscut întregii lumi, cel al domnilor Ivanţoc şi Popa. Vreau să atrag atenţia că o mulţime tăcută de oameni suferă acolo fără ca noi să le cunoaştem numele sau să le auzim glasurile disperate. Este nevoie ca Uniunea Europeană să se implice profund în soluţionarea definitivă a conflictului transnistrean în conformitate cu standardele internaţionale. Uniunea Europeană trebuie să-şi activeze la maximum toate instrumentele pentru a contribui substanţial la crearea unui veritabil spaţiu de pace şi democraţie în vecinătatea de est, implicit în Transnistria. În viaţa de zi cu zi a oamenilor de acolo, asta se va traduce prin a avea dreptul de a merge la şcoală, să vorbeşti liber, să poţi să-ţi vizitezi mama.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I have the impression that the strange administrative creations which exist in Transnistria are only there to remind us how little it takes to create a situation where infringements of human rights are viewed as the norm and where the modus operandi is based on a lack of respect for the law and the voice of the international community.

If anyone has forgotten or would like to know what the KGB’s version of model Communism looks like, they should go to the Transnistrian region. In spite of the strong efforts of international organisations, nothing has changed for years. Today, Transnistria is the European, if not the global, centre of the illegal arms trade. Weapons are sold to the most volatile parts of the world. It is also a base for trafficking drugs, women and children, with a total lack of respect for the rights of detainees.

If we do not do our duty and try to change the situation, we may well find that attitudes of which we utterly disapprove win the day. I would like to add an amendment to the resolution on which we will be voting. Mr Tudor Popa is mentioned. He was, we are happy to say, recently released. Both parts of his surname are mentioned in the text, namely Petrov-Popa. He does not wish the Russian part of his name to be used, as it was forced upon him by the self-proclaimed authorities in the Transnistria, and his name should therefore read: Tudor Popa.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. Mr President, strengthening democracy and the rule of law and ensuring due respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are at the very heart of EU-Moldova relations. These are also key elements of the European Union-Moldova Action Plan endorsed in February 2005.

The European Commission monitors closely, on a continuous basis, that these rights and principles are respected by the Moldovan authorities. We discuss these issues regularly and openly with our Moldovan partners and encourage them on every occasion to ensure the full implementation and practice of these key principles for the benefit of Moldovan citizens and European Union-Moldovan relations.

As regards the situation in the Transnistrian region, this region is de facto not under the control of the government in Chisinau. This is to say that the reforms which have taken place in Moldova have not taken place in the Transnistrian region. This also implies that de facto the European Union-Moldova Action Plan and the European Union’s support for the reform process in Moldova have so far not had a real impact on the situation in the Transnistrian region.

The situation in the region regarding democracy, the rule of law and human rights is, therefore, highly problematic. Showing every citizen of Moldova, including those in Transnistria, the benefits of a closer relationship with the European Union, including the implications this has for internal reform and respect for human rights, is an important element of our work. It is a key aspect of our work in the context of the Transnistrian settlement efforts.

The European Union is strongly engaged in the Transnistrian settlement efforts with the aim to contribute to the settlement of this frozen conflict. The result of such a settlement must be based on the principles of Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and on the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

As part of these efforts, we try to increasingly involve in our work NGOs and civil society in the Transnistrian region. To that end, the Commission will also be providing financial assistance under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument with the objective of strengthening civil society in Transnistria.

I should like to thank you for all your comments and that I took note of your views, including the view that the role of the European Union in the settlement talks should be upgraded.

The need for a settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, based on the principles of Moldovan sovereignty and territorial integrity and the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, is raised consistently and at all levels by the EU in its contacts with Russia.

Let me reiterate our strong commitment to supporting the reform process in Moldova and its deep involvement in efforts to work towards a settlement of the Transnistrian issue. The objective of these efforts is a reunified Moldova, based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

Written statement (Rule 142)

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FI) The situation in Transnistria is a serious reminder that there are also flagrant and conspicuous human rights violations within Europe. The indifference of the separatist, authoritarian Transnistrian administration to the rule of law and democracy has been in evidence now for 15 years.

Human rights violations in Transnistria are also an indication that the consequence of the prolonged Government crisis is that no progress is being made in the area of civil rights. Thus it may not be possible for human rights to become established unless the dispute between Moldova and Transnistria is resolved in a permanent and sustainable way. Now things have reached stalemate: the parties have hardened their stand. Human rights are being trampled upon, and the independent media and NGOs are under attack.

Moldova has a right to territorial unity and its entire nation a right to fundamental rights.

Moldova wants to join the Union. Clearly the Transnistrian problem needs to be resolved before the door to integration can finally open.

11.3. Human rights in Vietnam

  President. The next item is the debate on the six draft resolutions on human rights in Vietnam.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE), author. – Mr President, Vietnam, a word synonymous with catastrophe, is a country that, as we all know, has had an extremely traumatic past, with long and treacherous fighting against colonialism, with a devastating civil conflict and with a calamitous war against the American forces having resulted in unprecedented suffering for the Vietnamese people. Then came the totalitarian Communist regime which, it has to be said, has made at least some proper efforts towards healing the wounds of the past and getting the country on its feet again. Consequently, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was rewarded by the international community in various ways, including being allowed it to join the World Trade Organisation, but, unfortunately, there is still a long way to go to achieving an acceptable level of democracy for the Vietnamese people.

We are particularly concerned about new waves of persecution of dissidents and the suppression of the fundamental right of free speech. We are also very concerned about the lapses in reforms relating to freedom of religion and the various set-backs in achieving judicial reform, which should be fair and democratic and which should lead to the abolition of all forms of imprisonment without proper judicial safeguards.

Hoping that the human rights dialogue between the EU and Vietnam will, albeit the recent setbacks, lead to tangible improvements for the Vietnamese people, we call upon the authorities in Vietnam to take serious note of our concerns relating to the issue of violation of human rights in their country. At the same time, we call upon the Commission and Council to reassess the policy of cooperation with Vietnam, bearing in mind that this cooperation should be subject to respect for democratic principles and fundamental rights and reforms. Let this motion for a resolution not be seen as a threat, but more as a caution to the Vietnamese Government.

  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL), author. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I was chairman of the Vietnam Friendship Society in my country in the 1980s. I see that there has been rapid economic development in the country, in the last 10 years especially. The new generations speak of it: those who have no personal experience of US aggression in Vietnam.

As an old friend of Vietnam, I, along with the other groups in the European Parliament, want to focus attention on the need to respect human rights and freedom of organisation, expression and religion in the spirit of the UN declarations and conventions.

Our group’s resolution calls for the release of Buddhist leaders Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Don from what we consider to be groundless imprisonment. We think that Vietnam should liberalise its policy on minorities. The EU should also work to promote cooperation with Vietnam.

Although oil has been discovered in Vietnam, it is not a western oil and gas reserve, and so political rights and human rights may be brought to the fore, unlike, for example, when working with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE), author. – (FI) Mr President, the situation in Vietnam warrants the attention of the international community. The EU needs to send a clear message: discrimination against religious communities, such as the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam, its Protestant congregation and dissident groups, must cease. Members of these communities, who practise their faith peacefully, have suffered detention and home arrest.

That was an extract from a speech I made four years ago in this House on human rights in Vietnam. It is sad to realise I can make the same speech now, as the situation with regard to freedom of religion has not improved. This may beg the question of the importance of these discussions, but there is no alternative. We have to continue to put the pressure on and do all we can to attract international attention.

Moreover, there is some hope, because there have been small constitutional reforms in Vietnam, at least at the level of legislation. We have to give credit for these things, and I hope that in four years’ time we can say something more about it.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE), author. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before getting to the heart of the matter and talking about the resolution on Vietnam with which we are dealing today, I should like to make a point that I feel is important. I am wondering how the urgent matters with which we deal here, in Parliament, are chosen. Indeed, although I am not calling into question the urgency of the various problems posed in the countries about which we are speaking, it does seem to me that some countries are completely forgotten about when compared with others about which we have the chance to speak several times in one parliamentary term. I shall take just one example – Colombia, with its many trade unionists who have been assassinated and its hostages who are living in increasingly difficult circumstances. According to my research, although Colombia has been the subject of specific resolutions, not once since 2002 has it been an urgent matter; I find this extraordinary.

However, I have taken the floor today to speak about the situation in Vietnam. Although it seems that 2006 was a year of political openness, one that made flexibility possible, it appears that freedom of worship is among the problems being reported to us by the NGOs. It is important that Vietnam accommodates all the religions practised on its territory and permits its entire population to choose its form of worship. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech must not under any circumstances be flouted, and the people of Vietnam, whoever they may be, must be able to express themselves by any means at their disposal, including wide circulation methods such as the Internet.

Despite the situation, I should also like to point out – perhaps going against what my fellow Member, Mrs Korhola, just said – that efforts have, all the same, been made in Vietnam. This country has already made certain efforts, of which we have taken note, not least when we went there in 2006 with the ASEAN delegation. It is important that we continue to support this country so that the rights of all its citizens may be respected in full. Let us hope that this resolution helps to achieve this.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, this is another debate on religious persecution and human rights abuses in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. Vietnam plays a particularly important role in this region. It enjoys dynamic growth and is overcoming the social and economic abyss that followed the communist period. Unfortunately, increasing wealth does not go hand in hand with respect for human rights, freedom of speech and expression or religious freedoms.

Hitherto, in our speeches in the European Parliament, we have all – including myself – focused on the persecution of Buddhists, as this is the largest religious community in Vietnam. Now, however, we are hearing that Catholics, such as the Catholic priest Nguyen Van Ly, are being persecuted. Although I already spoke about this matter in Parliament a year and a half ago, as did Mrs Korhola some eighteen months later, I sadly find myself having to utter virtually the same words.

We should expect countries who are members of Asian international organisations, such as ASEAN or ASEM, but also the UN and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to decisively appeal to the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to respect human rights and religious freedoms in that country. Once, when Vietnam was communist and poor, it infringed human rights and suppressed freedom of religion. Now it is doing the same, albeit perhaps on a smaller scale, although it is richer and is supposedly moving away from communist ideology. We cannot remain silent!

  Bogusław Sonik, of behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, in March of this year, fifteen Vietnamese dissidents were sentenced to long terms in prison and house arrest. This event, which has passed without comment in the global media, confirms the poor human rights situation in this country.

Basic civil rights, such as freedom of religion, the press and association, are infringed in Vietnam. The right to a fair and proper trial is not respected. Dissidents are placed in psychiatric units in the same way as they used to be in the former Soviet Union. Ethnic minorities are persecuted, priests are oppressed, as are representatives of various faiths.

The European Union cannot, and must not, tolerate these infringements any longer. More importantly, we are Vietnam's most important trading partner. Vietnam benefits from the European Union’s preferential tariff system. We have the resources to make the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam more likely to guarantee the basic civil rights of its citizens. It is our duty to do so.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, after Vietnam’s temporary suspension in 2006 of its policy of repression and restriction of political and civil rights, we are once again witnessing a wave of arrests involving citizens who are considered ‘inconvenient’ by the authorities.

The USA recently recognised Vietnam as a partner for stable, normal trade relations. It has also joined the World Trade Organisation. Although the country has opened up economically, it has not relinquished its monopoly on power in favour of a democratic system.

We have to put an end to all forms of repression affecting the members of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam and its existence needs to be officially recognised. We should call for the release of Vietnamese political prisoners who have been imprisoned because they have legally and peacefully exercised their freedom of opinion, press and religion. The Vietnamese authorities have to comply with the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council concerning the development of a legal system in the country and respect for basic rights.

In view of the fact that the European Union is Vietnam’s biggest trading partner, and the aid we offer to this country will amount to 304 million euros between 2007 and 2013, we should consider revising the cooperation treaty which we have already signed, as only economic sanctions can force Vietnam to implement political and institutional reforms which will lead to democracy and a state based on the rule of law.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, today’s debate concerns Vietnam, one of the last remaining Communist countries, where human rights abuses have been taking place for years. In Vietnam, defenders of human rights and democracy are imprisoned, religious leaders are accused of alleged espionage and propaganda against the socialist republic or are viewed as a threat to national security.

Following a period of reduced repression, which was linked to Vietnam’s application for WTO membership, opposition parties have been banned, as have independent media and trade unions. Vietnam enforces preventive censorship, and all media are under party control. Many people who are viewed as political dissidents are placed under house arrest and surveillance. Children and young people are brutally and ruthlessly indoctrinated.

Unfortunately, the efforts of international organisations and human rights defenders, as well as the resolutions that have been drawn up, have not led to any change in the situation. We support the resolution and appeal to the Vietnamese authorities to respect human rights, release prisoners and carry out reforms. However, it seems that more radical action will be necessary.

  Janez Potočnik, Commission. Mr President, the Commission shares the European Parliament’s concern about the violation of human rights in Vietnam. This affects, in particular, the exercise of freedom of expression, of association and of religion. However, we must view this in its full context. Vietnam has made considerable progress in terms of economic and social rights. Over the past decade, it has succeeded in lifting a significant part of its population out of absolute poverty and set the country firmly on a course of economic growth, whilst limiting the emergence of socioeconomic disparities within the population.

This has been accompanied by some improvements in recent years in the situation as regards civil and political rights. For instance, new legislation relating to religious freedom, which has been adopted in the last three years, has softened some, but not all, of the tools used by the state to control religious organisations and thus allows non-organised groups to seek official recognition.

This has already had a positive impact on the ground. Among other things, some Protestant denominations, such as Baptists and Mennonites, which had not been recognised in the past, have been able to register grassroots-level congregations.

That said, the implementation of the new legislation remains uneven, and progress in the Northern Uplands in particular has been markedly slower than in parts of the Central Highlands and in lowland areas. Moreover, some denominations seen as dissident by the regime, such as the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and some Hoa Hao and Cao Dai groups, remain illegal and face continued harassment.

The climate has also improved for political dissidents in the past two years. A considerable number of high-profile activists were released in 2005 and 2006. Last year also saw the emergence of some new parties and other groupings of activists within the country, which was unprecedented both in terms of the number of groups and of that of their adherents. The official reaction to this development was, initially, relatively low-key. However, this changed in early 2007, and in particular since mid-February. Harassment of dissidents seems to have intensified, and scores of activists were arrested. A number of them have since been tried and sentenced to lengthy jail terms. This includes some well-known persons such as Father Nguyen Van Ly, and lawyers Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan. We do not know whether this is a temporary reflex or something more deep-seated, but it is of grave concern to the Commission.

The EU’s relations with Vietnam have developed dynamically in recent years, and the Commission has taken every opportunity to press for continued improvement in the human rights situation, especially as regards prisoners of concern. The Commission and EU Member States’ representatives in Hanoi have in particular followed the recent arrests and trials of activists with particular attention. EU diplomats were present at some of the trials as observers, and the EU reacted strongly to their sentencing. In its declaration of 15 May, it reiterated its plea to the Government of Vietnam to release all non-violent political activists exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association. The EU missions in Hanoi have also requested that the Vietnamese Government allow them to visit dissidents in prison, in order to ascertain the conditions of their detention.

The recent trials were also raised forcefully by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner in her bilateral meeting with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Khiem on 28 May 2007, on the margins of the ASEM ministerial meeting in Hamburg. Apart from high-level political contacts, the EU and Vietnam have agreed on mechanisms to conduct a dialogue and exchange of views on human rights issues. A key instrument in this regard is the regular human rights dialogue between the EU missions in Hanoi and the Government of Vietnam. The Sub-Group on Cooperation in the Areas of Institution Building, Administrative Reform, Governance and Human Rights provides another opportunity for the Commission to raise these issues.

On all possible occasions, we have expressed our view that the arrest of non-violent political activists is incompatible with Vietnam’s obligations under the international human rights instruments to which it has acceded. Please rest assured that the Commission will continue to use all instruments at its disposal to press the case in question, as well as, more generally, to encourage and support progress on human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. We also rely very much on the European Parliament to continue to press for the improvement of human rights in Vietnam.

  President. The debate is closed.

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

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, on a point of order, over the last three years of attending these afternoon debates on breaches of human rights, the Commission has always been represented, most usually with a Commissioner, although it is a difficult time. We are very grateful for that. At the same time, I would like it to be noted that, on the Council side, I have never seen a representative. I wonder whether it is because the Council is not invited, or is it because it does not think it is important to be here? Perhaps you could find out and let us know.

(Applause)

  President. I promise that I will clarify this matter.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I only wish to point out that the honourable Member is correct but that, during the German Presidency of the Council, the Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights, Günter Nooke, was here twice on Thursday afternoons. That is a precedent which future Presidents of the Council should follow.

(Applause)

  President. I would like to inform you that I have received a proposal from the ALDE Group to appoint Bill Newton Dunn to the Committee on Budgetary Control.

There seems to be no opposition to this proposal. The proposal is approved.

12. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

13. Voting time

  President. – The next item on the agenda is the vote.

(Results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

13.1. The humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees (vote)

- Joint resolution B6-0291/2007.

- Before the vote on the draft resolution:

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order, before you put the motion for a resolution to the vote, in the interests of fairness I think the ALDE Group should recognise that but for the PPE-DE Group’s presence here this afternoon, its amendments would not have been passed. I think there should be consistency in our criticism about presence in this Chamber.

13.2. Human rights violations in Transnistria (Moldova) (vote)

- Joint resolution B6-0292/2007.

- Before the vote on the draft resolution.

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Am un amendament cu caracter tehnic, ca în textul rezoluţiei să fie înlocuit termenul de „Moldova” cu „Republica Moldova”, dacă, bineînţeles, colegii sunt de acord.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) I would like to table an oral amendment. In point C of the preamble, with regards to the surname of Tudor Petrov-Popa, I propose that the word Petrov be crossed out and that the name read Tudor Popa.

(The oral amendments were adopted)

13.3. Human rights in Vietnam (vote)

- Joint resolution B6-290/2007

  President. The voting is over.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to make an unequivocal statement concerning the report we voted on this morning.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  President. I am sorry but explanations of vote are not permitted at the moment.

14. Approval by the Council of Parliament's positions adopted at first reading (Rule 66): see Minutes

15. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

16. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

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

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

19. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

20. Adjournment of the session

  President – I declare the sitting adjourned.

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

On 7 February 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy, now President of France, proposed establishing a Mediterranean Union comprising the countries of North Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and the south of the EU. The proposal is based on four pillars: an intergovernmental forum similar to the Council of Europe, a collective security system, co-development policies and integrated police cooperation joined to a 'common police area'.

Given that the Mediterranean Union appears at a first glance to give priority to security issues and indicates a preference for intergovernmental mechanisms to the detriment of supranational mechanisms while the development of Euromediterranean relations requires a particular boost in the economic, social and human spheres, and needs, above all, to foster intercultural dialogue, how does the Commission think that this proposal could affect the implementation of the Barcelona Process which began in 1995? Does it endorse the need to continue to push ahead with the Barcelona Process, without abandoning the multilateral and multisectoral focus which currently exists as a result of the Association Agreements signed by the EU and Mediterranean third countries, and which has been accentuated by the launch of the work of the Euromediterranean Parliamentary Assembly? What consequences does the Commission think that the Mediterranean Union proposal could have for the Turkish negotiation process?

(FR) The Commission shares the honourable Member's conviction regarding the crucial importance of our relations with the countries of the southern Mediterranean.

There is a need to increase Europe's participation and influence in the region. The Commission is in favour of any initiative that is aimed at developing our relations with our southern partners. The Commission is, of course, willing to take part in any discussion on this matter with Parliament, France, the other Member States and the partner countries.

The Commission supports in principle any initiative aimed at making our relations with our Mediterranean neighbours one of Europe's main priorities, although it would stress the importance of preserving the achievements of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation (the Barcelona Process) and of the Neighbourhood Policy, which has built strong institutional relations between Europe and the Mediterranean and which addresses the crucial issues at stake such as, for example, political and economic reform, the management of migratory flows, energy networks, the cleaning up of the Mediterranean, and trade and investment as factors of integration and of development.

As the honourable Member is aware, a great deal has been done since 1995 with the ‘Barcelona’ Euro-Mediterranean Process and since 2004 in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Much remains to be done, however, to strengthen the EU’s relations with the Mediterranean countries and to support them in their political and economic transition.

Thanks to the Barcelona Process and the Neighbourhood Process, the European Union has in fact succeeded in launching important initiatives in all the key areas:

Immigration: increased cooperation in the area of migration (ministerial meetings in 2006 with Africa in Rabat and Tripoli, and shortly, the first Euro-Med meeting in November 2007 in Portugal);

Energy: integrated Euro-Med energy market (including gas networks);

Investment: implementation of an investment fund for the region, as part of the Neighbourhood Policy (EUR 700 million contribution from the Community budget for 2007-2013);

Environment: implementation of a clean-up programme for the Mediterranean.

The Commission is convinced that the momentum built up by the Neighbourhood Policy under the German Presidency will continue under the Portuguese Presidency, with special emphasis placed on the Mediterranean region.

It is important that the achievements of the Barcelona Process and of the Neighbourhood Policy be preserved as global frameworks of cooperation that will provide us with substantial room for manoeuvre to develop specific relations with our partners. For example, in the Maghreb, in certain important areas such as the fight against terrorism, energy and water management, I am convinced that it would be very much in our partner countries’ interests to develop new joint mechanisms.

With regard to the accession negotiations with Turkey, the European Union has been negotiating with Turkey since 3 October 2005 on the basis of a unanimously adopted Framework of negotiations, which says very clearly that ‘the objective of the negotiations is accession’, even though the negotiations are an open process of which the outcome cannot be guaranteed in advance. The Commission regards any new initiative that is designed to help strengthen our relations with our Mediterranean partners and that covers Turkey as being complementary to the accession negotiation process under way.

Finally, it is vital that the entire Union be involved in projects that concern the Member States as a whole. Only the involvement – the political, financial and institutional involvement – of the Union will make it possible for these significant results to be achieved.

Each year the European Union provides over € 7 billion in external financial assistance to more than 150 countries and territories in the world and implements a number of policies in this field, including European Neighbourhood Policy and the ENPI. What are the main trends in and priorities for EU external financial assistance? Are there any new priorities or changes? Where does the Commission see shortcomings in the assistance provided and does it have any strategy to overcome them? Are there any new EU external assistance instruments? What progress has been made in implementing the ENPI?

(EN) The European Union (Commission and Member States) can be proud to be the largest contributor of external assistance with more than 55% of the world's official development assistance. The Commission alone manages a fifth of these European funds.

External assistance is a fundamental component of EU External Actions. It is used to support a wide range of external policies. The Commission's Annual Report 2007 on development policy and the implementation of external assistance in 2006⁽¹⁾, which was transmitted to the Parliament mid June 2007, gives a detailed presentation of recent policy and other developments.

Active in 160 countries, the Commission's external assistance aims at fighting poverty and promoting economic development, human rights and democracy, in line with the EU consensus on development.

Thanks to the simplification of its instruments and of its procedures, the Commission keeps on improving the flexibility and the efficiency of its external assistance to deliver better and faster aid worldwide. The new external assistance instruments, finalized in 2006, provide a simplified framework for delivering assistance financed from the General Budget during the period 2007 to 2013. Nine financing instruments have replaced the previous wide range of geographical and thematic regulations. Co-operation with countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific will, however continue to be funded primarily through the European Development Fund.

2006 was another record year for the European Community's external assistance, with commitments reaching €9.8 billion. The European Community is therefore on course to meet its part of the EU commitment to double its Official Development Assistance by 2015 in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. As regards budget execution, the Commission disbursed a total sum of €8.1 billion in 2006, up from €7.5 billion in 2005.

Africa was the main recipient of the European Community's external aid with €3.3 billion of actual payments.

In 2006, the European Neighbourhood Policy was further strengthened by the conclusion of three new Action Plans with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia as well as the finalisation of the Action Plans with Egypt and Lebanon. In addition, a new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument was adopted. Following the adoption of its programming documents (Strategy Papers) covering the period 2007-2013 by the Commission in March 2007, the preparation of the Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) is proceeding as planned. The Commission expects to adopt these programmes and to make all the necessary budgetary commitments before the end of 2007.

The Commission tries to improve the effectiveness of its aid delivery by implementing the 2005 Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness. At the same time progress has been good in implementing our commitments in policy coherence for development, in line with the decisions taken in 2005 by the Commission and Member States regarding twelve policy areas including trade, migration, fisheries, and climate change.

The Commission expects improved donor coordination, especially within the EU between Member States and the Commission, to contribute to achieving the goals. Important in this respect is the EU Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour in Development Policy, adopted by the Council in May 2007.

The Commission has also shown again its ability to respond effectively in crisis situations. Faced with the risk of a major avian influenza pandemic, the Commission provided in 2006 year a rapid response with a pledge of €80 million for aid and the co-organisation of a meeting in Beijing with the main actors concerned. In Palestine, the Commission has put in place with the World Bank a Temporary International Mechanism (TIM) to help improve the socio-economic conditions of the most fragile parts of the population. In total, the European Community support to the Palestinian people amounted to €339 million in 2006.

The Commission was also proactive in the crucial area of Human Rights, with no fewer than 13 EU Election Observation Missions in 2006 and the preparation of a revised European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. This reflects the EU's strong conviction that promoting respect for Human Rights is an indispensable part of our external assistance policies.

In light of the recent binding targets to boost 20% of renewable fuels and to reduce 20% of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, what support will the Commission offer Member States to reach these targets? And how does the Commission plan to oversee and enforce the implementation of each Member State's National Action Plans (NAPs)?

(EN) To attain the ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reduction and production of Renewable energy set by the European Council, review of Community policies are currently underway.

The central importance of EU-wide measures was explicitly acknowledged by the European Council.

The Commission is currently considering a combination of regulatory and market based incentives to increase the share of renewable energies in the European energy mix with the twin objectives of contributing to reducing greenhouse gases and improve Europe's security of energy supplies.

Two EU programmes are in place to directly support renewable energies. Firstly, the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme - 2 (IEE), within the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) includes € 316.35 Mio for the period 2007-2013 for action to promote new and renewable energy resources and their use. Secondly, the development of innovative approaches in the field of renewable energies is supported through the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). This is the European Union’s main instrument for funding research in Europe. On top of that, Structural Funds are also directed towards investments in renewable energies. Data based on 402 Draft Operational Programmes, of which 12 are decided, indicate that about € 3.8 billion will be allocated to renewable energy projects until 2013. € 3.3 billion more will be used for energy efficiency, co-generation and energy management. These Operational Programmes have to be adopted by Member States and the Commission.

The Commission has published new draft environmental State Aid Guidelines. These should allow the Member States to support the development of Renewable energy sources in a more effective way.

The National Action Plans for renewable energy are a key feature of the new architecture for the EU's renewable energy policy, as proposed in the Renewable Energy Roadmap⁽¹⁾. The Commission is currently elaborating a proposal for putting this new architecture into legal practice. The Commission will ensure that the National Action Plans will be effectively monitored, implemented and enforced.

The Swedish Energy Agency has tested refrigerators classified as A, A+ and A++, i.e. refrigerators purchased by people who probably consider the environment to be important.

Only three of the ten refrigerators tested met the energy classification standards indicated. Two refrigerators even had to be reclassified as B.

Although only one refrigerator of each model was tested, the overall results were, nevertheless, alarming.

What measures will the Commission take to prevent companies gaining unfair competitive advantages with the aid of misleading labelling?

(EN) The classes on the energy label depend on an index which takes account of both the energy consumption and the volume of the fridge and freezer compartments. The Commission has examined the detailed tests results of the Swedish Energy Agency, which the Honourable Member refers to. They show that all the appliances tested have a measured energy consumption that is within the margin of error allowed by the measurement method of the applicable Directive⁽¹⁾. The difference between the declared and measured volumes of two of the 10 appliances would imply the need for a second round of testing, which if it confirms the first test, would affect the energy label.

The Commission welcomes that Sweden is enforcing the Energy Labelling Directive.

The main trade association for these products, the European Committee of Manufacturers of Domestic Equipment (CECED), has expressed concern that in general the level of enforcement by the Member States is too low, and is carrying out it's own testing programme (using independent laboratories).

The Commission will launch a survey during the second half of 2007 on the practical implementation of the energy labelling Directive in the Member States, and depending on the outcome of the survey, the Commission will decide on further steps.

The Commission states that the free market in gas is hardly operating, if at all, in Belgium (cf. SEC(2006)1709 and COM(2006)0841 final). This was recently confirmed by the announcement of a 13% to 20% rise in the price of the natural gas supplied by Electrabel. Despite the theoretical opening of the market, Electrabel still enjoys a de facto monopoly.

What is the status of the relevant infringement proceedings against Belgium and what are the next practical steps which the Commission will be taking?

What national or European steps does the Commission consider feasible in the short term with the aim of averting the unjustified price rises?

A merger between Gaz de France and Suez would fundamentally alter the situation on the Belgian gas market and solve a number of problems, as such a merger would have to be carried out in accordance with conditions negotiated by the Commission. What will the Commission do with regard to the situation in Belgium if the merger does not go ahead?

(EN) The short term actions that the Commision can undertake are infringement procedures. There are ongoing infringement proceedings concern the application of Directives 2003/54/EC⁽¹⁾ and 2003/55/EC⁽²⁾. The infringement procedures opened mainly concern problems related to the powers given to the federal energy regulator.

The Commission has issued a reasoned opinion and the next step foreseen is a referral to the European Court of Justice.

In general, energy pricing is a matter of Member State competence, but the Commission ensures that the level of prices does not distort competition.. In this context, the Commission may open infringement procedures and/or state aid cases, but this has so far not been the case for Belgium.

That said, it is an established fact that the Belgian market is highly concentrated and that Government measures have not yet produced all their effects.

The Commission will propose amendments to the legislative framework to facilitate the development of a genuinely competitive electricity and gas market. In parallel, the Commission will continue to ensure that the competition rules set out in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty are respected by the operators, and in particular by the historic operators. In this context it should be noted that the Commission has an ongoing antitrust procedure concerning Distrigaz, the historic gas operator in Belgium, with a view to facilitating competition on the Belgian gas market.

The approval given by the Commission to the merger between Gaz de France and Suez is accompanied by very important remedies which will contribute to the development of a gas market in Belgium and France.

If the merger is not going ahead, any commitments entered into by the parties would no longer need to be implemented. In this case, the Commission would give careful consideration as to whether any further action would be needed for the development of the gas market.

At the launch of European Wind Day on 15 June this year, Mr Piebalgs made a clear statement of intent by saying ‘We need to make big changes’.

Will the Commission outline clearly what these changes will be and how it intends to facilitate the needed expansion of renewable energy in Europe, particularly in terms of utilising wind power?

(EN) The Commission presented in January 2007 a Road Map on renewable energy in electricity, heating and cooling and transport.

The European Council confirmed this path by agreeing on a binding 20% renewable energy target for the EU. This will be broken down to binding national targets for renewable energy (including a minimum 10% biofuels target). The Commission has estimated that wind energy could make up 12% of electricity consumption by 2020.

The Commission aims to remove barriers to the integration of renewable energy sources into the European energy market, including the development and liberalisation of the internal electricity market. Member States will be called upon to ensure rapid, fair and simple authorisation procedures for renewable energy sources, including pre-planning mechanisms where regions and municipalities should assign suitable locations for the deployment of wind parks, for instance. The Commission is undertaking several actions for supporting better integration of renewable energy sources into the power grid. This includes the enforcement of grid codes, projects under Intelligent Energy Europe, and participation in the Wind Platform. In this context, particular attention will be paid to special requirements related to deployment of offshore wind energy, including cross-border grid connections. It will also foster better use of the Community's financial instruments, notably the structural and cohesion funds.

The proposed project to connect offshore wind power in Northern Europe is a key priority for the EU. The projects aims to facilitate the integration of offshore wind energy produced in the Baltic and North Seas in the continental grid. The Commission is presently seeking Parliament's views on its proposed nomination for a European coordinator. In addition to his duties as project facilitator, the coordinator will also support the Commission in establishing future priorities in the framework of the TEN-E Programme with a particular emphasis to wind power connections.

The growth rate in installed wind power in the EU has been significant, reaching a total capacity of 48,000 MW by the end of 2006. The Commission will continue to encourage increased deployment of wind power through new research initiatives, such as the Strategic Energy Technology Plan, but also existing Commission financing schemes, such as the 7th Framework programme for RTD, the Trans-European Networks for Energy, and the Intelligent Energy for Europe programme.

The need to protect the environment, together with the increased price of traditional energy sources such as gas and oil and the difficulties involved in obtaining supplies of them, make it essential for an active, cross-cutting energy policy covering at least the next 30 years to be introduced.

Is an EU energy programme for at least the next 30 years being drawn up? If so, what problems have arisen and what conclusions reached in connection with the drawing up of the programme?

(EN) At the Spring 2007 European Council, agreement was reached on an energy policy for Europe.

The European Council decision followed on preparatory work initiated by the Commission, notably the March 2006 Green Paper "Secure, Competitive and Sustainable Energy for Europe",. The Parliament adopted its Resolution on 14 December 2006, and provided valuable basis for the further work, as did the broad public. In January 2007 the Commission presented the package on "Energy for a Changing World" including a Communication "An Energy Policy for Europe"⁽¹⁾.

The European Council conclusions recognise that the global energy world requires a European approach to ensure sustainable, secure and completive energy. The Action Plan endorsed by the European Council outlines a European approach: a well-functioning internal energy market; arrangements for solidarity in crises; clear goals and commitments on efficiency and renewables; frameworks for investment in technologies especially carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy; and finally focused external energy relations pursued with a strong, single voice.

The time horizon used in the preparatory work is 2030 and beyond. The modelling and scenarios analysis work of the Commission is available on the Commission's website. It provided a basis for assessing alternative options for the Action Plan.

The European Council endorsed a clear, justified Action Plan, which was drawn up after broad consultation. This provides us with a good basis for the next priority – implementation.

Does the lack of a clear reference to a common EU energy policy in the recent Brussels summit conclusions mean that the drafting of this policy has in fact been placed on the back burner, despite its essential importance?

(EN) The further development and implementation of an Energy Policy for Europe has certainly not been placed on the back burner. The Commission is currently working according to the very comprehensive mandate given by the European Council in March 2007.

The main topic for the European Council in June 2007 was the mandate for the Reform Treaty. This mandate includes the introduction of an Article specifically on Energy. This goes further than the draft energy text from the 2004 draft Constitution. It adds the promotion of interconnection of networks as an aim of the common energy policy and a reference to the spirit of solidarity. A similar reference to solidarity should be made in the existing Article 100 on security of supply, quoting the particular case of energy.

The conclusions of the June 2007 European Council underlined the importance of the Energy Policy, and gave further guidance for the future. This includes a paragraph (40) on the European Union's integrated climate and energy policy. The European Council recalls its conclusions of March 2007 and stresses the importance of implementing effectively and speedily all aspects of the comprehensive energy Action Plan with a view to taking forward the Energy Policy for Europe. In the chapter on EU-Africa relations, paragraph 50 welcomes the intention to establish an Africa-EU energy partnership.

It is for the European Council in spring 2008 to review the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and Council in the implementation of the Energy Policy for Europe.

Is the Commission aware of the importance to the inhabitants of the remote village Aldea de San Nicolás (on the island of Gran Canaria) of the building of a new road which would link it to Villa de Agaete? Is the Commission willing to assist in dealing with the problems which may arise in its construction from the need for compensatory measures to prevent environmental damage?

(EN) The Commission can confirm that pursuant to Written Questions P-0490/05 and E-1928/06 and to a complaint lodged on the same subject, the Commission made representations to the Spanish authorities in order to further investigate the compliance of the road project in question with applicable Community environmental law.

This file was discussed at the infringement meeting with the Spanish authorities held in Madrid on 26 April 2007. Further to the commitments made at this meeting, the competent authorities have provided the Commission with additional information on the procedures undertaken and on the measures foreseen in order to ensure full compliance with Community law in relation to this project. In particular, the Spanish authorities have indicated the importance of the project for the inhabitants of the municipality of La Aldea de San Nicolas. The competent authorities have also provided the Commission with information on measures foreseen to ensure that likely impacts of the project on areas protected remain compatible with Directive 92/43/CEE on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora⁽¹⁾.

The assessment of the Spanish answer is currently under way. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of its conclusions.

According to the Greek 'Eleftherotypia' newspaper, the Carlos Museum in Atlanta USA contains three stolen Greek antiquities, all obtained by illegal excavation. Investigations have uncovered a series of illegal transactions which took place in various EU Member States in 2002 and 2003, revealing that, although the illegal excavations actually took place in Greece, the three Greek antiquities reached the USA via other EU Member States, such as Italy and other member countries of the single European area, such as Switzerland, notwithstanding Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92⁽¹⁾ on the export of cultural goods and Directive 93/7/EEC⁽²⁾ on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, which seek to protect national treasures at Community level.

Given that preliminary investigations at the European Union's external borders have proved fruitless, what further measures can the Commission take to provide greater protection at the external borders of the Member States? Will it recommend new and more effective forms of administrative cooperation between the Member States, with a view to preventing the illegal export of national treasures to third countries and what similar measures are in place within the single European area?

(EN) The goods referred to in the Honourable Member's question have been obtained from illegal excavation in a Member State. One of the most effective measures to address such illegal activities is to tackle the problem at its source by enforcement of the relevant national legislation.

As regards the authorisation of export of cultural goods from the Community, Council Regulation No 3911/92⁽³⁾ and Commission Regulation nNo 752/1993⁽⁴⁾ establish a control system which is based on licences issued by the competent authorities and checked by the customs administrations of the Member States. It can, however, not be totally excluded that the established export control system is circumvented by criminal activities, particularly when goods are smuggled out of the Community. Preventing circumventions of this system is heavily dependent on the control measures taken by Member States.

To provide the necessary tools to improve general enforcement of prohibitions and restrictions on the import and export of goods, the following initiatives, proposed by the Commission, have recently been developed:

The recent amendments to the Community Customs Code⁽⁵⁾ and its Implementing Provisions⁽⁶⁾, have introduced a Common Risk Management Framework at Community level. New systems will be used to exchange risk-related information between Member States' customs authorities and with the Commission to further improve the targeting of customs controls.

The recent amendments to the Community customs legislation also foresee export declarations to be lodged in due time prior to departure. This will give the customs authorities of Member States the necessary time to carry out risk analysis and to select suspicious consignments for physical checks.

The Commission proposal for amendment to Regulation nNo 515/97⁽⁷⁾ is at present subject to the legislative procedure in the Parliament and the Council. The amendment will improve the Customs Information System, allow this system to be used for analytical purposes, allow for an automatic data exchange between Member States and for exchange of information with third countries and ensure the control of personal data. It is also suggested in this amendment to create a Customs Files Identification Database (FIDE) the aim of which shall be to enable the Commission and Member States' customs investigations services to identify the competent services of the other Member States which are investigating or have investigated on one or more persons or undertakings, for the purpose of assisting the prevention, the investigation and the prosecution of operations which are or have been in breach of community customs legislation, including Community legislation related to the export of cultural goods from the EU.

The "Convention on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations" (Naples II Convention⁽⁸⁾), whose scope includes the prevention and detection of infringements to national customs provisions as well as to prosecute and punish infringements of Community and national provisions, provides an instrument for cooperation in the third pillar which is also applicable to Cultural Goods.

Regarding operational cooperation between the Member States' law enforcement agencies it is worth to note that the mandate of Europol also includes trafficking in cultural goods.

Council Directive 93/7/EEC ⁽⁹⁾on the return of cultural goods provides for cooperation mechanisms and a procedure for returning national treasures when the cultural objects have left the territory of a Member State unlawfully and are in the territory of another Member State.

As regards cooperation mechanisms, the advisory Committee established under Article 8 of Council Regulation nNo 3911/92 and Article 17 of Council Directive 93/7/EEC adopted in 2001 guidelines for improving and strengthening administrative cooperation between the competent national authorities through the creation of a network of contacts and the exchange of information. They provide the institutions and persons concerned with useful information regarding the existence of Community instruments regulating the export of cultural objects to non-member countries and the return of objects which were unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State.

The second report on the application of Directive 93/7/EEC⁽¹⁰⁾ concludes that there is a need for improvement in the cooperation and exchange of information between Member States. The Commission will examine how the guidelines on administrative cooperation can be improved.

Can the Commission explain why the EU consulates in Russia were unprepared for the entry into force on 1 June of the EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement, having apparently not by then received administrative instructions on its detailed implementation? Will the Commission ensure that Member States are better prepared for other visa facilitation agreements with Balkan and neighbourhood countries in future, given the importance of this matter for the EU's coherence, image and reputation as well as trade and people-to-people contacts?

(EN) The Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of the issuance of visas to the citizens of the European Union and the Russian Federation⁽¹⁾ must be implemented as from its date of entry into force, i.e. 1 June 2007.

It is not excluded that some problems may occurred during the first days of the implementation of the Agreement. However, the Commission is not aware that EU consulates in the Russian Federation were unprepared for the implementation of the Agreement at the date of its entry into force, as suggested by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has drafted administrative guidelines, in collaboration with the Member States and the Russian authorities, addressed to the Member States' and Russian consulates and aimed at ensuring a harmonised implementation of the provisions of the Agreement. These draft guidelines will be submitted to the Joint Committee tasked to monitor the implementation of the Agreement to be set up in the near future with a view to their adoption and implementation by both Parties.

In any case, the Commission will raise the issue in the competent Council bodies in order to remind Member States of their obligations regarding the implementation of the Agreement and to collect information on possible difficulties in this implementation.

The Commission recognises that the EU's current energy and transport policies are not sustainable. The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse emissions, yet current energy and transport policies would mean EU CO2 emissions would increase by around 5% by 2030. Part of the challenge involves addressing the increase in road transport, especially the increase in the area of freight transport, and I am aware that the Commission is looking at various measures aimed at reducing our dependence on heavily-polluting fossil fuels and enhancing our energy efficiency. With food travelling ever greater distances to reach us and in light of the environmental impact of the use of fossil fuel in delivery from overseas, as compared to local delivery, what role does the Commission see for relocalising food supply as part of the solution, reducing food miles and thereby helping to tackle climate change?

(FR) The Commission would begin by pointing out that the free movement of goods is one of the key components of the single market and, as such, makes a significant contribution to competitiveness and prosperity. Moreover, the common transport policy must not in any way distort the characteristics or transport patterns of transported goods, which are issues connected with freedom of trade and also, in this case, with the common agricultural policy.

On the other hand, it is crucial for that policy to be supported by a sustainable form of mobility as proposed in the mid-term review of the European Commission's 2001 Transport White Paper and in the related EU strategies concerning climate change and the environment. Cleaner goods transport must also be encouraged, through technological and organisational innovation, not least to bring about 'green propulsion', the application of intelligent transport systems and the promotion of efficient transport logistics. A suitable policy on investment and access to markets must also be pursued to encourage optimum use of all modes of transport independently or in combination (co-modality). Above all, it is important to ensure that transport costs reflect the costs actually occasioned, including the adverse effects on the environment. The Commission is working to develop a methodology for the internalisation of external costs in the European Union, which will be ready in 2008.

Lastly, in the case in point, the Commission would emphasise that the majority of agricultural and food imports and exports are transported by sea, the environmental impact of which is generally less than with other modes of transport. Finally, it continues to be vitally important for developing countries - which bear only slight responsibility for climate change while suffering its consequences - to be able to export their products to Europe. This means that the issue of where our foodstuffs originate cannot be limited to a straightforward 'relocalisation' programme.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a sound indicator of economic growth and of economic convergence among EU regions and is relatively easy to calculate. However, it is inadequate for measuring social or territorial cohesion.

Instead of GDP and unemployment, could the Commission propose other indicators, including qualitative indicators comparable at European level, in order to measure and compare the development of individual EU regions (e.g. showing development of human resources, availability of infrastructure, etc.)?

(EN) Although Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will remain a very important indicator for the measurement of economic performance and cohesion amongst the regions, the Commission agrees that GDP alone is not able to tackle all the aspects of economic, social and territorial diversity. Therefore, the fourth cohesion report⁽¹⁾ uses a wide variety of indicators to describe economic, social and territorial cohesion. For example, employment and unemployment, research and development related indicators, the presence of highway infrastructure, the education level of the population, access to flights, hospitals and universities were all measured; although not all could be included in the final version of the report.

In 2008, the Commission will present a Communication on territorial cohesion which will further explore how this concept can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively.

As is the case with all goods, hazardous goods are spending more time on the EU's roads and less time in warehouses or factories. However, EU legislation on the transport of hazardous goods by road has a worrying weak point: parking areas.

Such areas and the goods parked on them may suffer the same fate as did the town of SEVESO. There are very few secure public parking areas for vehicles transporting hazardous substances. Generally speaking the existing parking areas are either inadequate in number or too restricted in capacity to allow vehicles to be parked under genuinely safe conditions. In the event of an accident in such areas the emergency action plans are patchy in the extreme, on account of a shortage of information concerning the nature of the hazardous substances parked there and the ways in which they may interact.

In what way does the Commission intend to tighten up and enforce Community law on the parking of road vehicles used for transporting hazardous goods?

(EN) The transport of dangerous goods by road is covered in EU legislation by the Framework Directive 94/55/EC⁽¹⁾. In its annexes there are requirements for the use of secure parking spaces for certain substances and for all high consequence dangerous goods, namely those dangerous goods which are considered to be most attractive to terrorists. The annexes to the Directive are updated every two years and as part of that process the provisions on secure parking are continuously reviewed.

The provisions for the transport of dangerous goods are enforced under Directive 95/50/EC⁽²⁾. In amendments made to this Directive at the end of 2005 a new system of risk categories was introduced, this system identifies the infringement of the secure parking rules as a risk "category II infringement", an infringement which creates a risk of personal injury or damage to the environment. The allocation of the infringements to risk categories is also under review.

From a more general point of view, the Commission is aware of the need of adequate parking facilities for road transport. In this context, it launched on 12 June 2007 a Pilot Project to encourage investments in secure parking areas along the trans-European network to protect hauliers against freight crime and improve their working conditions. The project will develop and test standards on five sites and comprises the construction of a new secure parking area near Valenciennes which includes a separated zone equipped for lorries with dangerous goods.

Is the Commission aware of recent revelations of substantial abuse of regulations in Brazil in the area of beef farms, which appeared in the Irish Farmers’ Journal of 26 May 2007?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the articles that have been published on the Irish Farmers Journal.

The information provided by the articles does not, however, correspond to the findings of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) inspections carried out in Brazil.

The FVO inspections revealed certain shortcomings, but these did not justify, at this stage, a change of policy vis-à-vis Brazil, as far as beef imports are concerned.

The Commission remains vigilant on the matter and closely follows measures taken in Brazil to address the shortcomings identified by the FVO.

What residue testing is carried out on Brazilian beef imports into the EU, firstly by the Brazilian authorities in Brazil, and secondly by the EU Commission services in Brazil and at the point of entry into the EU? What are the results of these tests by both the Brazilian and EU authorities and, in the interests of consumer safety and consumer confidence, could the Commission provide detailed results of these tests for the last three years?

(EN) Food of animal origin may only be imported into the EU from a third country on condition that the country has submitted an annual plan setting out the guarantees which it offers as regards the monitoring of the groups of residues and substances referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/23/EC. The guarantees must have an effect at least equivalent to those provided for in that Directive. If the plans are judged to offer equivalent guarantees, a recommendation is made to retain that country on the list of third countries with approved residues monitoring plans. The list of approved third countries is published by means of a Commission Decision which is voted on by Member State representatives through the comitology procedure.

In respect of beef and several other commodities, the Brazilian residue plan is approved and Brazil is listed in the above Decision. The entire Brazilian residues plan is much improved relative to that seen in either the 2003 or 2005 Food and Veterinary Office inspection missions on residues. For those commodities where the plan was not judged to offer equivalent guarantees, delisting was carried out by the Commission (e.g. honey, farmed game).

When consignments of food of animal origin are imported into the EU through Border Inspection Posts, EU Member States decide, on the basis of risk assessment whether the consignments are to be tested for residues of any pharmacologically active substance or environmental contaminant.

The Brazilian residues plan for cattle has been approved by the Commission and, in respect of growth promoting compounds such as hormones and beta agonists, covers all of the substance groups listed in Council Directive 96/23/EC. Like Member States, Brazil publishes its results annually. Over the last three years there have been no residues of beta-agonists detected. Residues of zeranol – a hormone-like substance have been detected in approximately 0.1% of the cattle sampled in 2006 and 2005. Other than deliberate (illegal) use, residues of this substance can also occur due to contamination of animal feeding stuffs and this phenomenon has been reported world-wide, including in the Member States.

Member States report the results of residues testing of imported food of animal origin to the Commission services. In the event of a non-compliant result, the Member State would be obliged to notify the Commission and the other Member States via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF).

In respect of Brazilian beef, the last RASFF notification for residues of either hormones or beta-agonists was in the year 2001, when the beta-agonist clembuterol was detected in a consignment of corned beef exported to the United Kingdom.

From 1 January 2006 to 25 June 2007, 274 consignments of Brazilian beef have been sampled by the Member States and tested for a variety of residues of veterinary medicines and contaminants including 57 for residues of hormonal substances. Member States have not reported any non-compliant results through the RASFF notification system.

In summary, the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that from a medicines and residues perspective, the importation of Brazilian beef does not breach the high sanitary standards that the European consumer is entitled to.

Is the Commission aware that recent research conducted by a British consumer rights organisation⁽¹⁾ highlighted significant weaknesses in the standards that apply to the manufacture and testing of children's car seats?

In particular, the report concludes that the current minimum standard (ECE R44.03) that applies to the manufacture of such car seats is not high enough to adequately protect children in the event of a side-impact collision.

Does the Commission intend to examine this issue to ensure that effective and sufficiently stringent standards would apply to the manufacture and marketing of all child seats?

(EN) Since May 2006, all children have to be transported in seats adapted to their morphology and their age. This results from the provisions of Directive 2003/20/EC making the use of safety belts ⁽²⁾ obligatory and requiring minimum technical criteria with which the child seats have to comply.

The criteria are those of Regulation 44 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, which have been recently strengthened as regards the control of conformity of production. The European Community acceded to this regulation in 1997.

The Commission is aware of the recent test campaign on child seats, the results of which have been published on 5 June 2007 by the British consumer rights organization referred to by the Honorable Member. It points indeed to weaknesses in the current technical provisions applicable to the manufacture and testing of children's car seats.

The Commission is actively engaged in analyzing the test results and available research work with a view to determining how the relevant provisions can be improved.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to what labelling and traceability measures it is seeking to implement, so as to ensure that EU consumers are fully aware into the future that they are buying in supermarkets or eating in restaurants EU-approved lamb products, lamb products from a particular EU Member State or lamb products imported from a third country into the EU?

(EN) The labelling of lamb products sold to the final consumer is ruled by the general food labelling Directive 2000/13/EC. According to those rules, the origin of the lamb has to be labelled only where failure to give such indication might mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product.

Therefore, according to EU rules, origin labelling is not compulsory for lamb products, as long as the labelling or presentation of the lamb product do not contain information that could mislead consumer, such as a picture or a flag suggesting a wrong idea on the true origin.

The very same food hygiene rules apply regardless of the origin of the lamb placed on the market within the EU. Also for food safety reasons, the traceability required by the General Food Law guarantees that the origin of the lamb is known throughout the whole food chain.

While the information on foodstuffs sold to the final consumer and to restaurants is regulated by European legislation, notably by Directive 2000/13/EC, the information provided to customers in restaurants is not.

However, the restaurant owner and personnel have all the information at their disposal and can share it with their customers upon request. Bearing also in mind that restaurants buy the raw material often on a day by day basis, strict regulatory requirements in that context do not seem appropriate.

The question of further rules on origin labelling of foodstuffs is part of the consultation and reflection process in the framework of the revision of the labelling Directive scheduled for the end of 2007.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to what up-to-date measures it is pursuing to combat doping in sport?

(EN) Due to the lack of an explicit EU competence for sport in the Treaties, the Commission's role in the fight against doping has so far remained limited.

However, at the Commission’s request, an opinion on doping in sport was issued on 11 November 1999 by the European Group on Ethics. Shortly afterwards, on 1 December 1999, a Community support plan, which was given a favourable reception by Parliament, was adopted. This plan made it possible, among other things, to co-finance 16 pilot projects in 2000-2001 and 16 more in 2001-2002. The total amount of funding was € 7 360 212. Of the more important projects, mention should be made of the first transnational study devoted to doping practices in body-building premises in Europe, whose publication struck a cord in many quarters. An external evaluation of the first 16 pilot projects has been carried out and sent to Parliament. In addition, in 2004, a project aiming at harmonizing international knowledge of biomedical side effects of doping and supplementing and disseminating developed materials about health side effects of doping and drug abuse with regard to different age-groups, the addictive potential and gender specific differences, has been co-funded in the framework of the Public Health Programme 2003-2008. It is lasting for 36 months.

The Commission has also taken an active part in the establishment of the new World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

Recently, Member State Sport Ministers, meeting in Stuttgart in March 2007, decided to launch a network of national anti-doping organisations of Member States. While respecting the intergovernmental nature of this work and the role played by the Member States, the Commission has assisted the German Presidency in setting up this network, including a kick-off meeting in Brussels on 25 June 2007. The network will focus its work on cooperation and exchange of information in areas such as law, medicine, testing procedures, research, education and prevention.

Generaly speaking, the Commission recognises that doping poses a threat to sport worldwide, including European sports, undermining the principle of open and fair competition. It also poses a serious threat to individual health, and there is a need to link law-enforcement and health prevention efforts.

These ideas will be reflected in the planned White Paper on Sport.

The European Union applies a 20% tariff on the importation of cooked whelk meats from South Korea into the EU. The tariff code for these importations is 1605-90-30.

Does the European Union have any intention to reduce or eliminate this tariff arrangement in the near future?

(EN) As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the tariff for imports From South Korea into the European Union of cooked whelk meats is a duty of 20%.

As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, negotiations have recently begun with the aim of concluding a Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and South Korea. These are wide ranging and important negotiations.

The tariff regime for fishery products will be considered during those negotiations, but it is too early to make any judgement as to possible modifications to the tariffs applied to the imports of this particular product.

Will the Commission state on how many occasions in the past 12 months it has requested that the issue of inadequate implementation of EU legislation by Member States be placed on the agenda of the various meetings of the Council of Ministers?

(FR) On the basis of the initial check conducted, there would seem to have been no cases, in the last 12 months, of any infringement of Community law having been placed on the agenda of a session of the Council of Ministers following a formal request.

Having said that, it is also true that general discussions can spontaneously arise within the Council on other occasions - e.g. when the annual report on the implementation of a certain programme or action plan is presented. Over the last 12 months, this has happened, for instance, in the following cases:

at several meetings of the Competitiveness Council in 2006-2007, Member States were encouraged to cooperate with the Commission and strive on their side to ensure that the aims of the Better Regulation agenda, which include correct application of Community law, are achieved;

implementation is sometimes presented in the Council of Ministers as a topic for information or discussion in connection with the Internal Market Scoreboard - i.e. twice a year. At the Competitiveness Council in February 2007, the Council decided on the basis of the good results achieved by Member States in December 2006, to lower the target transposition deficit from 1,5% to 1% by 2009.

By way of information, another imminent case in point might be the following:

the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of the Hague Programme for 2006 on 3 July 2007⁽¹⁾, in response to the Council calling on the Commission to submit an annual report on the implementation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan ('scoreboard'). In addition to monitoring of the adoption process, its purpose is to examine national implementation of Justice, Freedom and Security policies. This includes both instruments under the EC Treaty and instruments adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty in that field.

In the UK alone there are 400 000 Somali speaking people, and up to a million in the EU. Has the Commission considered any support structures for the Somali communities in Europe?

(EN) The question of the Honourable Member raises the issue of initiatives undertaken by the Commission to support immigrant communities, namely Somali ones, in the EU. The initiatives of the Commission do not focus on specific communities. However, all immigrant communities can benefit, and are encouraged to do so, from policy and financial support in the area of integration of third-country nationals.

Any policy efforts, in order to be successful, must be underpinned by adequate financial resources. Since 2003, the Commission has been co-financing trans-national integration projects which promote cooperation between Member States, regional/local authorities and other stakeholders under INTI⁽¹⁾ Preparatory Actions. In the framework program Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (2007-2013), the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals will support the integration challenges that Europe is facing. The Fund aims at creating a new form of solidarity in order to support the efforts of Member States in enabling third-country nationals of different cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to settle and take actively part in all aspects of European societies. The Fund will support the development of national integration strategies and action plans which take into account the CBPs⁽²⁾, the coordination of national integration policies and the promotion of structural exchange of experiences, best practices and information on integration (€ 825 million for 2007-2013).

Regarding in particular the integration of those third-country nationals who have been recognized by Member States as in need of international protection and who have been subsequently granted a protection status (refugee or subsidiary protection status), there are specific EU instruments which regulate and promote it, including through financial support. More specifically, Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection (the "Qualification Directive") imposes specific obligations on Member States to make provisions for appropriate integration programs and to create pre-conditions which guarantee the access to such programs for these categories of third-country nationals. Moreover, the European Refugee Fund, which is in place since 2000, has been providing comprehensive and well-targeted financial support to the efforts by Member States to establish and operate integration programs for these groups, as well as to the efforts by all other stakeholders to carry out relevant transnational actions or other integration actions of interest to the Community as a whole.

One of the ultimate objectives of the Community's structural policies is to combat structural unemployment by measures to boost employment, growth and social cohesion. The programmes operating under the Community's structural policies should contribute towards that objective.

What are the criteria for the Member States' designating towns as 'attraction/growth poles'? Is there a limit on the number which may be designated per Member State for inclusion in the NSRF for 2007-2013?

What should their role and modus operandi be in order to strengthen the growth policy of other regions/towns which have not been designated as 'attraction/growth poles'?

What stage has been reached in the Commission's talks with Member States on the final designation of towns as 'attraction/growth poles' and on the approval of their programmes?

Is there scope for increasing the number of towns designated as 'attraction/growth poles' in Greece over and above those proposed to date in the NSRF under the ROPs by, for example, adding Lamia (capital of the region of Central Greece under the 3rd CSF), a region with serious problems relating to de-industrialisation and rising unemployment?

(EN) The Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion (CSG) adopted by the Council on 6 October 2006⁽¹⁾, underline the importance of urban centres as contributors to growth and more and better jobs. In this respect they call, among other things, for actions to promote a more balanced, polycentric development, by developing the urban network at national and Community level, and for making strategic choices in identifying and strengthening growth poles and their contribution to the promotion of the Lisbon Strategy. The CSG refer in this context to urban areas with over 50,000 inhabitants and to their potential in terms of entrepreneurship, innovation, research and technological development, and employability, fields that are in full agreement with the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Employment and constitute the corner stone of the revised Lisbon Strategy. From this it follows that, even if the CSG do not refer to specific numbers of growth poles, the areas that should qualify as such, are necessarily limited because of the development potential they have to demonstrate.

The National Strategic Reference Frameworks and Operational Programmes of almost all Member States consider it important to ensure the development of strong urban centres in order to spread growth and employment to a larger area as well as to the rural hinterland. Urban areas and regional centres are considered as conveyors of the regions' knowledge and skills excellence, promoters of competitiveness, development drivers and growth engines for the entire region in which the urban centre is located. The submitted programmes stress the importance of the links between such growth centres and their hinterland and surrounding rural areas. A substantial part of the planned Structural Funds' expenditure will be dedicated to improving competitiveness through promotion of innovation, and most of these investments will be realised in urban development centres.

The Greek National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) foresees that all main urban centres of Greece can function as development poles. In line with the priorities of the above mentioned Community Strategic Guidelines and in the framework of the application of the Lisbon Strategy, it provides a set of criteria for identifying such poles. As mentioned in the text of the Greek NSRF, the categorization which follows from the application of these criteria can be subject to review, depending on the future development of the areas concerned and their contribution to the promotion of the Lisbon Strategy. In any case, the Commission will strongly encourage that plans for development poles are the subject of a call for proposals, to be opened in the first half of 2008. Actors from all important urban centres in Greece can participate in this call.

While other areas may apply for assistance in favour of similar activities, the development pole concept is an instrument to promote, in a specific geographical area with the required characteristics, concentrated and coordinated interventions in particular in favour of innovation, research and technological development, knowledge transfer, information and communication technologies, and centres of excellence for education and training.

The aim of EU regional policy, pursued through the provision of support under one of the Structural Funds, the European Regional Development Fund, is to reduce disparities in development among the regions of Europe.

Lithuania is classified as a region and receives support as a single region. In terms of geography and cultural traditions, however, Lithuania is made up of four regions with widely differing levels of development. Those regions are characterised by differing degrees of economic development, differing employment situations and differing social problems.

Can the Commission indicate what scope there is for implementing regional policy more flexibly? Could Lithuania not disburse regional development funding on a decentralised basis, allocating resources to its regions in keeping with their levels of development and the need to reduce disparities in the level of development within the country as a whole? What measures could Lithuania take with a view to putting a more flexible approach of this kind into practice?

(EN) It is the responsibility of Member States to decide on the structures for implementing European regional policy. The Commission ensures that these structures are consistent with the provisions of the regulatory framework. This is the case for Lithuania which, compared to the 2004-2006 period, has taken a number of steps to improve the regional allocation of funding.

In particular, the NSRF for 2007-2013 provides targeted support to n regional economic growth centres and problem territories by assisting in the economic, social and cultural development of these selected geographical areas.

Lithuania has also identified regional development as one of the four horizontal themes of the NSRF to ensure a comprehensive approach throughout the strategy, and has set as an objective that the gap between the level of development of the poorest regions and the Lithuanian average will not have increased by 2013.

The Commission encourages Members States to adhere to the partnership and the subsidiarity principles to ensure that the needs of regions and local territories are properly taken into account and that local authorities, as participants in the decision process, own the projects that are identified in the context of the development of these regional policies. These principles have been taken fully into account in the 2007-2013 NSRF and the respective Operational Programmes. Lithuania has improved substantially - with the creation of 11 working groups with 376 members - the participation of partners, regional and local authorities among others, in the NSRF preparation compared to the 2004-2006 programme. These authorities will be represented in the monitoring committees for the programmes allowing them to have full information on the progress and achievements of the relevant programmes.

The NSRF 2007-2013 foresees one Operational Programme specifically to deal with promoting cohesion. It aims to promote economic and social cohesion ensuring a similar living environment irrespective of the living place. The first priority targets the creation of the necessary preconditions for strengthening the potential of local development; the second priority aims to ensure accessible and high quality essential public services provided by healthcare, education and state employment promotion policy institutions; and the third priority aims to achieve better quality of environment with a focus on improving energy efficiency.

In addition, the NSRF foresees greater involvement of the Regional Councils in the administration of the issues that fall under the competence of local authorities, issues that in the 2004-2006 Programme were managed at central administration level. Regional Councils will pre-select the investment projects and local authorities will be responsible for their implementation.

Belgium and the Netherlands have different laws on offsetting costs of mortgage loans against taxation: for residents of Belgium, offsetting is limited (as regards both the amount and the period), whereas for residents of the Netherlands there is no limit on the offsetting of interest. Dutch banks offer residents of the Netherlands who take out mortgage loans (including for the purchase of property in Belgium) formulae which would be impossible in Belgium, such as interest-only mortgages. As real estate prices are much higher in the Netherlands than in Belgium, people from the Netherlands are happy to pay more than the market value for property near the border, which is often impossible for Belgians living on the same income because of the differences in the tax systems. This leads to over-valuation of property in the border region.

Does this constitute discrimination against Belgian tax-payers and in favour of Netherlands tax-payers? Can banks offer Dutch and Belgian people different forms of mortgage loan on the basis of the differences in the law, and does this not constitute a violation of Article 49 of the EC Treaty?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the existence of practices whereby private banks treat non-residents differently from residents.

These practices may be the consequence of differences in tax rules or may be based on purely commercial considerations.

In the absence of harmonisation of tax rules, the tax treatment of mortgage loans is a matter for each Member State. The resulting differences in tax burdens are not forbidden discrimination in the meaning of the EC Treaty.

In cases where differences are based on a bank's commercial considerations, the Commission is usually not in a position to take any action.

In its written reply of 19 June 2007 to my question concerning the closure of Nexans in Huizingen, Belgium, (H-0421/07), the Commission states that it is studying various possible ways of ensuring that European works councils can fully exercise their right to information and consultation.

Can the Commission inform me what options are being considered? Will it propose an improvement to the Directive, and what is the timetable for this? At least three different directives mention information and consultation (94/45/EC⁽¹⁾, 2001/23/EC⁽²⁾ and 2005/56/EC⁽³⁾). Does it make sense to tinker with three directives at the same time, all of which deal with much the same problem (information and consultation of workers in connection with international restructuring)? Would it not be more effective to draft a single overall instrument? In the same reply, the Commission states that Nexans Harnesses has not received any European aid in Slovakia. Can the Commission inform me whether the company has been awarded European aid in other Member States?

(FR) Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees⁽⁴⁾ is the main legislative instrument governing information and consultation of workers at national level. Directive 98/59/EC⁽⁵⁾ and Directive 2001/23/EC⁽⁶⁾ provide for national information and consultation, as well as other provisions, in the specific circumstances of collective redundancies and transfers of undertakings. Generally speaking, information and consultation of workers is governed at transnational level by Directive 94/45/EC on European works councils⁽⁷⁾. Directives 2001/86/EC⁽⁸⁾, 2003/72/EC⁽⁹⁾ and 2005/56/EC⁽¹⁰⁾ are applicable in the specific cases of European company start-ups or European cooperative society start-ups and of cross-border company mergers and govern not only the information and consultation of workers but also other methods of involving workers, as well as issues relating to company law.

The Commission intends to make these Community legislative instruments more consistent. Furthermore, it is looking into ways of resolving the problems that have come to light in the practical implementation of the Directive on European Works Council and of guaranteeing the effectiveness of employees’ rights to information and consultation. It is examining this issue, among other things, as part of its efforts to prepare a report on the application of Directive 2002/14/EC. As far as the possibilities of revising the legislation are concerned, the Commission would refer to the answer it gave to question H-0421/07.

With regard to possible support being given to Nexans Harnesses by other Member States, in view of the extremely short deadlines, we are unfortunately unable to provide a comprehensive answer.

To date, we can confirm the following information:

- No ESF support has been given to Nexans Harnesses in Denmark for the period 2000-07;

- No ESF support has been given to Nexans Harnesses in Germany;

- No support has been given to Nexans Harnesses in Estonia, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland and Belgium;

- According to the information provided by the managing authorities in Poland, Cyprus and Greece, Nexans Harnesses has not received any European Social Fund support.

With regard to Italy, the Commission has not been informed of any funds having been granted to the company in question. We reserve the right, if necessary, to contact the management authorities concerned in order to obtain more concrete information on the matter.

- the Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities, but we have yet to receive their response. We will inform the honourable Member as soon as possible, without fail.

The Commission is awaiting information from the other Member States.

This autumn, it will be two years since Russia imposed an embargo on imports of foodstuffs, including meat, from Poland. Despite the stance taken by the Commission, to the effect that the Russian embargo should be lifted without further unnecessary delay, the problem has still not been resolved. At the same time, preparations for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation are drawing to a close.

Should no progress be made on the embargo, does the European Union intend to take advantage of that forum in order to oblige Russia to settle the matter before it accedes to the WTO?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the situation concerning the Russian ban on Polish exports of meat and attaches great importance to finding a solution to this issue, which has lasted for too long already. The Commission's position is that the Russian ban on Polish meat exports are disproportionate and therefore need to be lifted without any further delay.

The Commission's efforts both on the technical level as well as at the political level are continuing, in close coordination with Poland and the EU Presidency. It is the Commission's view that a solution to the problem should primarily be sought through continued work between the relevant experts, but from a systemic point of view the issue is also part of the sanitary and phytosanitary discussions within Russia's World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession negotiations. Clearly such issues are relevant to Russia's WTO accession.

There have recently been reports in the press that there has been only very limited interest in applying for funding from the Globalisation Fund. Since the fund was set up in 2006, there have been only a very few applications for a share of the EUR 500 million in the fund.

Will the Commission explain what the current position is with the Globalisation Fund? How many applications for funding have been made to the Globalisation Fund? Lastly, what events trigger an application to the Globalisation Fund?

(EN) 1. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) came into force at the beginning of 2007, with the objective of supporting workers made redundant due to changes in world trade patterns. An amount of up to € 500 million can be made available each year. This amount is entered in a reserve in the budget and is mobilised following request by the Commission to the budgetary authority.

To date, the Commission has received three formal applications for an EGF contribution, two from France and one from Germany:

An application submitted on 9 March 2007 and completed on 11 May 2007, concerning over 1000 redundancies in subcontractors of Peugeot-Citroën (PSA). France has requested a contribution of €2.558.250 in order to assist 267 workers made redundant as a result of bankruptcy of their employer, a parts supplier to PSA.

An application submitted on 27 March 2007 and completed on 11 May 2007, concerning over 1000 redundancies in subcontractors of Renault (RSA). France has requested a contribution of €1.258.030 in order to assist 628 workers made redundant as a result of the bankruptcy of their employer, a parts supplier to RSA.

An application submitted on 27 June 2007, concerning redundancies in the German plants of the Taiwanese mobile phone manufacturer BenQ. Germany has requested a contribution of €14.266.155 in order to assist 3300 workers made redundant when Ben-Q stopped all financial support to its subsidiary companies in Germany.

The Commission has approved the first two proposals for submission to the budgetary authority on 25 June 2007. The third proposal is currently being analysed by the Commission.

2. The EGF intervenes when there have been over 1000 redundancies in an enterprise and its suppliers, or amongst several enterprises in a single industrial sector in one, or two, contiguous regions. Exceptions can be made for small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, both of which must be justified by the applicant Member State. In order for the EGF to be mobilised, the Member State concerned must present an application, which inter alia clearly proves the link between the redundancies and the changes in world trade patterns.

On 5 January 2007 the Turkish Ministry of the Interior called on the State Council to dismiss Mayor Demirbas and dissolve the Sur Municipal Council in response to the municipal council’s decision to provide multilingual municipal services for local people. The State Council has since voted in favour of the dismissal of Mr Demirbas.

How does the Commission assess the local legal and administrative context in which the Ministry of Interior’s action to dismiss the mayor and dissolve the council was taken?

What impact does the Commission think the action taken by the Turkish Ministry of the Interior will have on local efforts to promote democracy and cultural freedoms in the region and in Turkey?

To what extent, in the Commission's view, does the situation reflect disregard for the principles of democratisation and respect for human rights and cultural freedoms that are not only promoted by the Council of Europe, but also officially endorsed by the Turkish Government through European documents such as the Charter of Local Self-Government?

What action does the Commission plan to take in response to the legal, administrative and psychological pressure currently being exerted on mayors from the Democratic Turkey Party (DTP) and the rising political tension in the region?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the decision of the Turkish Council of State to dismiss from office the Mayor of the Sur Municipality Mr. Abdullah Demirbaş and to dissolve the Sur Municipal Council.

It is our understanding that the Court's decision was taken on the grounds that providing multilingual municipal services to the general public is not in line with the Turkish constitutional principles, that the language of the State is Turkish and that no language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue (Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution respectively).

As spelled out in the 2006 Accession Partnership, Turkey needs to ensure cultural diversity and promote respect for and protection of minorities in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the principles laid down in the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and in line with best practice in Member States. In this respect, the first instance decision of the Council of State is of concern.

An appeal procedure is ongoing. The Commission will continue to follow up on further developments of this case, and take it up with the Turkish authorities as necessary and appropriate. The Commission will further report on it in its progress report, to be published in autumn 2007.

May 2007 saw the publication of the ISS study on proportionality between ownership and control in listed companies. All of the 16 countries consulted turned out to have different classes of shares. The study provided no clear evidence that different share classes hamper investment or harm competitiveness.

Nor does the division into share classes seem to discourage the number of corporate takeovers. Furthermore, a division into share classes as practised, for example, in Denmark places no obstacles in the way of investor transparency in the company.

Will the Commission therefore provide an answer to the question as to whether companies themselves are not best placed to judge how their company is to be structured? Since the Commission has previously stated that it does not wish to revisit the takeover directive before it comes up for review in 2009, should it not also in the light of the better lawmaking agenda refrain entirely from taking any action - such as, for example, issuing a recommendation - until then?

(EN) As the question of the Honourable Member mentions, an external study in relation to proportionality between capital and control has recently been conducted for the Commission. The final report was published on the internet on 4 June 2007.⁽¹⁾The study provides a useful factual background to the issue of proportionality between capital and control in listed companies. The scope of the study was broad, in order to take account of concerns expressed inter alia by the Nordic countries. Shares with multiple voting rights, but also other mechanisms such as voting caps, non-voting preferential shares, company pyramids, etc. were examined in the study.

The Commission is currently analysing the conclusions of the study. It appears that, on the basis of the academic research available, there is no conclusive evidence of a causal link between deviations from the proportionality principle between capital and control and either (1) the economic performance of listed companies or (2) their governance. However, some evidence suggests that investors perceive these mechanisms negatively and consider that more transparency would be helpful in making investment decisions.

This study is only one step in the process. It will provide input for an impact assessment that the Commission is currently carrying out. It is envisaged that this impact assessment will be published in autumn 2007. The impact assessment will fully take into account such key issues as contractual freedom in the context of special voting arrangements.

The Commission's research on the issue of proportionality between capital and control is still at the exploratory stage. Until the publication of the study mentioned above, the Commission didn't have a clear picture of how this issue affected European listed companies and whether it had an impact on their economic performance. Now that these facts are on the table, the Commission will examine, with an open mind and on the basis of all available information, whether there is a need for Commission action in this field and will decide how to proceed further. No decision on this issue has been taken yet and the possibility of not taking any action is also being considered.

It has become commonplace and more widespread in recent times to install electronic surveillance systems to monitor workers at places of work (surveillance cameras, electronic access cards, devices for collecting biometric data such as fingerprints etc.). The security reasons cited by employers for installing such systems are completely unsubstantiated as similar reasons also existed previously and numerous technical facilities are available for the protection and security of companies, without requiring the surveillance of workers. The aim of the companies is to establish a climate of terror among workers, controlling and intensifying the pressure of work, and monitoring the social conduct and trade union activities of workers. No one knows what use is made of the electronic files gathered from surveillance by the employers.

Given that surveillance is illegal and an infringement of workers' basic democratic rights and personal data, does the Commission condemn these activities by companies? Will it take measures to remove surveillance systems and safeguard the freedom of trade-union activity at places of work?

(EN) Directive 95/46/EC⁽¹⁾ provides for the legal framework for the processing of personal data in the EU and lays down specific rules in order to protect the individuals' rights. This framework, as well as the national data protection laws implementing the Directive, fully applies to employees' personal data. This Directive is of a general nature and does not, in principle, contain employment sector specific provisions. Its provisions though are fully applicable to any type of automated or non-automated processing of personal data, among which is video-surveillance practices, e-access cards or processing of the employees' biometric data.

Any employer, in his/her capacity of data controller of his/her employees' personal data is subject to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and has specific obligations accordingly, in particular the obligation to inform in an appropriate manner the data subjects, to notify the national supervisory authority of any processing of personal data and to act in compliance with the data protection principles provided in the Directive.

According to the above principles, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully, collected for specific, explicit and legitimate purposes, must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and must be accurate and kept up to date (Article 6 of the Directive).

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party⁽²⁾ has issued a number of opinions and working documents concerning the application of the Community provisions to the processing of workers' personal data. The main document is the Opinion 8/2001 on the Processing of Personal Data in the Employment Context that deals exactly with the matter and in which one can find the main guidelines for the interpretation of the relevant general provisions of the Directive. Another relevant document is the Working Document on the Surveillance of Electronic Communications in the Workplace (WP 55) of 29 May 2002. In addition other documents of the WP29 concerning the protection of personal data in the sector of telecommunications, electronic communications and video surveillance provide guidelines that also apply to the processing of personal data in employment context.⁽³⁾

Directive 95/46/EC on data protection has been implemented in all national jurisdictions of the 27 Member States. In some Member States, there are specific employment-related legal provisions⁽⁴⁾ and/or opinions or codes of conduct adopted by Data Protection Supervisory Authorities⁽⁵⁾ which address the issue of electronic monitoring of workers at the workplace. Workers' personal data processing is also regulated, in some Member States⁽⁶⁾, in accordance to their particular national traditions and practices, by collective agreements.

The respective national data protection authorities are competent to assess the lawfulness of the processing of employees' personal data referred to in the question of the Honourable Member, according to the relevant rules established by the Directive and the national data protection legislation.

While the sinking on 5 April 2007 of the cruise ship, the 'Sea Diamond', off the coast of Santorini continues to cause havoc to the marine environment in the region, the shipping company, Hellenic Louis Cruises, with the backing of the Ministry of Mercantile Marine, is refusing to pump out the crude oil, diesel, lubricants and other toxic liquids flowing from the ship's tanks into the marine environment. The measures taken by the competent Ministry of Mercantile Marine, which continues to impose fines on the shipping company, are ineffective because the marine environment of the island continues to be devastated. This deliberate stalling − an act of collusion between Hellenic Louis Cruises and the Ministry of Mercantile Marine − has provoked outrage among the inhabitants of Santorini at the environmental devastation of the area.

How does the Commission intend to help implement the proposals put forward by organisations on Santorini and in the wider region which call for the immediate emptying of the ship's tanks of oil, lubricants and toxic liquids, for the raising of the cruise ship, the 'Sea Diamond', and the restoration of the marine environment of the island?

(FR) The Community civil protection mechanism was laid down by Decision No 2001/792/EC, Euratom. In the event that a Member State does not have sufficient capacities to cope with a disaster, it can request the help of the mechanism in order to obtain expertise or additional resources from the Member States participating in the mechanism.

The Commission’s Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) has been in contact with the Greek authorities and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in order to assess the consequences – particularly the environmental consequences – of the disaster caused by the sinking of the ‘Sea Diamond’.

Furthermore, the European Commission can provide the Member States with operational assistance to combat pollution caused by ships via the activities of EMSA, which has been active since 2004 and which has anti-pollution vessels, in particular, at its disposal. It is the responsibility of the Member State concerned, responsible for environmental protection, to call on the operational capacities of EMSA, if need be, via the Community civil protection mechanism.

In the case in point, Greece has not requested the assistance of the mechanism.

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the Commission cannot express an opinion on the discussions between national, regional and local authorities in Greece on the handling of the wreckage.

Romania's and Bulgaria's membership means that the EU now has borders with the Black Sea and that almost the entire course of the Danube has become an internal waterway. In 2004, the Commission approved a list of 30 priority projects for the European transport network, including the new Member States.

Under the Union's neighbourhood policy, the Commission has proposed the extension of the main European transport axes to the neighbouring countries. In view of the five transnational axes identified in 2005 by the High-Level Group and the proposed revision of the European transport projects in 2008, can the Commission indicate through which new transport projects (and related funds) the Union intends to take advantage of its access to the Black Sea, and which new priority European transport projects concern neighbourhood links with Moldova and Ukraine?

(EN) The trans-European transport networks (TEN-T), as revised by the Decision 2004/884, amended the list of priority projects with the particular aim of integrating the networks of the 12 new Member states. This list comprises 30 priority axes among which four ensure access to the Black Sea through road, rail, inlandwaterways and maritime connections.

The four priority projects are:

no 7 Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patras-Athens-Sofia-Budapest which includes a branch to Constanta,

no 18 Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis,

no 21 Motorways of the Sea of south-west Europe where a connection between the Black and Mediterranean Seas could be envisaged, and

no 22 Railway axis Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nurnberg/Dresden which includes a branch to Costanta.

Projects on these four axes are eligible for co-financing from the TEN-T budget and in the case of Romania in particular from the Cohesion Fund.

Regarding connections between the EU and the neighbrouring countries, the Commission⁽¹⁾ has endorsed the 5 trans-national axes proposed by the High Level Group. These 5fiveaxes are the most important for international trade at the Union level and carry already today considerable amounts of traffic.

Bilateral connections such as between Romania and Moldova were not part of this exercise but are covered under regional cooperation frameworks. The Community may contribute to support such co-operation frameworks using the approporiate financial mechanisms such as the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund for investments inside the EU and the Neighbourhood Investment Fund for investments inside countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy. To the Commission's knowledge, road rehabilitation works are already under way on the Moldovan side aiming at improving the connections with the TENs in Romania, with the support of the EBRD⁽²⁾.