Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 21 February 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

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

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. 4th report on economic and social cohesion - Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on

- the report (2007/2148(INI)) (A6-0023/2008) by Mr Guellec, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the fourth report on economic and social cohesion,

and

- the report (2007/2190(INI)) (A6-0028/2008) by Mrs Kallenbach, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the Follow-up of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter: Towards a European Action Programme for Spatial Development and Territorial Cohesion.

  Ambroise Guellec, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this morning we are discussing two parliamentary initiative reports, but I feel both of them are extremely important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, we are considering the Commission’s Fourth Report on Social and Economic Cohesion. This is a truly remarkable document, much better than the previous versions, and it constitutes a firm basis for all manner of reflections on the future of cohesion within Europe. It is also important because the brand new Lisbon Treaty establishes territorial cohesion as one of the EU’s main objectives. As we know, new and formidable challenges are now looming together with those we are already aware of, and cohesion policy must make a major worthwhile contribution to their consideration, to allow us to move forward to the Europe we want to see: that is, an effective, solidarity-conscious Europe.

What does the Fourth Report show us? That social and economic convergence between the Member States is moving in the right direction, with a definite reduction in discrepancies in terms of income and jobs over the last decade, but also that there are still considerable disparities between regions, and occasionally within regions, with a frequent tendency to become more acute. Development is real enough, but is plagued by far too many imbalances. It is here that the new concept of territorial cohesion comes into its own, and this is where it must take centre stage in the continuation of regional development throughout the EU alongside economic and social cohesion. Implementing this will require an integrated approach among sectorial policies, and genuine multi-level governance.

Here we await with interest, and I must say with some impatience, the Commission’s Green Paper in September. There is an obvious need for a common language on this issue, as emerged from our discussions in the Committee on Regional Development.

The teachings of the Fourth Report project our thoughts to after 2013, since operational programmes for 2007-2013 are now in place at almost all locations. One of their main features is a credit earmarking system to channel the basic essentials of resources towards the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda. While we wish to stress the close relationship of priorities between the Lisbon Strategy and cohesion policy, we feel the latter must forge beyond this sphere and take up a position within a broader perspective.

Our report firmly states that convergence on different levels is a prior condition for long-term competitiveness in the regions, and that in years to come complementarity of the two policies will be necessary to reconcile effectiveness and solidarity. Periodic assessment over the 2007-2013 period, which we are calling for, must allow us to confirm the appropriateness of the process, or to implement any adjustments that may be necessary in a properly informed fashion. Questions must also be asked as to the dissociation implemented over the current scheduling period between rural development and regional policy. Its relevance does not appear to be well established on the ground, and we feel that maintaining this separation after 2013 may pose a problem.

Our report emphasises the new challenges to be faced by the EU and their substantial territorial impact. There are problems such as population ageing, climate change, energy, urban concentration etc. We feel that necessary and urgent convergence and an appropriate territorial approach for these challenges call for enhanced political and financial cohesion policies after 2013. In this perspective, Parliament will staunchly oppose, as it has always done, any attempt to renationalise the policy.

I wish to finish, Madam President, by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, who were of great assistance to me in this task, for the large number of compromises we were able to achieve. I also wish to emphasise coherence with Mrs Kallenbach’s report. I think it would be good if a fully coherent whole were presented in the House today.

  Gisela Kallenbach, rapporteur. − (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking all the shadow rapporteurs for the good and constructive cooperation. Equally, I would like to thank the committee and group staff and Members' assistants. The stronger the community, the better the product!

I greatly welcome the fact that we are discussing the report by Mr Guellec and my own report jointly today. When it comes to the aim of achieving genuinely sustainable development in Europe, these two reports form a complementary whole. Cohesion policy is the hardware, as it were, with the Leipzig Charter and the Territorial Agenda being the software. These instruments can only work in tandem. The EU is equipped with the legal and financial competences through its cohesion policy. We do not have any real responsibility for regional development, urban and spatial planning. That is why a coherent policy – at local and regional level, the level of the national ministers and the EU level – is the prerequisite for sustainable European cities and regions. This is the only way to generate European value-added. The cities are the focus of opportunities and problems. They impact on rural regions and the immediate periphery. That is why we are relying on balanced development of the territory as a whole, on solutions which proceed from a holistic perspective and which at the same time are adapted to the specific situation. There can be no single solution, but there can be common principles such as the integrated approach, the partnership principle, horizontal and vertical, between the cities and the periphery, but also with the various actors who are directly concerned.

We have achieved a great deal of progress at European level. Besides the Leipzig Charter and the Territorial Agenda, the First Action Programme under the Portuguese Presidency, territorial cohesion was included as a Community objective in the Reform Treaty. This strengthens Parliament's weight through shared competence and the codecision procedure. With today's debate, we wanted to deliver a statement from Parliament in advance of the Council's Spring Summit so that territorial and urban issues can be included as clear components in the Lisbon and Göteborg strategies.

It was also the joint wish of the Informal Council of Ministers in Leipzig that the Slovenian Presidency should put the Territorial Agenda on the agenda for this year's Spring Summit in order to achieve greater political recognition of the territorial framework for the development of regions and cities and new forms of participation in the EU's political decisions. This was clearly reiterated at the meeting in the Azores in November. So far, I have no real information available about progress here.

I would therefore have greatly welcomed the presence of a Council representative here today, so that we could have obtained this information about the status of the preparations. Regrettably, I have heard that there is apparently no consensus in the Council to comply with the Ministers' request. I would have liked to hear from the Council whether, and in which form, the Territorial Agenda is to be discussed at the Spring Summit. I would also be interested to hear whether it is true that in the current draft of the Council's Conclusions, no mention is made of territorial issues and nor are relevant amendments envisaged in the Treaty of Lisbon. However, that is the only way to turn our many fine words into real action.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating – and perhaps, even more, by thanking – both Ms Kallenbach and Mr Guellec on their reports, and also the Committee on Regional Development on its excellent work both on the fourth cohesion report and on the report on territorial cohesion.

The Commission fully shares your views that European cohesion policy has played a major role in narrowing disparities across the European Union and thus fostering European integration, and also getting the Union closer to its people. Therefore, the Commission firmly rejects attempts to renationalise this policy.

We also share your view that adequate financial resources for cohesion policy must be guaranteed in the future in order to deal with the anticipated new challenges which will affect all European territories. We have also to keep in mind that, at the same time, cohesion policy will have to continue to cope with regional disparities resulting from the most recent, and forthcoming, enlargements.

Let me reassure you that, in the context of the ‘Lisbonisation’ of our policy, the main priority of European cohesion policy is, and will remain after 2013, the objective of narrowing disparities, as it is enshrined in the Reform Treaty. The solidarity dimension of the policy is central to this policy and the allocation of resources will certainly follow an inverse relation with the prosperity of countries and regions.

This view is also shared by an impressive majority of stakeholders across the Union. What is also shared is that European cohesion policy is much more than just a distributive mechanism of resources between Member States and regions; this policy is first and foremost a development policy whose objective is to foster the endogenous development of all European regions.

The Commission also shares your concern about the need for more coherence between European cohesion policy and other Community sectoral policies, especially rural development, research or competition. I would add here that the need for coherence between the different development policies also applies to the coordination between European cohesion policy and national polices. I am convinced that this is a key issue for the future of European cohesion, also in its territorial dimension.

I fully share your view that the success of the territorial agenda and the Leipzig Charter depends on two conditions. First, we need to put in practice an integrated approach to the territorial development in order to avoid a piecemeal approach to our territories. A classic example here is thinking in categories of purely rural or urban strategies, which misses the key importance of the true economic regions.

On the other hand, the integrated approach means also the need for integrating different sectoral policies both at the EU and Member State level, which affect the development of all our territories.

The second condition, as you rightly point out, is the need for the Commission to monitor and to assess regularly the progress in the implementation of actions agreed under the territorial agenda, and here we need to know more about the effects of these actions in the Member States so that the Commission can offer them adequate assistance. For example, on the basis of better monitoring, the Commission can further progress in the area of defining indicators of territorial cohesion.

Clearly the Commission sees as good news – as does your report – the introduction of the notion of the territorial dimension of cohesion in the Lisbon Treaty, and now we have to make the most of this new dimension of cohesion policy and the avenues it opens up such as, for example, the new definition of subsidiarity giving more weight to local and regional authorities. That is why the Commission included the Green Paper on territorial cohesion in our legislative and work programme for 2008.

Even if there is no standard definition of the concept yet, territorial cohesion synthesises the legal objectives of the Union to achieve a sustainable balance and harmonious development of its territory and also to provide equity of access to services of general interest. We are all aware today that there are a number of aspects of territorial balance in the Union which threaten the harmonious development of the Union economy and society in the years to come. They are at EU, national and regional level and also in some specific areas and with regard to outermost regions.

I am pleased to confirm that the key recommendations made in Ms Kallenbach’s report, as regards the definition of the concept of territorial cohesion and the implementation of an integrated approach to territorial development, and also the improvement of the synergies between Community policies, are all taken on board in the preparation of our Green Paper that will be adopted by the college next September.

Let me also use this opportunity to inform you that we are progressing with the Member States in our common understanding of territorial cohesion and its key components. We are currently working on the responses to the questionnaire which we have sent to 25 Member States on territorial cohesion, thus clearly making progress possible.

We have also established in the Commission an inter-service group which is giving us a framework to work in-house on territorial cohesion, and we have already completed the first part of this exercise: the identification of the territorial dimension of key EU policies. We have now embarked on the process, specifically on the process of developing some tools which also match your request. As you probably know, investigating territorial impact assessment of policies and also developing territorial cohesion indicators are among the priorities of the new strengthened ESPON programme.

As regards urban affairs, in March we will have the next Urban audit which is currently finalised and the second report on the state of European cities is due for June 2009. URBACT II has now been upgraded to a strategic instrument for networking and for exchanges in urban development.

My feeling is that we have, in the case of both reports, a high coherence of your views and of those of the Commission, and I now look forward to the debate for a better understanding of your concerns.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I also wish to thank our rapporteurs, especially Ambroise Guellec, for his presentation and work on the subject. As permanent rapporteur on the structural funds for the Committee on Budgets, I also wish to elaborate very briefly on budgetary issues.

This policy is now one of the most significant policies for solidarity between the peoples of Europe in budgetary terms. Today, as we have already heard this morning, the major issue is increasingly optimising the efficiency of cohesion policies. The Committee on Budgets wished to draw Parliament’s attention to a number of disturbing signs such as completion delays and commitments outstanding.

I wish to emphasise what I feel are a number of salient points within this problem. The EU must urgently make it a point of honour to simplify procedures, such as implementation of technical assistance, with a view to preparation and execution of many projects our countries need.

We must also proceed with a clear distribution of responsibilities between the EU and the Member States to ensure better shared management, and I welcome the Commissioner’s words in relation to Tuesday’s decision to adopt an action plan on audit strategy for structural funds.

Something I have been pointing out for a long time now, which I am also glad the Commissioner has just mentioned, is the need to provide both qualitative and quantitative performance indicators common to all the Member States, in order to assess budget needs and help define the next legislative framework for the post-2013 multi-annual period and, in a word, to improve the clarity of Europe’s presence in relation to EU policies and European citizens.

  Pedro Guerreiro, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. − (PT) I must start by expressing my regret that the Committee on Regional Development has not included any of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries on the Fourth Cohesion Report. These amendments reiterate, for example, the contribution made by the fisheries sector to the socio-economic situation of fishing communities in convergence regions, regions handicapped by permanent geographical or natural disadvantages, such as the most remote regions, and also poor fishing communities within more prosperous regions. I also regret that the financing for the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), in a Union with 27 members, does not differ significantly from the budget of the FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) in a Union with 15 members. The EFF must therefore be financially reinforced.

That is why I have re-tabled in this part-session two amendments which aim to underline the importance of the fisheries structural policy to economic and social cohesion.

  Oldřich Vlasák , on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reports we are debating today are significant not only in the way they deal with the present situation of our cohesion policy and its territorial dimension, but also in turning our attention to the future beyond 2013. I would like at this point to thank Ms Kallenbach and Mr Guellec for their excellent work and their open-minded approach.

The two reports, as both rapporteurs mentioned, are complementary and should be considered together. Territorial cohesion, by virtue of its inclusion in the Lisbon Treaty, has become as important a concept as economic and social cohesion. But territorial cohesion as a concept is the least researched and the least understood. Territorial cohesion so far even lacks a clear definition. The general aim of cohesion is to even out differences, but these differences still persist and they are most pronounced in the border areas between the former Eastern block and the democratic West. Territorial cohesion, in my view, also includes cohesion of towns and country. It is indisputable that towns are the engines generating growth in the individual countries and therefore it is right to include the question of urban development in our motion for a resolution and at the same time call for strengthening of the integrated approach. However, in the future it will be necessary in this regard to improve and simplify access of urban areas to structural funds and foster better links between municipal authorities and developers when financing projects of urban development from private funds.

We have adopted the Leipzig Charter and now we must gradually start putting it into practice. At the same time we must create the right conditions for life in the future, for the development of our countryside. I am convinced that we should analyse very carefully whether it is best to include rural policy in the common agricultural policy or whether we should be considering a different solution.

Ladies and gentlemen, just one closing remark. The debate on cohesion policy is above all a debate on the allocation of funds. It is evident and it is right that cohesion policy is getting stronger and is beginning to show in the European budget. Cohesion policy will have to deal with new phenomena, such as the aging and dying out of the European population, the instability of energy supplies and the deterioration of the environment. It is therefore necessary to modify the policy accordingly and ensure sufficient funds.

  Constanze Angela Krehl, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vlasák is quite right to say that we have the task of preparing the cohesion policy for the period after 2013. We have used these two reports in order to address this as an issue. In fact, we have drawn together everything that we think is important in this context.

I would like to remind you, however, that we should be mindful of the strategic objectives of European cohesion policy, namely narrowing disparities in living conditions between the European Union's regions and supporting the Lisbon and Göteborg strategies. If the European Parliament wishes to play a role in shaping the future cohesion policy, it must, in my view, concentrate on key strategies rather than reverting to the 'watering-can' principle. We must face up to the new challenges arising in the context of cohesion policy. Let me give you just a few examples: demographic change, climate protection, regional depopulation, and also, indeed, a modern European urban policy.

From my perspective, the 'equal opportunities for people and regions' approach is essential for solutions in this area. I believe that more investment in education, research and innovation and their infrastructures is important, and increasingly so, and is genuinely sustainable, in my view. However, this can only work if, in future, we involve European citizens more effectively in the development of programmes and projects, as the European Parliament has demanded for a long time and does again in these reports.

I would like to appeal to the Member States – I think it is regrettable that no Council representative is here – and point out that we are giving them some homework to do. If we are to fund additional tasks in the framework of cohesion policy, the financial resources that are needed for this purpose must also be made available.

  Grażyna Staniszewska, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (PL) The Fourth Cohesion Report and the report by Mr Guellec highlight the success of cohesion policy in narrowing disparities between Member States. They also note the growth in countries that were formerly lagging behind, for example Greece and Portugal. At the same time, however, they confirm the marked failure of this policy as regards approximating the level of development between regions.

Member States unfortunately condone undue concentration of investment and other elements of development in national capitals. A similar situation is true of the regions, where investment also tends to be concentrated in central areas, thus preventing the whole region from developing at an even pace. The differences within and between regions of the European Union are significantly greater than in the United States or in Japan.

Everything points to the need to introduce a mechanism that would stimulate decentralisation within the Member States. A long-lasting but dynamic regional policy for the next Financial Perspective is needed. The report by Mr Guellec points in a considered way to the need to forge appropriate links between the Lisbon Strategy and cohesion policy. The latter must not become simply an instrument of the former. Cohesion policy aims at sustainable and harmonious development, and is an important end in itself. It is the cheapest way of preventing what can later prove to be very costly situations from arising. I have in mind conflicts, mass emigration and immigration, relocation of companies and similar events, which all represent an upheaval for local populations.

In addition to the Lisbon Treaty, the report adopted today emphasises the importance of the territorial dimension. There is an urgent need to clarify this concept, however, and establish an unambiguous definition of what the territorial dimension involves. At present we are using this term somewhat blindly, and it can be understood as meaning many things. There are parts of Mr Guellec’s report where this notion takes precedence over the policy of economic and social cohesion, whereas in others it is presented as complementary. In certain instances it concerns equal access to services, and in others it involves the balanced distribution of research centres, for example.

I think it is unfortunate that the debate on the Green Paper on the territorial cohesion is planned for the autumn, after the report on cohesion policy. The Green Paper should be debated much earlier.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I should like to thank both rapporteurs very much for their work.

The term cohesion has acquired special significance within the Union. References to the need to reduce differences between the various regions in order to unite national economies and support their harmonious development date back to the Treaty of Rome.

The Fourth Report covers the years 2000-2006. It is the subject of the Guellec report, which contains many valuable findings. This report presents a summary of the situation in all the Member States. It also highlights the areas where disparities are greatest. Narrowing disparities in those regions must be perceived as a long-term undertaking.

The report tabled by the Commission contains many comparative parameters that were lacking in earlier documents. The suggestion of using indicators supplementing basic GDP per capita in relation to different NUTS levels remains, however.

Cohesion policy is the foundation of integration and makes a valuable contribution to the harmonious development of the Union. Its regional, local and environmental aspects are important in this context, as Mrs Staniszewska has already mentioned. We should also recognise its impact on the Union’s innovation and competitiveness, and therefore on implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. Demographic issues are important too, as certain areas are threatened with depopulation.

When we refer to cohesion we perceive it as economic and social. A sound definition of the term territorial cohesion is urgently required. Cohesion should be understood as ensuring that, regardless of where they reside, Union citizens enjoy equal opportunities for access to health services, education, culture, the Internet and transport, for example. Cohesion policy should be strengthened and improved with adequate Union resources. The urban aspect is particularly important, as Mrs Kallenbach pointed out.

The question as to how to choose between cohesion or competitiveness, equality or efficiency has recently arisen. My brief answer is to choose both, in due measure.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the late 1990s the philosophy which prevailed in the European Union was that the integration capacity of the Union was to be measured according to the success of the internal market. The hope that the problems existing in the European Union could be resolved with the development concepts of the internal market, which were geared solely towards economic growth, remained unfulfilled, however.

The European internal market focussed the growth of economic activity on the centres of gravity which pulled in additional activity, at the expense of disadvantaged regions and the natural environment. And even in these centres, not everyone was able to share in the benefits; instead, poverty increased, triggering tensions and unrest.

Today, the Commission is making the same mistake. It is subordinating cohesion policy to the Lisbon strategy. Instead of genuinely prioritising the problems of the particularly disadvantaged regions and only promoting sustainable development projects, it is investing in outdated infrastructural concepts and, in consequence, only in the economic centres. The municipalities and regions will become dependent on the major European banks for generations. In my view, this is a massive problem, because ultimately, it is the next generation who will then pay the price of failed development policies. And that in turn will trigger migratory movements – my colleague Mrs Krehl has already indicated as much – and it will also trigger an anti-European mood because some sections of the population will not share in the benefits. These are dead-end strategies.

I believe we must be very careful not to put the European Union's internal cohesion at risk. Economic and social cohesion must genuinely remain a separate policy area and the benefits must be available to all the regions and people in Europe. This can only happen if cohesion policy is genuinely underpinned by a social model based on solidarity and on sustainable development models which are not pursued at the expense of the environment.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. − (PT) In this brief speech on such an important issue as the future of the cohesion policy in the European Union, we can only underline some of the fundamental principles that we believe should guide this debate.

Firstly, regional policy is a key instrument for promoting the highly cherished economic and social cohesion. It is a structural policy which must have as its primary and principal objectives, as has already been stated, the reduction of disparities between the levels of development of the various regions, the encouragement of the least-favoured regions that are lagging behind, the promotion of real convergence and the stimulation of growth and employment. It must therefore serve as a factor of redistribution and compensation, as regards the increased costs of the single market, Economic and Monetary Union and the liberalisation of international trade, for the less-developed countries and regions of the European Union.

Secondly, the cohesion policy and its associated financial resources must be used to promote projects for economic, social, environmental and regional development. As a result, these projects must not be subject to a policy which has, as its priority and dogma, the competition, deregulation or so-called adaptability and entrepreneurship which are priorities of the Lisbon Strategy. In other words, we believe that competitiveness must not be a substitute for convergence in the Member States and regions which are lagging behind in their socioeconomic development.

Thirdly, the current Community financial resources for the cohesion policy are insufficient to meet the needs of real convergence, regional disparities, high levels of unemployment, inequalities in income and poverty in the European Union. We therefore reiterate the need to increase the Community budget, making the promotion of economic and social cohesion in the European Union the central and primordial objective.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, I have read the reports by Ms Kallenbach and Mr Guellec with interest. The cohesion of European countries remains a fascinating theme. The integration of internal policy and cooperation between EU Member States and regions is increasingly taking shape. That such a strategy produces results is clearly shown in the cohesion report. Cohesion between the Member States has increased.

At the same time it shows that cohesion between regions within Member States is decreasing, particularly between urban and non-urban regions. In my view, it is right in such situations for national, regional and local authorities to play an important role. I do not understand, therefore, why the option for Member States independently to increase their contributions to regional development has been rejected in advance.

It is too early to ascertain how long the current policy should be continued. That it presents some specific challenges is clear. But let us also examine whether it is able to solve the so-called divergence, i.e. not only cohesion at Member State level but also at a regional level, between and within Member States. As that will probably not be the case, a different approach with a larger role for Member States is desirable. No-one knows the national and regional situation better than the individual Member States. They can introduce solutions which will make the goals of cohesion at subnational level achievable.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Madam President, the European Commission is so concerned with cohesion between the Member States and within the Member States that 350 billion euros have been allocated to it between now and 2013.

A Green Paper is also in the offing because, in Brussels, whenever a problem arises a paper has to be written on it. There certainly is a problem of cohesion between western Europe and eastern Europe, the Europe of villages and the Europe of cities, or the Europe of the upmarket districts and the Europe of working-class neighbourhoods.

But whose fault is it? Who depopulated villages where they tended vines and reared cattle, Madam President, in Greece, where they produced tobacco, cotton and olive oil? Who, and which policies, took away thousands of post offices in Sweden, Germany and France? Who closed down rural train stations, railways and maternity homes? In ports, is it the wind destroying fishing craft, fishermen’s livelihoods, small businesses and shipyards? Is it the wolves in the Pyrenees or the Alps that are eating up the shepherds, or lamb imported from New Zealand?

We all know the answer: it was the international trade policy conducted by the Commission through GATT agreement and the WTO that has been leading to the closure of 90 farms a day in Spain and France for the last 20 years. It was the dogmatic removal of customs protection that destroyed industrial balances beneath a wave of imports.

Now, in order to establish cohesion, first we have to establish coherence between policies. We cannot have one policy in Cotonou for the ACP states and then destroy this policy in Geneva over the banana trade. We cannot have a Community preference for rural produce between 1962 and 1986 and then destroy all this with free trade at the Uruguay or Doha Rounds.

Cohesion therefore requires a certain amount of coherence between choices. Commissioner, either we build Europe or we build the world. Either we focus on social tasks, or we focus on the world.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) Madam President, Ms Hübner, the unique and peculiar nature of this Fourth Report lies in the fact that not only has the current policy been well thought out but it looks ahead to the new challenges which Europe must tackle. It covers globalisation and its effects, it covers climate change, it covers the problems of energy and demographic challenges. It is good that we are doing this now, particularly in preparation for the spring recess this March. Mr Guellec has done everything very well. He has stated that the cohesion policy should not change in its essentials – which is specifically reconfirmed in the new Treaty – but that the content of the regional commitments and the programmes should change.

This week we have also looked at the Lisbon Strategy, and what strikes me is that we should continue strongly and make an express contribution, earmarking 60 – 65% of the cohesion budget to be committed to this end. This will show to what extent the core of the cohesion policy stands to meet the challenge of new circumstances. What is stated in the Kallenbach report is also important, that we consider territorial cohesion as a core function of the European Union. Globalisation focuses on a number of key regions, metropolitan areas, and Europe’s answer is that it is imperative that knowledge is shared and the conditions created for entrepreneurship in all regions, including rural areas. That is the new agenda.

The PPE finally resisted using renationalisation as an answer to the 2013 debate. This leads to the achievement of a new consistency between R&D, innovation policy, the internal market and the nuts and bolts of the Union, coupling a knowledge-based economy – which will be implicated here in the long term – with high employment and prosperity in our regions.

I also gladly subscribe to the transparency initiative put forward by Mrs Hübner. The people must know how relevant to them this policy is.

  Iratxe García Pérez (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, I wish to begin my speech by thanking Mrs Kallenbach and Mr Guellec in particular for their work on these reports leading to a majority agreement within the context of the Committee on Regional Development.

European cohesion policy has been an example of a successful EU policy, which has abided by the principles on which it is based, and which has helped to remove inequalities.

Countries such as Spain have achieved indisputable results in terms of convergence thanks to the cohesion policy. We would therefore reaffirm its role in enhancing the potential of Member States for development and job creation through progress in training human capital.

Nevertheless, we must also admit that territorial inequalities still exist, and therefore we must give a firm response if we are to move forward with a policy that has to tackle new challenges such as ageing or depopulation processes in certain areas, especially rural areas.

We must deal with the remaining challenges in order to reduce regional and interregional disparities and secure economic and technological growth, and this means that our focus on compliance with the Lisbon Strategy must be a priority issue, while not neglecting other matters such as demographic change.

If EU regional policy is to secure balanced sustainable development, it must be carried out in close cooperation with regional players and in coordination with other policies. We are likewise aware of the need to push forward specific measures in order to reduce disparities between accessible regions and those with structural disadvantages: mountainous areas, islands, or sparsely populated areas.

With a view to the future, therefore, it is absolutely essential to reinforce cohesion policy with major economic resources to cope with all the challenges involved.

Yesterday we adopted the Lisbon Treaty in Parliament by a large majority, and today we must drive forward a new component of the Treaty, setting out territorial cohesion as a basic EU objective to make progress towards a more prosperous future for Europe.

  Jean Marie Beaupuy (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to say, Commissioner, that as I listened to your reply to the two reports by our colleagues Mr Guellec and Mrs Kallenbach, I felt there would be no need for me to say anything at all, since it was so obvious you were showing you had fully understood us.

This is an initial stage, and I am extremely pleased and wish to congratulate the House since these close-knit reports between you, your associates, our committee and our Parliament have produced such a level of cohesion between our points of view. Now, however, beyond this cohesion, we must move forward with implementation, for it is all well and good to achieve cohesion among ourselves, but this must produce some specific results.

I feel this is possible by means of the Green Paper you are drawing up for the autumn, and here I would like to mention two items dear to my heart, which in my view are essential to implement the entire cohesion policy and the Leipzig Charter we desire so much.

The two items are: firstly, the necessity, which you have already mentioned and which I wish to reiterate in the strongest terms, of showing how different EU policies must be made coherent at the level of urban and periurban areas. Yesterday evening we were discussing population. Yesterday afternoon we were discussing transport. Before that we were discussing social issues. All the Commission’s DGs are involved, all the various EP Committees are involved ... All this must be made coherent within the microterritory of a town and its surrounding area. I expect a position to emerge from the Green Paper.

Second item. How could we, Parliament and the Commission, if we agree on all this, succeed if we do not have European citizens and governments on board? I have already told you, Commissioner, we must make a huge effort, and I know you are endeavouring to do so, in terms of communication, so that all our speeches, all our comments, all our hopes with regard to cohesion, emerge in words and phrases that will encourage governments to act and persuade and motivate our fellow citizens.

These are the two main points, Commissioner, that I expect to see in the Green Paper. After listening to us, I trust you will help us find specific applications.

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, one of the fundamental aims of the European Union is to even out differences in the development and income of individual countries and regions. These differences have become more marked in recent years, because significantly less developed countries have joined the Union in the latest enlargements.

It is estimated that these countries are more than 15 years behind the others. Swift development is the only way to level out the differences. This represents a considerable challenge, especially taking into account the cuts in financial resources and the limited opportunities the countries striving to move forward have to make use of them. It is unlikely that the success achieved in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland will be repeated, certainly not quickly. It is also unlikely that we will catch up with the United States and Japan in the near future. We should remember, however, that the start is always the most difficult stage, and look to the Czech Republic for a positive example of how much can be achieved. Our citizens’ outlook on life has changed and is continuing to do so, which bodes well for the future. In addition, the Lisbon Strategy lays down clear guidelines for our actions.

As I conclude, I should like to thank our rapporteurs most sincerely for their statements. I see Mr Martínez is no longer in the Chamber, but I must add that I totally disagree with his intervention.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, it is nice to see the Commissioner here in Parliament. We look forward to seeing her in Scotland again soon and to continuing our very fruitful cooperation on this policy.

Before I make my brief points, I would echo Mr Guerreiro’s points about support for the fisheries sector within cohesion policy. We will be supporting his amendments, and I do think this sector is of particular strategic importance in our geography.

I would pick up on the rapporteur’s call for better statistics, particularly for the targeting and monitoring of the efficiency of funding programmes. It seems pretty clear, as things develop, that targeting at NUTS I, NUTS II or even NUTS III level is pretty broad and pretty scatter-gun. I welcome moves in the future funding streams towards more thematic activity, be it the Lisbon Agenda, the promotion of a knowledge economy, the promotion of R&D, cross-border cooperation or, indeed, support for the fisheries sector under the Lisbon Agenda.

That is, I believe, the future for a really vibrant cohesion policy for the European Union, which is very much the jewel in the EU’s crown. It has brought the EU closer to our citizens and it has made us one Union where the Member States would keep us a series of different states.

We have a great potential to make this policy even more relevant and we look forward to hearing about the Green Paper in the Commissioner’s speech.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). ― (GA) Mr President, the two reports given today show the necessity of the cohesion policy and how that policy should be implemented. Balanced regional development is very important. The focus of Mr Guellec's report was on ensuring that regional funds are sufficient and that they will focus on promoting the needs of the citizens and the needs of the regions effectively. The only way to deal with a cohesion policy is as an implementation tool for the Lisbon Strategy. I would like to thank the Rapporteur.

Ireland has benefited a great deal from cohesion money and in order for other countries to benefit in the same way we must ensure that increased resources are directed at promoting regional development and tackling social exclusion. Not only must the gap between Member States be decreased but we must also decrease these gaps within Member States as well as the gaps between regions.

Mr Guellec reports on Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece's impressive growth rates between 2000 and 2006. He has highlighted, however, that in spite of this growth, there are great inequalities between regions within those countries.

I would like to thank Mrs Kallenbach as well for her report and I especially welcome the emphasis placed on strengthening the role of local urban authorities in order to make access to public services available to every citizen. There is a need for local empowerment, respect for the environment and a high standard of public services to be universally available so that the urban environment is an attractive place to live and work in.

Sustainable development is a huge challenge within urban areas in the 21st Century and the framework presented to us today by Mrs Kallenbach can help us to face this challenge.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Madam President, these reports comment on the disparity between the rural and urban economies, between rich and poor, especially in eastern Europe, and between the disadvantaged and the rest of society.

The answer, apparently, is to offer a vast catalogue of cultural, economic, technical developments and social engineering provision. It notes the success of such programmes in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece to relieve these inequalities and encourages similar strategies, frameworks and action programmes to generate progress in affected areas, especially in eastern Europe. Above all it mentions cohesion funds. We get to the nub. EUR 65 billion on such programmes in needy western countries in the last few years, but eastern Europe is much poorer than those countries ever were. So these subsidies – for that is what they are – will be taken from those countries still receiving them and from an ever smaller pot as the chill economic winds from the USA reach us.

Unfortunately for all its citizens – the well off and the poor alike – these subsidies are self-defeating for they strip away initiative from people and produce a culture of dependency.

If you really want to help, listen to Professor Buchanan of the London School of Economics. His paper states clearly that ‘to help a poor country, trade is worth six times more than aid’. Will you ever learn that? Or, to put it another way, if, in a poor country, you give a starving man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for life.

  Rolf Berend (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion is of major political significance certainly does not need to be repeatedly underlined here. I agree with the rapporteur on all the basic issues and congratulate him on his good work. He rightly emphasises that the anticipated new challenges can be dealt with only if cohesion policy remains a Community policy, which is anyway in accordance with the Treaty. His report clearly rejects, therefore, all attempts to renationalise this policy. The prerequisite, however, is a balanced cohesion budget for the EU.

Yes, adequate resources must be available in order to safeguard the harmonious development of all regions in the EU and deal with the new challenges. A different view exists, however, regarding the choice of wording in the report on the demand for financial resources for cohesion policy post-2013. Like many of my colleagues, I do not feel it is right that at this early stage, in 2008, the report should contain anticipatory demands for more financial resources for the future, not least in view of the fact that we are quite rightly facing criticism that we do not always draw down, on time, all the funding which is already available.

The Committee has therefore found good compromise wording which, however, only applies to the text of the resolution and not to the recitals. So we should not include any conflicting statements in the recitals, but should remain consistent with the wording 'adequate resources for a balanced cohesion policy'.

Ultimately, this is about credibility: in the past, cohesion policy has been able to achieve sustainable successes and can do so in future too if it is adequately resourced, without our calling for more financial resources at this stage. Commissioner, you referred in your introductory statement to adequate financial resources to deal with future challenges. That is a good formula.

  Pierre Pribetich (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is hands that build the town, and men that build the city. Jean-Jacques Rousseau must certainly have favoured the integrated approach. It is a method that falls directly within the scope of this approach of building cities and not fragmented towns, as set out in the Leipzig Charter and the Territorial Agenda.

I therefore wish to thank all those responsible, especially Mrs Kallenbach, for their excellent cooperation on this task. I welcome the scope of the proposals in relation to social and economic aspects, the environment, spatial development and territorial cohesion, and likewise the close attention paid to proposals intended to improve the report submitted by our Socialist Group.

Paying closer attention to the territorial and urban dimensions of EU policies, especially through integrated development plans and better cooperation between urban and periurban areas, will draw all the benefits out of this integrated approach. Cooperation, however, must not end there. Provision must also be made for a relationship or some kind of connection between rural areas, urban and periurban areas. Here I must stress the importance of stimulating the attractiveness and competitiveness of rural areas as a tool to combat the mass exodus from the countryside.

If the main points in this report had to be specified, my first mention would be the urgent need to create integrated multimodal transport networks supported by Europe to improve infrastructures, especially environment-friendly transport such as bicycles and walking.

Identifying the signs of decline in certain areas and stepping up work to implement a social integration policy constitute a framework for a public policy to reduce inequality in an efficient manner and prevent social exclusion.

Positioning human beings at the very centre of the construction of infrastructure policies by reconciling urban concerns with human concerns, and all the more so within the current context of a housing crisis, in a society where not everyone has a roof over their head, and placing more emphasis on decent affordable housing, are still essential, and constitute a crucial factor of social integration and standards of living in cities, within a context of sustainable urban development.

It is for this reason that I call on all my colleagues to vote en masse in favour of this report, which demonstrates the EP’s wish to support the sturdiest form of territorial cohesion and a comprehensive integrated approach that will finally allow us to build the city.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Elspeth Attwooll (ALDE). – Mr President, it is difficult to single out any one thing from these two excellent reports, but I wish to express particular thanks to Mr Guellec for the extent to which his report addresses the issue of disparities within regions.

For, even in those that can be classified as relatively prosperous overall, there may still be certain groups that are disadvantaged or excluded. This may be a matter of their territorial location. Inhabitants of islands and mountainous and scarcely-populated border and peripheral areas can be cases in point. So, too, can fisheries-dependent communities, particularly when they are to be found in areas of the kind just mentioned. Which is why I, too, very much hope that Parliament will approve Amendments 19 and 20, which seek to reinforce their position.

But disadvantage and exclusion may be at a more distinctly social level. I am thinking of a project back home in Aberdeenshire called Can-Do. It has provided occupation for people with learning difficulties, in sorting cans and bottles for recycling. It lost eligibility for European support when funding for the current period was relocated to parts of the country where deprivation is more widespread. But the people concerned remain just as much at risk of social exclusion as before.

Both examples show that, if we are to target funding at those most in need, we need to develop a more sophisticated approach to quantifying that need. I ask the Commission to pay particular attention to the call in the report for improved statistical tools to allow more accurate measurement of the extent of cohesion and better assessment of the contributions of local actions aimed at achieving it. Such tools would also allow us to pinpoint actual cases of disadvantage and decide how they can best be addressed.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, cohesion policy makes a crucial contribution to the integration of societies within the Union, as is emphasised in the report. Nonetheless, administrative and procedural obstacles preventing regions with weaker infrastructures from attaining the level of developed ones continue to multiply.

Who is such a complicated procedure for mobilising Union resources supposed to help? After all, in the case of road infrastructure, funds could be transferred directly to the relevant local authority departments that are under the control of institutions in the Member States. It would not then be necessary to wait several years for construction or repair work to take place.

Clearly, other principles must apply regarding individuals, law firms and associations. If we really want to achieve something in the less developed regions, we should transfer targeted aid to local authority budgets, even without input from their own resources, because sometimes they cannot afford even a small contribution as they are so poor.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the report by Mr Guellec presents the European Parliament's position on the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. The latter contains information and analysis regarding the effectiveness of cohesion policy. In effect, pursuant to the procedure adopted, it represents the first stage in the debate on cohesion policy in the new programming period. Mr Guellec's report therefore presents proposals as well as opinions on the analysis.

The debate on the future of cohesion policy must take account of the new conditions and challenges. Ongoing implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, climate change, changes in energy policy and appreciation of the implications of migratory processes mean that the European Union is facing new challenges. All this also means that action must be taken to reduce new disparities in development. Obviously the question arises as to which actions should be financed from common funds and which should be undertaken as Union policy.

In the debate on the future of cohesion policy we refer to the debate on the future of the European Union. We often speak of a so-called Union of action or Union of results and of a Union such that it is appreciated and accepted by its citizens.

At the same time, we are aware that so-called reformers are promoting new solutions, such as, for example, renationalising cohesion policy. In essence, that would amount to negating the policy of solidarity. We must bear in mind that the Member States are implementing their own internal policies to narrow disparities and that they are doing so independently of European funding, drawing on their own resources. The richer countries are therefore proving most successful. In effect, renationalisation will amount to restricting cohesion policy and we must oppose that. Accordingly, if we want to create a so-called Union of results or Union of action, we must strengthen cohesion policy.

  Evgeni Kirilov (PSE). – Mr President, the fourth cohesion report provides evidence of the positive effects of EU cohesion policy, so the EU must continue to assist EU regions to achieve economic and social prosperity and convergence.

We are now addressing new challenges, and have agreed that our efforts must be directed towards dealing with these. However, I would like to emphasise a problem we addressed in July 2007 in the form of the resolution adopted on the poorest regions in the EU. Unfortunately, no further attention was given to that important issue. Just as the outermost regions have had a special strategy, we now need priority treatment and a strategic approach for the least prosperous regions, in order to overcome their specific difficulties, which are a combination of socioeconomic problems and territorial and spatial characteristics. I hope the Commissioner will address that issue in her Green Paper.

Therefore, I strongly support the future implementation of cohesion policy in its three dimensions – economic, social and territorial – which could stand as a successful example of the European Union’s solidarity principle.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs. Mr Guellec’s report highlights the fact that, while there is economic convergence occurring between Member States, there is also a widening of regional and local disparities.

That situation goes to the very heart of cohesion policy and clearly indicates the need to include a significant territorial dimension in all policies, but particularly in the Lisbon Strategy. I have seen this situation occurring in my own country, Ireland, where convergence with the EU average has been achieved – indeed surpassed – but where the economic gap between different regions is widening. It is extremely important that this gap does not continue to widen, and one of the ways of ensuring this is to increase investment in innovation, research and development in those regions that are lagging behind.

I want to thank Mr Guellec for including my suggestion on the importance of social capital in boosting regional economic growth. We are all aware of the role played by physical capital, natural capital and human capital as the basis for economic growth and development. However, social capital, which is the latent resource residing within and among cooperating groups, provides the added value. Data from the UN Handbook, which relates to a very significant number of countries, indicates that the contribution of social capital to economic growth is in the order of 5% of GDP.

Finally, in response to the comment by Mr Clark, who suggests we should have ‘trade not aid’, I would say that in the EU we manage both – trade via the single market and targeted aid where needed. That is the best of both worlds.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the scope of this report is so broad that I shall limit myself to commenting on a couple of issues.

One of the main challenges facing the development of the Union is the swift spread of built up areas, together with energy consumption, transport and demographic changes, such as the depopulation of certain parts of the Union and the widening disparity between richer areas and less affluent ones. An integrated development policy focusing mainly on modernising infrastructure, improving energy efficiency and introducing cheap environmentally-friendly transport will help to ensure continuity in this sector.

Another aim of the strategy in question ought to be focusing on the development of rural areas so as to make them more competitive, and thus slow down the depopulation of those areas, which is so significant for the new Member States. I would also like to draw attention to the importance of cooperation between urban and rural areas in order to promote the development of the territory as a whole. Access to information and communication technology should play a vital part in creating territorial cohesion and developing individual areas, and that is where our greatest problem currently lies.

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, first of all, as regards Mrs Kallenbach's report and the Leipzig Charter, yes, we must consider spatial planning in a European context to a greater extent. But does this require new European powers in respect of housing policy and spatial planning? There is a very big question mark here, to my mind. As regards Mr Guellec's report and specifically the prospects for future structural policy, the regional challenges posed by globalisation, demography, climate change, migration and so forth are all accurately described. The same applies to the political outlook.

We should stick to the tried and tested objectives of structural policy, and we should supplement them with these new components. I welcome the integrated approach advocated by the rapporteur, also as regards the challenges arising in relation to rural development. However, we should be focusing, as a general principle, on the European value-added of these programmes to a greater extent. Whether in relation to cohesion, innovation or transnational funding, Europe should only be providing support where we can genuinely make a sustainable European contribution.

To achieve success in the future, we must also be looking more critically at the instruments hitherto deployed. The one-off operational subsidy does not create any European value-added, whereas long-term expansion of research, education and infrastructure certainly does! We can only enhance the efficiency of structural policy through greater transparency in the deployment of funding and through leverage effects, for example by funding loans and with more public-private partnerships.

Although we certainly have not exploited all our options here, I cannot support the rapporteur's blanket call for more money from 2014. We need to evaluate the current period first of all, and we need to gear our instruments more efficiently towards challenges such as climate change and demography. Then we can start demanding a budgetary contribution.

The blank cheque for the future currently being demanded in the report really cannot be taken seriously. I therefore ask you to support our amendment in the vote.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I must firstly congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur of my Group, Mr Guellec and Mrs García, on the quality of the report and their openness to dialogue on cohesion.

The report rightly recognises the enormous efforts made (particularly in Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ireland) in terms of growth and convergence. However, these efforts must be continued and expanded, not just in those countries which are most lacking solidarity and cohesion, but also in certain regions of those countries as the wealth assessment process cannot solely depend on GDP but must be extended to other criteria.

In this respect, I made contributions aimed at clearly recognising insularity and remoteness as factors restraining development. In particular, in accordance with Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty and as stated by Commissioner Hübner, accessibility problems form one of the main obstacles to development. This is why it is essential to adapt the Community policies to take account of this constraint resulting from insularity and remoteness.

  Samuli Pohjamo (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to bring the northern viewpoint to this debate. It is important that the permanent problems of the north – the long distances, the cold climate and the sparse population – are taken account of in the future as factors that need support just as much as the problems of the mountain regions and islands do.

It is also worth remembering that the northern regions produce added value in areas such as mining, wood processing and tourism. Research in the north and new technology applications in cooperation with universities, businesses, the public sector and consumers continually produce fresh and important innovations, from which the whole of Europe benefits.

I would also like to remind everyone of the opportunities afforded by combining the Baltic Strategy with the Northern Dimension in, for example, the utilisation of energy resources in the Barents region.

Finally, I want to congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent reports and thank Commissioner Hübner for her interest in the northernmost corner of the Union.

  Emmanouil Angelakas (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should also like to congratulate the two rapporteurs on their very important reports.

Cohesion policy is important because it has helped in the economic and social development of many regions. It has reduced the gaps between regions, brought regions closer to the norm and reduced disparities within them.

There is still much to be done. Uniform development has not been attained. There are divergences, which are acute in many cases. Any thought of a renationalising cohesion policy ought to be rejected. New Member States have joined, with regions that are very far removed from the norm. The term ‘territorial cohesion’ described in the Lisbon Treaty needs to be worked on and further analysed.

Finally, particular attention ought to be paid to isolated regions and islands, as in the case of Greece, where cohesion policies will significantly help the local population to stay put, find employment, have access to new technology and professional opportunities, and to comply to the Community norm.

For these reasons, the terms in the cohesion policy report are correct: funding will need to be secured and increased, even for the period after 2013. The challenges are significant and the cohesion policy ought not to fall short or be delayed because of financial inadequacy when all parties recognise its usefulness.

In closing, I also welcome today’s statements by Commissioner Hübner and the Commission’s determination to progress with the cohesion policy. We await with interest the Green Paper and the conclusions that it will contain.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, reducing the social and economic disparities between European regions is a fundamental aim of the European Union. We are aiming to create a Europe where all regions are equal.

Following the latest enlargements, it has become increasingly necessary to strengthen the cohesion aim. This is because, according to certain estimates, at the present rate of economic growth, countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania will take more than 15 years to reach a level of GDP equal to 75% of the average for the Union.

Full use of structural funds pursuant to Community legislation is a sine qua non for reducing social and economic disparities between European regions. This applies especially to the new Member States. The latter are experiencing many problems. For example, Polish local authorities have recently had to cope with difficulties caused by the continuous fall in the value of the euro in relation to the Polish currency, thus reducing the actual value of Union funds allocated to the implementation of regional projects that had already been confirmed.

In addition, the cost of labour and production in Europe is constantly rising, which leads to an increase in the cost of investments funded from Union resources and to a reduction in the value of those funds in real terms. Consequently, implementation of many Union projects is threatened.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must firstly highlight the excellent work carried out by Mr Guellec and the intelligent and determined manner in which he emphasised and defended the optimisation and reinforcement after 2013 of a policy of solidarity towards the European regions.

In truth, with this report, more than with the assessment of the cohesion policy’s impact in 2000-2006, we have opened the debate on what type of cohesion policy we want for post-2013. Accordingly, I must make one comment on the present and three on the future.

My first comment is that, as shown by the Fourth Report, the cohesion policy continues to be essential for reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and for encouraging the least-favoured regions that are lagging behind or, in other words, for creating a European Union that is more harmonious and viable and has a greater sense of solidarity. However, we should not forget that, in addition to this essential objective, the cohesion policy has made a decisive contribution to the construction and expansion of the internal market, to the success of the successive enlargements, to the creation and consolidation of the single currency and to the increasing identification of citizens with the European Union.

My second comment is that the cohesion policy must now revamp its role, boosted and reinforced by the new territorial dimension to cohesion enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, by taking advantage of the diversity and complementarity of the territories and by firmly targeting the polycentric development of the European Union.

The report by Mrs Kallenbach, who I also congratulate, offers us some good guidelines in this respect.

My third comment is that the cohesion policy must increasingly encompass and respond to the current challenges such as those represented by globalisation, migration, population ageing, climate change, energy diversification, research and technological development. In order to be coherent, we must therefore consider increased resources for a reinforced regional policy.

Finally, a new perspective for the most remote regions will be necessary to guarantee that these can continue feeling comfortable within the European area. It will be vital to find new answers to the serious problems, such as isolation, lack of accessibility and competitive disadvantages, that these regions face.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mrs Kallenbach and Mr Guellec on their excellent reports, both of which are milestones in the debate on cohesion policy.

There are significant differences in the development of our regions, but if we look into it more deeply there are even greater chasms between individual areas within the regions. We have not managed to deal appropriately with liquidating rural poverty and bringing into line those areas that have fallen behind, within the framework of agricultural policy. There is a need for much greater effort in this area, within the framework of a renewed, integrated cohesion policy that is capable of turning round the negative processes in the areas that are growing poor.

The synergy between cohesion and the reinforcement of competitiveness must be strengthened, because they cannot be subordinated to each other. New challenges have emerged, such as ageing or even the matter of energy efficiency and climate change, which we must also deal with. For this very reason it is vital to reinforce cohesion policy, and we must reject its being put at national level. If we put solidarity and cohesion at the heart of the European project, the Union will truly be strong and competitive. Thank you for your attention.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, the well-planned and responsible development of urban areas is becoming extremely important, in particular in the face of challenges such as congestion of urban transport networks, environmental damage and land development. This is why I very much appreciate the adoption of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter.

Cities have a unique responsibility for climate protection: this protection should be a priority at all political levels. Cities could help solve a bad traffic situation and lower global emissions causing the greenhouse effect by, for example, interconnecting different modes of transport and developing an infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. I would also suggest that cities prioritise energy-efficient buildings and use already existing buildings for new purposes, instead of developing new sites.

I would like to stress that not only metropolitan regions but also suburban areas and rural areas are successful in meeting cohesion goals. This is why I appeal to the Commission to monitor such successful projects and to prepare, on their basis, a development model for smaller and medium-sized towns outside metropolitan areas. One of the characteristics of Europe, in spite of its relatively small size, is her geographical diversity. This is why it is necessary to be mindful of unique regional features and resulting differences, and to give people in different regions the chance to make use of the unique opportunities and potential offered by the areas in which they live. To me it is also very important to include, among our policy goals, the need to solve territorial issues relating to islands and mountain areas, border regions and sparsely populated regions, so that the quality of life of people who live there is also enhanced.

To conclude I would like to stress that urban development must follow an integrated and well-coordinated strategy, supported at all levels by both the government and the private sector.

  Miloš Koterec (PSE). – (SK) Thank you, Mr President. We are debating the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion and the reports by Mrs Kallenbach and Mr Guellec at a time when the first subjects for the 2014-2020 budget plan are beginning to emerge.

I would like to link the two and to emphasise the importance of such a link. I do not fear that cohesion policy funding will disappear from the budget plan but I would not like to see the extent of this fund during the life of the next budget in any way reduced. In addition to that, as the rapporteurs rightly point out, major regional disparities still exist, including structural problems, and since this situation has worsened due to enlargement, it is necessary to contemplate giving more weight to this chapter of the budget.

As the reports correctly point out, the situation is so complex that we cannot solve it at Commission level. Although governments of the Member States play an important role in this matter, it is becoming more and more clear that it will not be possible to solve the problem without the participation of regional and local authorities. Their role lies not only in the possible synergy between them and the government in the process of making decisions on the issues of development in their territories but also in the responsibility for this development and, last but not least, in providing feedback about how development and cohesion are progressing.

Who can provide more information about the real development in a region, if not the people who live in it? Therefore I appeal to the Commission not only to include in its monitoring process the macro-economic indicators but to be creative and to draw on such information…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, first of all I would like to give my congratulations to the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. I would also like to say that I understand the passion of Members from the new Member States. I know that it is far from easy to satisfy your constituents back in your own Member State, but you are now part of the European Union and, as such, like the rest of us, you will at times not get everything that you would like or want.

I have to say to those who are merely playing on words that the difference between increased resources and sufficient resources is very small indeed. I certainly will be supporting the wording of ‘sufficient resources’.

Sometimes it is wise to recognise what you have achieved and bank it. I personally support the use at this time of the word ‘sufficient’, especially when many of the funds in those areas have not been spent. I only wish that my own region was half as lucky – we never were – in achieving such help. We are now even as far behind as some of the countries were that we are talking about.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should also like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work on these two reports.

Once again, the European Parliament is confirming its very clear position on the importance and role of the cohesion policy, which brings Europe closer to its citizens. This is a policy with very clear added value for the whole of the EU. In future, this policy should not just be maintained; it should be strengthened with the requisite resources.

Both reports point to this approach. I should like to highlight the importance of:

- the partnership and participation of local authorities in particular, at all levels,

- synergies between Community policies, particularly the cohesion policy, and the rural development policy,

- planning policies and actions that promote the polycentric development of EU territories, with special emphasis on the countryside,

- the important potential role of small and medium-sized towns, and finally,

- combating intra-regional inequalities, youth unemployment and the high levels of poverty to be found in many regions of the EU.

  Rumiana Jeleva (PPE-DE). – (BG) Regardless of the existing difference of viewpoints, let us recall the raison d’etre of the cohesion policy and its objectives, i.e. it embodies the hopes for more prosperity and better all-European future.

All Europeans strive for better life and the cohesion policy is the instrument to support them in these efforts. Let us remember that there are a lot of differences within the European Union and, at the same time, financial resources tend to dwindle.

Therefore I believe that the cohesion policy must be reinforced and strengthened. I also believe that it is worthwhile to ensure its optimal implementation. Some procedures and rules are still too complex and, probably for this reason, inefficient. A procedure like an overall review of the cohesion policy could contribute to its general improvement to the benefit of all Europeans.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the important role of the cohesion policy for the least developed regions. The citizens who live there believe in the EU support. We must not let them down.

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the cohesion policy, which is a Community policy par excellence, has a vital role to play in achieving a Europe which offers solidarity, which is close to the people and which is by everyone and for everyone. It is a clear manifestation of the importance of the Union to the everyday lives of every European citizen.

The enlargement to 27 brought about changes in the nature of Europe. The goals now being set are different from those which existed at its genesis. The challenges to which we must now respond, such as globalisation, population falls, desertification of certain regions or climate change, combined with the increased frequency and scale of natural disasters, are much more demanding and require a greater effort on our part.

Innovation is also giving this policy new goals but, despite facing greater challenges and a larger Union, its budget has not increased in proportion. However, it has been adapted, in the name of solidarity, which has led, for example, to regions which were previously in Objective 1 now being regarded as wealthy regions not eligible due to the statistical effect.

It is therefore imperative that the disparities are reduced through access to an adequate budget, without having to abandon certain regions in this vast Union to their fate.

The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon reinforced this need and firmly enshrined in law the territorial cohesion which is the most important aspect of the cohesion policy. It is essential that this policy tackles not only economic and social cohesion, but also solidarity between regions …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the future of cohesion policy, which is of crucial importance to old and new Member States alike.

I work closely with Scottish local government bodies on their concerns, and was delighted that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) recently welcomed the draft EU Treaty as far as local government is concerned. The Treaty recognises the principle of local self-government, as well as that of territorial cohesion.

It was no surprise to me that regional policy was among the five key areas recently raised with me by the COSLA. In the context of reduced EU structural monies and funds, regional development monies must be better targeted – as many speakers have said – at local areas and local authorities, which must be the key deliverers of those funds. The Guellec report reinforces the role of local authorities in delivering Structural Funds – after all, we forget at our peril that all politics are local.

  Maria Petre (PPE-DE). – (RO) Mr. President, Madam Commissioner, the reports we debate and for which I congratulate both rapporteurs raise a few extremely important questions, in my opinion: that of the partnerships between the urban and the rural areas for the balanced and sustainable development of the overall territory, the issue of the chaotic extension of urban settlements that generate fragmentation of the landscape, as well as the continuous loss of land.

All these things, together with climate changes, and depopulation of rural areas, are challenges we are forced to take into consideration, both at a European level and at the level of local administrations managing these policies.

As a Romanian Member of the Parliament, I strongly support the idea that not only the metropolitan areas have potential for innovation and I ask the Commission to work more intensively towards drawing up a development for small and medium-sized towns in rural areas.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Thank you, Mr President. The Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion is more detailed than its predecessors. It is based on many indicators and provides useful comparative data, referring also to countries such as the United States, Japan, China and India.

From its inception, cohesion policy has played an important role in strengthening the ability of all the Member States to promote harmonious development and create new and permanent jobs. It is rather too early to assess the results of cohesion policy in the new Member States of the Union, but there is cause for concern regarding the obvious delays in use of current structural funding in those countries. Convergence between countries often masks deepening differences between regions and within them. Regional and local disparities are arising in many areas, affecting employment and also productivity, income, level of education and potential for innovation.

Social integration and the policy of equal opportunities must be taken into account at every stage of the implementation of projects undertaken in the area of cohesion. I trust that the forthcoming review of the financial framework will result in the budgetary resources needed to rise to the ambitious challenges of the new cohesion policy for the enlarged Union being made available, thus ensuring that all citizens ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Daniel Dăianu (ALDE). – Mr President, I commend both reports, but would at the same time like to draw attention to a contrasting view, linking industrial relocation inside the EU and structural and cohesion fund policy.

Structural Funds can be seen as an overall subsidy provided by the EU to the less developed areas. Should we understand that this regional cohesion policy is questioned by leading politicians in leading EU Member States? What should happen? Should areas in the less developed Member States of the EU stop the development of infrastructure for fear of being accused of unfair competition?

I refer to a Financial Times article published the Monday before last, to the effect that a market economy should not be a jungle. Public policies do have a role to play, and not only for social reasons. However, we should keep our poise because there is no infallible local or national economy in this world, and however much we believe in social justice, not all citizens can always be winners at the same time, in the same place and all the time.

  Antonio De Blasio (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you very much for the floor, Mr President, Madam Commissioner. There can be no doubt about the importance and success of cohesion policy. I feel that this is supported by the report, on which I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.

Its aim is to create real alignment, but it is vital that the sums set aside for this are used effectively. I am convinced that a project waiting to be implemented is not rendered valuable by the very fact of how large a material sum we set aside for it, but that its value lies in how effective it is.

Effectiveness can be measured in two ways: by how it serves alignment and by how well the given sums of money are used for similar things in individual countries. After all, a given project in a Member State cannot receive many more times the amount of another one. I would like to draw your attention to this measurement and, in future, to the fact that effectiveness is the basis for strengthening cohesion policy. Thank you very much.

  Wolfgang Bulfon (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, when does the citizen need Europe's solidarity? When does a Member State need Europe's solidarity? Surely, in the first instance, during a disaster. That is why I find it incomprehensible that a decision adopted by Parliament in 2006 to adapt the Solidarity Fund – as set out in paragraph 45 of the Cohesion Report – has still not been implemented. So I ask everyone – Parliament and the Commission – to bring pressure to bear on the Council to resolve this issue very quickly, for the next disaster will come, that I can guarantee.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) If cohesion policy is to be implemented successfully, there must be local players capable of action who are able to concentrate their efforts and make maximum use of European funds. This is why the Member States should decentralise administration, increase administrative capacities at a regional level and cut down on excessive bureaucracy in cohesion policy management.

Although the process of dividing sectors into clusters and innovation poles, which brings clear benefits to larger sectors and their neighbours, may lead to the discovery of several integration zones, there is an absence of effective, simple and spatial support for smaller sectors. In Slovakia a number of communities that have less than 2 000 inhabitants and are in geographically disadvantaged regions will lose their places in several operational programmes and in cohesion policy.

I appeal to the Member States to provide a non-discriminatory system for all their regions so that everyone can actively participate in the application of cohesion policy.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am the rapporteur for urban mobility. In our deliberations, the issue of the relationship between the urban centres and the municipalities on the periphery plays an especially important role. We are also aware of the fact that the new Member States have particularly serious problems here in organising their infrastructure in such a way that we can maintain more environmentally-friendly transport options and do not move towards private vehicles again. In this context, may I voice a specific request: that within the framework of its regional policy options, the Commission helps us to seek and identify solutions to the issue of transport in the urban periphery and to social cohesion in the new Member States.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity at the end of the debate to thank Members for all their contributions. There are many points to which I cannot respond now, owing to the lack of time, but which I will take with me. These include the concerns expressed with regard to small and medium-sized towns, as well as the issue raised about urban transport development.

There is a clear link between the past and the future in your reports. You are in fact building a bridge, which is why I would like to say a few words on the stage reached in the public consultations on the future of European cohesion policy. We launched those consultations at the end of September 2007, and to date more than 100 well-elaborated statements and opinions have been submitted, not only by national, regional and local governments, but also by a number of European spatial planning associations, as well as economic and social partners, academics, research institutions and private citizens.

At the request of one of the governments, we have extended the consultations until mid-February, because there are still opinions being prepared.

A preliminary assessment of those opinions clearly shows there is overwhelming and impressive support for the policy. The direct impact on growth and development is pointed to, as is the fact that this is a policy that triggers new ways of thinking and also performs a very effective leverage role by attracting additional financial resources.

There is strong interest in the delivery mechanism and broad support for all the principles we have jointly developed with the European Parliament in recent years.

There is also strong support for the need for this policy to respond to the challenges that you have been discussing today, and which are linked not only to globalisation, but also to demography, climate and energy, and restructuring in general, with strong support for the integrated approach.

One of the issues of importance you have raised today is how we will proceed with the Green Paper, which will be adopted by the Commission in September. We will then have a broad period – probably of four months – for discussion in all formats, not only on the web. In the mean time, our services are organising a meeting with the key stakeholders for mid-April. This will help us to take into account further views.

I would be prepared, if there is such a need, to organise a hearing with Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development and with any other institution interested in sharing with us its views on the Green Paper, ahead of its adoption by the Commission.

Another issue raised, which is also a concern for the Commission, was that of statistics and indicators. Through our analytical institution, ESPON, which we have strengthened very substantially, including financially, for the years to come, and which now has a significantly higher budget, we will endeavour to measure some of the new dimensions and some of the existing dimensions of territorial cohesion. That work is ongoing, and we hope to have the results soon.

I can assure you that the Commission will also continue to look into appropriate indicators to complement both the GDP and employment indicators, and will in the Fifth Cohesion Report propose a new composite type of indicator.

Thank you very much for all your comments. I would especially like to thank the rapporteurs for their contributing to the debate – not just in the past, but also in the future.

  Ambroise Guellec, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I will be brief. First of all, in relation to the observations made on the amendments submitted by the Committee on Fisheries, I must say immediately that fishing is an issue dear to my heart as a coastal MEP, but unfortunately we did not manage to add the committee’s amendments to the text that is about to be put to the vote. We regret this, but I feel it does not mean any less attention ought to be paid to a sector so important to certain EU regions.

I would also like to say that cohesion is a major European policy. I also think it was portrayed as a major theme in the House this morning. This is an important point, particularly in relation to future tasks. The Commissioner said earlier that we are dealing with a report, but obviously it is the future that interests us. She realises expectations are running high with regard to territorial cohesion, and what this represents once it is taken up in the Lisbon Treaty. We might say that the ball is now in the Commission’s court with, of course, our assistance and support, Commissioner. The job must be done, and it must be done well, on a joint basis.

I wish to add that the fact that regional policy as a whole will now be a matter for codecision by the Council and Parliament will help us move forward together, to make this clearer for our fellow citizens, also a point I feel was solidly made this morning, and also to implement genuine solidarity to the benefit of regions which need it most. Both these concerns were pointed out most firmly this morning.

A huge task therefore awaits us. We welcome a policy that is essential to the European Union.

  Gisela Kallenbach, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, I would also like to voice my thanks for the valuable contributions and support of many of my fellow Members. I think it has been shown that on the one hand, we must maintain solidarity as a key European asset, and that on the other hand, we must target and deploy our instruments – in this case, cohesion policy – far more efficiently towards genuinely sustainable development, and thirdly, that we must genuinely communicate with citizens from the outset.

I would particularly like to thank Commissioner Hübner. Commissioner, you have made it clear that, together with this House, you are interested in the practical steps: the integrated approach, indicators which produce measurable outcomes, the definition of the territorial dimension, the Green Paper. I think we will particularly need your help in ensuring that the Council is on board. Again, I think it is regrettable that no one from the Council is present at this important debate.

The conclusions drawn in these two reports must lead to an amendment of the Lisbon Strategy and must genuinely underpin the new Community objective, the territorial dimension, in practical terms; otherwise, they will be nothing but empty words.

Let me make one final appeal to my fellow Members before the vote: let us be practical. Let's not only review and analyse again; let's make it a condition that we demand the integrated approach for the provision of funding from the Structural Funds, and let us establish clear commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases as well. Climate protection must be implemented in the cities; otherwise, all our pledges at European and national level have no value at all.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The reports will be put to the vote, which will begin in a few minutes.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) The economic and social cohesion policy is the foundation of European solidarity. This feature of European policy is the envy of regional integration initiatives in other parts of the world. The unique nature of the European project is largely due precisely to the notion of cohesion.

In the case of regional initiatives in Africa and South America there are no funds for even a token cohesion policy. Plans for enlargement of the Union are often assessed in terms of the potential to conduct effective action in order to increase cohesion. It may be stated quite unequivocally that cohesion policy is a great success for the Union and for all its Member States.

There is no doubt that the Union's own citizens assess it in terms of whether, in their view, cohesion policy is being implemented and is attaining its stated aims. In many Member States, especially in those that have acceded to the EU only recently, there are very high hopes of cohesion policy. It is hoped that solidarity will not prove merely a fine term, but will translate into a specific commitment to those who fate has treated less kindly. Cohesion is also an instrument for creating equal opportunities and a splendid advertisement for the Union.

It is for that very reason that we should not consider limiting the financial resources allocated to increasing economic and social cohesion. On the contrary, we should contemplate allocating more financial resources to cohesion, if only because of the many new challenges arising. Thank you.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, cohesion policy is not one of the key policies that have been present in the European Union since it was first established. It was no accident that cohesion policy was devised when relatively less developed countries acceded to the European Union as these countries did not cohere well with the six original Member States. From that time on, cohesion has gained importance, becoming a pillar of European integration and central to treaties and budgets. The allocation of more than EUR 308 billion to cohesion in the framework of the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective is evidence of this.

A tendency to question this fundamental Union policy has arisen of late. Curiously, the tendency has coincided with the expansion of the European Union to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The latter have the most ground to make up, for historical reasons. That is why it is not proposed to do away with cohesion policy outright, but to radically refocus it, due to alleged waste of Structural Funds and abuses in the area. That is the greatest mistake we could make! Irregularities must be detected and eliminated, but it is precisely regional policy that makes the Union's presence felt in all 27 Member States. Cohesion means creating equal opportunities and a sense of fellowship and must not be subsumed into other policies. The latter, competitiveness and combating global warming for example, ought to have their own budget lines. Assessment of what should be financed within the framework of cohesion should remain within the competence of countries and regions. They have a far better understanding of their own needs than the Brussels authorities.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The Commission’s Report refers to the depopulation of rural areas, against the background of the absence of workplaces except for agriculture or due to poor living conditions.

The Rural Development Fund contributes, together with the other funds, to the economic and social cohesion. The efficient use of the rural development funds represents a timely solution to these problems.

Nevertheless, the condition for the efficient use of these funds is better knowledge of the potential beneficiaries of the financing opportunities offered.

The access to information is even more important in the new Member States, which are not yet familiar with using the Community financing instruments.

I would like to offer an example from Romania, the country I represent: according to a study, half of the rural environment inhabitants know nothing about the existence of the funds designed for them and only one citizen in ten knows which institution he/she should address in order to access the funds. It is regrettable that the Government of Romania has not made enough efforts to inform the citizens and, at the same time, it is obvious that nobody can replace the Romanian Government’s work.

Nevertheless, I consider that ensuring adequate access to information and preparing the future beneficiaries should represent an important subject on the Commission’s agenda, as a premise for the efficient use of the instruments designed for cohesion.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) The EU's enlargement on 1 May 2004 has increased the economic and social disparities within the EU. In January this year, a new programming period for cohesion policy began. This will focus on new priorities and objectives: environmental protection, competitiveness, and the creation of more and better jobs.

The EU's cohesion policy is intended, through its four separate programmes, to help make Europe and its regions more competitive, for example through innovation, the development of the knowledge society, and strengthening economic competitiveness. It is also intended to increase the attractiveness of the regions for investors and residents through sustainable regional development. Better and above all more jobs are to be created, and the regions developed further in order to promote opportunities and reduce disparities. With its further enlargement, EU funding now has to be divided among 27 Member States. The money must therefore be used better, more efficiently and transparently.

As regards the financial framework, the European Council has made EUR 307.6 billion available for the period 2007-2013. This is a great deal of money. It is important that regions with development problems in the wealthy Member States such as Austria also have a fair share of the funds. Mountain regions in particular require further support.

  László Surján (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) Whilst reviewing the last three years of the alignment policy, and seeing the good things, but also the mistakes that need to be corrected, the European Parliament is not only looking back but also looking forward.

In order to speed up the development of the underdeveloped regions, we must change two things. We must pay much more attention to the effectiveness of the programmes, including increasing the amount of value created on the scene. (There is a need for further theoretical work in connection with this, so that the results can be assessed more accurately.) However, we cannot keep quiet about the fact that we must guarantee more resources than at present for programmes that use aid effectively and that are free of corruption and political influence in the period after 2013.

Aligning the underdeveloped regions more quickly is in the interests not only of those who live there but also of citizens living in more developed areas that guarantee the necessary resources. I therefore ask my fellow members to follow the advice of the rapporteur in this respect too, and not to amend the text laid before them.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 pending the vote and resumed at 12.05)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

4. Voting time

  President. − The next item is voting time.

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

4.1. (A6-0462/2007, Monica Frassoni) Monitoring the application of Community law (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendment 2

  Monica Frassoni, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, I wonder whether it might be advisable in this case, given that the amendments have been agreed between various groups, to take a block vote on these amendments, unless there is any opposition from the House.

(Parliament gave its assent.)

4.2. (A6-0491/2007, André Brie) Accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products (vote)

4.3. (A6-0490/2007, Christel Schaldemose) Common framework for the marketing of products (vote)

4.4. (A6-0489/2007, Alexander Stubb) Application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State (vote)

4.5. Situation in Gaza (vote)

– Before the vote

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). (ES) – Mr President, following consultation with the political groups signing the joint resolution, we wish to request a change in the structure of paragraph 3.

This is not an oral amendment, for we do not wish to add or remove any words. We merely wish to maintain the text as it is, dividing it up into three separate paragraphs.

To remove any doubt, Mr President, it would read as follows:

‘3. Reiterates its call for an immediate end to all acts of violence;’

‘4. Calls on Israel to cease military actions killing and endangering civilians, and extrajudicial targeted killings;’

‘5. Calls on Hamas, following the illegal takeover of the Gaza Strip, to prevent the firing of rockets by Palestinian militias from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory;’.

Thus there is no change in the wording, Mr President. We are not asking for any words to be added or removed: only that this paragraph be divided into those three sections.

(Parliament approved the proposal)

4.6. Seventh Human Rights Council of the United Nations (vote)

4.7. (A6-0024/2008, Françoise Castex) The demographic future of Europe (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendment 21

  Françoise Castex, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I would like Amendment 21 to be moved to after paragraph 40.

(The request was granted.)

– Before the vote on Amendment 62

  Françoise Castex, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, this was for a linguistic oral correction to Amendment 62 to remind the House that the reference is in French and that the term ‘income’ in the English version has been retained. Moreover, the French version will constitute the reference for all amendments.

– Before the vote on Amendment 30

  Françoise Castex, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I have an oral amendment. I wish to remove the word ‘fragmentation’ in the first sentence, and then in the second sentence replace the word ‘assurer’ (ensure) with ‘renforcer’ (reinforce).

Likewise, in the English version I wish to point out for Mr Bushill-Matthews, that ‘précarité’ translates as ‘non secure’.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

– Before the vote on Amendment 55

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I think there is a typo on the PPE-DE Group voting list on this. Could I beg your indulgence perhaps to draw it to the attention of our rapporteur? I suspect, on this, he means a plus and not a minus. I am referring to the roll-call vote on amendment 55.

– At the end of the vote on the Castex report

  Dirk Sterckx (ALDE). – (NL) Madam President, I find it strange for the House to be voting on a report that still has amendments under consideration on some of its pages. I thought we were not going to do this any more in plenary, but leave the work to the Commission, in order to limit the number of amendments that are brought to plenary.

  President. − Yes, you are quite right to make that point, Mr Sterckx.

4.8. Scientific cooperation with Africa (vote)

4.9. (A6-0023/2008, Ambroise Guellec) 4th report on economic and social cohesion (vote)

4.10. (A6-0028/2008, Gisela Kallenbach) Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter (vote)

5. Explanations of vote

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: André Brie (A6-0491/2007)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, in the debate on the CE marking yesterday I drew the attention of the Commission yet again to the fact that registration of the CE marking has still not been initiated, although it has been enshrined in European legislation for 16 years now and I asked for it in parliamentary interpellation three months ago.

I welcome the promise the Commissioner for Enterprise made again yesterday as regards speeding the matter up, but I am not sure if he is aware of the importance of having the marking registered in foreign markets. Until this happens, it will be impossible to sue for damages in cases of manufacturers and importers who misuse the European conformity mark symbolising the safety of the product to gain unfair advantage and deceive customers both in Europe and abroad. It would surely help to free the market of unfair competition.

− Situation in Gaza (RC-B6-0066/2008)

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – (HU) Thank you very much. It was a shocking experience to enter the Gaza Strip and come face to face with the everyday consequences of the occupation and blockade. 80% of the population is unemployed, the Israelis cut off the electricity and water supplies from time to time, many people only get to eat once a day, and the vast majority of the population have not been able to leave an area smaller than Budapest for years. As an Israeli professor said, Gaza is a prison, and its residents are prisoners from whom it is difficult to expect rational behaviour.

At the same time, it is also embittering that some Palestinian groups are using rockets from the Gaza territories to threaten the lives of innocent Israeli civilians. The crisis goes too far back for it to be solved in the traditional way. By now, both sides have become the prisoners of their own extremists and are unable to make real concessions because of them.

The international community, and above all the European Union, must force Israel and the Palestinians to reach an amicable settlement. I have voted for the recommendation, in the hope that the Member States will take more resolute steps.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I also feel very deeply for the people of the Gaza Strip, who have become hostages in the hands of Hamas. However, I could not support today’s European Parliament resolution because the article calling for negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas has not been removed from it. We all know there is no negotiation possible with the terrorists who have occupied Gaza. Such an appeal is an act of hypocrisy, which aims to put Hamas in the role of a partner to the Palestinian Authority. I do not wish to be part to legitimising this terrorist organisation.

I am afraid that the situation will soon demand intervention, which should, however, be authorised by the United Nations. And this is where Europe should play a very active part.

- Seventh Human Rights Council of the United Nations (RC-B6-0092/2008)

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Madam President, in contrast to what is claimed by this Parliament, the UN Council of Human Rights does not in fact play such an important role in the promotion of human rights in the world. How could it possibly be any different? Only 25 of its 47 members are free democracies, nine of them are not free and three, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, are among the greatest human rights offenders in the world. These countries trample the UN Declaration of Human Rights underfoot and defend themselves and other regimes against any criticism. In some cases the Council has simply undermined the overseeing of human rights. The Council has still not pronounced the slightest condemnation of the world’s current largest human rights crisis, Darfur. Rather than shouting for joy about such a creature, this Parliament would do better to include such matters in its resolution.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Madam President, I want not only to agree with what my colleague Mr Dillen has just said, but also to point out that the resolution insults the religions that have been adopted by the Council. This resolution literally states, and I quote, that people ‘with responsibility must speak out, and that the freedom to express one’s opinion may be limited in matters relating to public health and morality’. This resolution concerns, of course, the prohibition of all criticism of Islam. The UN Council of Human Rights is hereby rightly going against its own official objectives, the protection of the right to free expression of opinion and thus also the protection of human rights itself.

− Report: Françoise Castex (A6-0024/2008)

  Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to take the floor to argue on behalf of the entire Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats, as well as on my own behalf, for a favourable vote on the final version of this report. The report tackles the hard fact that there are many more elderly than young people, because both medical care and lifestyles enable all of us to live longer on average – not all of us, unfortunately, but on average. Therefore there are many more elderly people, also because the birth rate has declined, which is why in the document we call for measures to stimulate the birth rate.

I would point out that the European People’s Party, along with the UEN and other groups, requested the deletion of paragraph 24. We voted in favour of deletion but regrettably the majority in this House was not in favour. I believe my speaking time is now at an end.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Madam President, the merit of the Castex report is undoubtedly that it indicates the enormous demographic challenges with which Europe is faced. Admittedly, a lot of good questions, trains of thought and solutions are enumerated. More and better relief for children must indeed be urgently provided, older workers must indeed also be provided with continuing opportunities within the employment markets, and health services must indeed urgently prepare themselves to face the challenge of the accelerated aging demographic.

On the other hand, this Parliament is straying off course in considering immigration as an instrument with which to secure the demographic and economic future of Europe. Just recently, one of the British Prime Minister’s most important advisers, Lord Turner, described the axiom that immigrants are necessary to make up for the shortage of workers as, and I quote, ‘economically illiterate and completely incorrect’. Europe already has a million unemployed immigrants, coupled with all the problems which go along with that. As more immigrants enter, these existing problems can only get worse.

− Report: Ambroise Guellec (A6-0023/2008)

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Madam President, when voting on the Guellec report on cohesion policy, I could not support compromise amendment 4, which calls for ‘increased financial resources for cohesion policy’ in the future.

Automatically increasing EU subsidies is not, perhaps, the most responsible approach when we have the practical problem of making a meaningful and efficient use of them. Instead, I am in favour of using the term ‘sufficient financial resources’.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Monica Frassoni (A6-0462/2007)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) In a European Union flooded with a wide variety of directives on detailed issues that would be better tackled at Member State level, given their specific nature and level of development, it cannot fail to be interesting to see how the European Commission will act in terms of monitoring the application of Community law.

One of the conclusions that can be drawn is that each Directorate-General has its own very different way of working, but it is not clear whether the Member States also work in different ways, although experience tells us that the small and medium-sized countries generally act more rigorously than the European powers. This is what has happened with the Stability Pact.

This latest report introduces a new element which the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament applauds. In the Annual Report and its related annexes, the European Commission has included, for the first time, particulars of the specific and detailed treatment of infringements relating to petitions.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Mrs Frassoni has prepared a good report. I support the proposal to simplify the application of Community law and the introduction of package meetings for that purpose. I am also in favour of workshops devoted to transposition of Community legal acts.

In addition, I endorse the idea of improving the efficiency of application of Community law through closer cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments. These actions will help to improve the effectiveness of European Union policies regarding for example European Fund actions and harmonisation of standards for products on the Community market.

  Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) As regards the report relating to the Commission’s Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, I am of the opinion that one of its major themes is the Commission’s intention of improving working methods in cases of reported breaches of Community law in the Member States. Under the framework of the proposed new working method, citizens’ queries and complaints should be handed back directly to the Member States in question. As the rapporteur, Mrs Frassoni, rightly pointed out, this new working method of the Commission, in other words the handing back of the complaint, carries an inherent risk of the Commission renouncing its fundamental responsibility for the application of Community law.

In this connection I would also like to point out another fact, which has already been subject to criticism in the European Parliament: it is the lobby groups, which always manage to access the Commission’s notifications directed at Member States in cases of suspected breaches of Community law, while citizens do not. Yet it is precisely the citizens, whose submissions provide an irreplaceable source of information and alert us to breaches or non-application of Community law, not some interest groups with their own agenda.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. (PL) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Frassoni on monitoring the application of Community law (2005).

Mrs Frassoni has presented a very good report. In particular, the individual issues contained in the motion for a resolution call for cohesion in the area of joint action by EU institutions, national parliaments and the citizens themselves. The main points concern the ideas for better monitoring and the proposals for simplifying implementation of the provisions of Community law and improving its effectiveness. Their implementation is essential to improving the effectiveness of European Union policy on, for instance, European Fund actions and harmonisation of standards for products goods on the Community market.

Furthermore, the appeal to national parliaments contained in the motion for a resolution is very important. National parliaments are urged to go beyond a purely formal transposition of Community legislation and avoid fragmentation when incorporating it into national legislation.

- Report: André Brie (A6-0491/2007)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome André Brie’s proposal for regulation on the accreditation and market surveillance of products in the European Community. The proposal will improve the amount of protection given to consumers and will improve product safety. To ensure greater protection it is necessary that accreditation and market surveillance be carried out by a public body. The report attends to these points and I voted in favour of its recommendations.

- Report: Christel Schaldemose (A6-0490/2007)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when the European market seems totally incapable of defending itself against dumping from outside of Europe, I note with great satisfaction the first ‘institutional’ step towards new legislation and harmonisation of the EU market.

The European Parliament in Strasbourg has proposed a new way of regulating products placed on the Community market. These products will have to comply with the rules in force and, following a careful appraisal, will be able to bear the CE mark.

Over and above the introduction of joint liability on the part of importers and foreign manufacturers for damage caused by non-compliant products, the report proposes the development of a complex system of monitoring which lays down penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the offence so as to constitute an effective deterrent against improper use.

Consumers and businesses can therefore look to the future with renewed optimism. The removal of barriers, the cornerstone of EU free-trade policy since the very outset, and the creation of a business-friendly economic climate will reflect a high level of protection both for consumers, through the observance of high standards on health and product safety, and for businesses, which will benefit at last from a rigorous system of checks and balances to protect goods made in Europe.

For this reason I am voting in favour of the report.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This European Parliament report introduces certain elements which may be positive, although somewhat contradictory. For example, all those involved in placing a product on the market would bear the same responsibility, from the manufacturer to the distributor and importer, but it is not properly indicated how this would work.

The report also allows national markings to be maintained which, under the European Commission’s proposal, would disappear, with only the CE marking being recognised. The compromise replaces the reference to ‘national markings’ with ‘other markings’.

The report also maintains that this is a non-binding framework, but that anyone adopting it will have to abide by it. In addition, it inserts a reference to SMEs requiring their specific needs to be taken into account.

However, the objective of the European Commission’s proposal, which the report does not question, is to facilitate the functioning of the single market by removing the remaining obstacles, but without this applying to certain sectors of activity, in particular foodstuffs, animal feed, health and wellbeing of animals, tobacco products, veterinary medicinal products, medicinal products for human use, human blood and human tissues and cells, for which harmonised legislation already exists.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Mrs Schaldemose rightly points out that the decision in question, aimed at creating a broader and more rigorous system of Community control of the marketing of products, may have a significant impact on the conduct of international trade. This calls for a separate analysis.

I agree that the proposal for importers to be jointly liable for the harm caused by unsafe products and products failing to comply with the accreditation system aims to improve the effectiveness of the system and protect the Community's public interest. It also aims to guarantee the citizens' fundamental right to protection against unfair and unsafe practices.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Mrs Schaldemose’s report calling for a common framework for the marketing of products is one that I welcome and have voted in favour of. The recommendations made in the report will bolster the EU’s efforts to protect consumers. The CE mark tends to be misunderstood as a safety mark, when in fact it is simply a statement of the product’s conformity with EU legislation. It is essential that we make sure that the mark is not abused and inform consumers of what the CE mark guarantees.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SK) As rapporteur on behalf of the PPE-DE Group for the draft report by Mrs Schaldemose on the common framework for the marketing of products, I would like to express my satisfaction with the results of the vote: the compromise achieved has already made it possible to finalise the legislative process at first reading.

The agreed compromise includes the transfer of some of the articles dealing with the CE mark to the report by Mr Brie on market surveillance, so that they can be put into practice more quickly. Our decision to do so was based on clear information proving that products made in developing countries and wrongfully CE marked, that is bearing the CE logo that indicates that a product is in conformity with European legislation, keep turning up more and more often in the European database of dangerous consumer products (RAPEX).

Trusting or not trusting the CE mark cannot be based on the CE mark alone, out of context. There must be trust in the entire system of accreditation, notification and market surveillance.

I see no reason for introducing additional marking on products, not even if these were quality marks. Such new marking could be confusing for the end consumer and furthermore the extra cost could be reflected in the price of the goods. This is why I will curiously await the results of the impact study assessing the usage of national markings alongside the CE marking that the Commission should prepare, as requested by the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

- Report: Alexander Stubb (A6-0489/2007)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission’s argument for proposing this Regulation is that ‘the “principle of mutual recognition” … is hampered by several problems’ (in other words, products marketed in one Member State may be prevented from being marketed in another). It believes that the possibility of national technical rules creating unlawful obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States should be minimised. It therefore lays down requirements which authorities must meet when implementing a national technical rule and imposes on them the burden of proof. In other words, it is imposing conditions with the clear aim of restricting the possibility of each State applying its own rules.

For its part, the European Parliament report actually adds further obstacles to the action that each State may take, for example: ‘The aim of this Regulation is to strengthen the functioning of the internal market, with free and undistorted competition, by improving the free movement of products whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection and product safety’.

In practice, the Member States will be prohibited from restricting the sale in their territory of products where these are manufactured and marketed in another Member State, even though they may not fully comply with the rules of the Member State of destination.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I agree with the recommendations contained within Mr Stubb’s report. The document aims to clarify and define the role of national authorities and economic operators in the implementation of the mutual recognition principle. While I am in favour of increasing the efficiency with which the mutual recognition principle is implemented, it must not affect the single market’s base of further harmonisation. Furthermore, safety aspects must form part of the principle’s implementation. I am confident that the report sufficiently deals with these issues and therefore voted in favour of it.

- Reports: Alexander Stubb (A6-0489/2007), Christel Schaldemose (A6-0490/2007) and André Brie (A6-0491/2007)

  Jens Holm, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − We do not agree with the mutual recognition principle as a guarantor for advanced consumer, social or environmental rights. The principle says that if the product is accepted somewhere in Europe, it cannot be denied access to another Member State unless the authorities can provide evidence that the application of a national technical rule is justified. However, the criteria for exceptions to the principle are already established by EU court rulings. And these apply to all Member States, regardless of whether or not we adopt the goods package.

In addition to that, consumer rights at EU level are strengthened with the goods package. Furthermore, we are against any measures taken in the goods package that may give political support to a future harmonisation of criminal law at EU level. Having taking all this into consideration, we have decided to vote in favour of the reports.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am in favour of the Internal Market for Goods Package, because it is essential to have a common framework for the marketing of products abroad. In an internal market which is based on the principles of technical harmonisation of rules governing the sale of products in the European market and the mutual recognition principle, we cannot have a situation in which the marketing of products which can already be put on sale in one Member State is substantially delayed or, in a worst-case scenario, actually obstructed due to excessive bureaucracy in another.

I therefore welcome the reports by our fellow Members, Mrs Schaldemose and Mr Brie, who advocate a reduction in red tape and a common legal framework for future sectoral provisions so that in future, as much coherence as is politically and technically feasible is guaranteed. Finally, however, I would point out that both proposals require further refinement so that key definitions and especially the scope of the legal framework are properly clarified. If these proposals themselves lack clear terminology, achieving the desired harmonisation will be impossible.

  Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) The package on the marketing of products in Europe, to be voted on today, undoubtedly brings improvements for consumers. The problems with imported children's toys last year demonstrated that there is a clear need for action here and that it must be possible to hold importers liable to a greater extent for product safety.

What is important is what Parliament has achieved, namely that the New Approach will be implemented to a lesser extent and its application must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot be satisfied with the treatment of the CE mark to date. It is certainly not a quality mark denoting a product produced in Europe, which is what it implies to many consumers in its current form, and it is therefore very misleading.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted with conviction for the three-party agreement regarding this legislation package to make the common market truly free. I am also convinced that we can round off this matter in one reading, and even within a year of launching the proposals. This legislation is so necessary that I have honestly wondered to myself why consumers and SMEs have had to wait so long.

The principle of mutual recognition was formulated by the Court of Justice almost 30 years ago and is now enshrined in legislation. Nevertheless, the Member States do not apply it systematically. I am convinced that the reversal of the burden of proof which we are now carrying out is the best way to respect this principle and to allow the internal market for non-harmonised products to work.

Furthermore, we are genuinely ensuring much better consumer protection with much better market supervision. Nothing less would be acceptable in a Europe which boasts of its high standards.

Finally, we are taking care to get rid of a number of bad, protectionist tendencies. The new accreditation scheme for organisations whose products are certified as conforming to harmonised standards will entail administrative costs but will lead to a better result, a working internal market and more equal conditions of competition.

The costs that we will save with this package will ultimately produce more jobs and economic growth. Better consumer protection is one very good reason to approve this package with enthusiasm.

- Situation in Gaza (RC-B6-0066/2008)

  Ford (PSE), in writing. − I will be voting in favour of this resolution. The humanitarian and political crisis in the Gaza Strip must be viewed with deep concern. We must ask Hamas to stop attacks against Israel from the territory it controls, and Israel to cease military actions killing civilians and extrajudicial targeted killings.

The policy of isolation of the Gaza Strip has totally failed at a political and human level. The blockade must end, with the re-opening of crossings in and out of Gaza.

I welcome the EU’s financial contributions to the Palestinians over the previous years which – with the appropriate controls and monitoring – should continue.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Unfortunately, once again the EU is using a humanitarian disaster to advance its position in the field of foreign policy.

The June List expresses its sympathy with the civilian population affected by the conflict, but it is only through the UN that this conflict can be resolved, with broad international support, and not through the EU.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) While it is true that we share many of the concerns expressed in the resolution, it is also true that these fall well short of the necessary denunciation and condemnation of Israel’s colonialist policy with regard to Palestine and its people.

Among other aspects:

- Once again, the resolution places the aggressor and aggressed, occupier and occupied on the same level, thereby ignoring the terrorism of the Israeli State;

- The resolution does not condemn the criminal embargo imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip and its population nor does it denounce the connivance or silence of the United States of America or the European Union in this respect;

- The resolution says nothing about the deplorable statements made by Commissioner Frattini who is responsible for justice and home affairs and who stated that the EU would be prepared to ‘take on board Israeli concerns and interests in a way that was not on our agenda in the first years of intifada’. It is at the very least abominable that someone who talks so much about terrorism not only ignores Israel’s terrorism but is prepared to cooperate with it.

For our part, we continue to condemn Israel’s policy of apartheid against Palestine and to defend full compliance with the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, enshrined in numerous UN resolutions.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on Gaza and am pleased that Parliament has taken such a strong stance on lifting the blockade. This is a humanitarian disaster in the making. There are insufficient drugs available in hospitals to provide basic care; food assistance to part of the population only fulfils about two-thirds of daily requirements; the fishing industry (which employed about 10 000 people) is under severe stress, as boats are only allowed to operate close to the coast.

There is an ecological disaster under way, threatening the coastlines of the region, as the Beit Lahia plant sewage plant is not operating properly and repairs cannot be carried out, as supplies are blocked. Businesses cannot survive and the unemployed have to find work with the smugglers and extremists. The rocket attacks continue and the few involved in this threaten the peace and the future of the many – both Israeli and Palestinian.

Hamas must stop the perpetrators. Only the extremists on all sides are benefiting, as I heard time and again on my recent visit to Gaza. The EU must do everything possible to break the blockade, and Israel must recognise that it is not giving them long-term security.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Let's be absolutely clear from the outset: the embargo by Israel is clearly a violation of international law and is completely unacceptable.

As a result of the embargo and the denial of access to drinking water and food, Israel is artificially creating a situation for the people in the Gaza Strip which is without parallel in terms of its inhumanity and lack of concern for human dignity. It is thanks to the Egyptian Government and the cool head of the border police that a major disaster has so far been averted and people who are themselves not participants in the conflict have been given access to basic goods for their essential needs. What is irresponsible, on the other hand, is shifting the responsibility onto Egypt, which is completely blameless in terms of the escalation of the current situation.

It is unacceptable, in the 21st century, for a civilian population to be treated as the scapegoat for terrorist acts by Hamas. The infrastructure must therefore be restored immediately and supplies to the local population guaranteed.

The Palestinian side, for its part, should do its utmost to de-escalate the situation in order to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement by the end of 2008. In the present situation, however, prospects of achieving this noble aspiration would appear to be remote.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. − While every effort must be made to find a solution to the situation in Gaza, this resolution at best will contribute nothing and at worst will have a negative impact. If Parliament wants to be an honest broker for peace in the Middle East it should stop producing unbalanced resolutions. It is difficult for any member not to vote for a resolution addressing humanitarian concerns but by linking those concerns to an unfair portrayal of Israel its value falls. A parliamentary resolution should not call for Hamas to release a captive as a mere “act of goodwill”. Hamas is not a benevolent medieval king; it is a terrorist organisation largely responsible for the situation in Gaza.

In demanding that Israel fulfils its obligations, this House should note that Israeli workers continue to risk their own lives to supply electricity to Gaza despite the manipulation of that electricity supply by Hamas. In addressing the needs of those who are suffering, we must include the people of southern Israel on whom some days an average of a rocket an hour has been fired and where 75% of children are reported to be suffering from anxiety and post-traumatic stress.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Israeli authorities are perpetrating ever more criminal acts against the Palestinians. They have been cracking down on the movement of people, goods and food for many months and barring access to drinking water, electricity and other basic utilities, while the Israeli army continues to attack and murder civilians.

The sympathy expressed in the resolution as regards the disasters endured by the Palestinian population is a sham because the EU and the United States are part of the problem. Imperialist interests back Israel in its criminal policies. The imperialists want to retain control of a region that is important for its position and for geostrategic activity; they wish to keep their right to intervene, even militarily.

The Quartet’s plans have demonstrated the failure of yet another imperialist attempt, and the Annapolis agreements will have the same result. The proposal for their revival is an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people; it essentially equates victims with persecutors.

The imperialists cannot provide a solution to the Palestinian problem. It must emerge from the struggles of the peoples of Palestine and Israel themselves, and from international solidarity with their struggle for peaceful coexistence via the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) If, despite a certain amount of reluctance due to a totally unbalanced text, I eventually voted for it, this was because an oral amendment tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party restored the truth to a certain extent as to the current situation in Gaza.

Whoever is responsible, it is totally unacceptable, utterly and totally unacceptable, that initially paragraph 3 of the text set Israel and Hamas on an equal footing.

Does Israel’s concern with protecting its people from acts of violence perpetrated on a daily basis by Hamas and Palestinian militias have anything to do with the indiscriminate attacks, most recently in Dimona, or the streams of Qassam rockets raining down on Sderot every day, targeting chiefly schools, and therefore children, the lifeblood of Israeli society?

Of course we may have different views on the conflict, but the honest MEPs in this House will refuse to make Israel, a democratic country and government, and Hamas, a terrorist movement listed as such by the EU (this is true, just like the repeated refusal to meet the conditions of the Quartet, which this resolution moreover oddly conceals), equal partners in the midst of terrible violence.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − The tone, and much of the content, of the Gaza Resolution, is skewed in an anti-Israeli fashion. It is certainly the case that the Palestinians in Gaza live in a perpetual state of privation, and this is inhumane. But the blame for this rests only partly with Israel, and primarily with Palestinian terrorists and extremists such as Hamas, and the failure of Arab states to assist the rehabilitation of the population, and regeneration of the area. Gaza has been allowed to remain a running sore. I regret that there was no call for those currently in authority in Gaza to take the necessary steps for a peaceful accommodation with Israel. I welcome the call for the release of Corporal Shalit. I therefore abstained in the vote.

- Seventh Human Rights Council of the United Nations (RC-B6-0092/2008)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) The June List supports the UN Human Rights Council and the important work carried out by that body.

However, we oppose the provision laid down in paragraph 34 which states that each EU member must express the EU position on these matters. Each EU Member State is an autonomous member of the UN and therefore has the right to express its own opinion. We have therefore chosen to vote against the resolution.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Not forgetting its previous positions on the definition of this UN body’s operation, in which the attempts to guarantee its monitoring and organisation were obvious – we recall the EU’s criticisms and pressure in relation to, for example, the way in which certain countries were elected to this body (regretting the ‘clean slate’ principle and defending the introduction of eligibility criteria), the ‘Special Procedure’ mechanism, the reinforcement of country mandates and the possibility of creating new mandates by simple majority, or even the terms of the ‘Universal Periodic Review’ – the European Parliament has adopted a resolution which, although heading along the same lines, is more moderate in the explanation of its true objectives.

Among other aspects, we would highlight its unacceptable pressure for each Member State to make its proposals in this UN body dependent on the positions which may be adopted by the EU, thereby subordinating their sovereignty on foreign policy. We would also highlight the political opinion withdrawn from the countries mentioned – and also from some not mentioned – showing once again the application of ‘double standards’, in other words the orchestration of human rights according to the EU’s interests.

- Report: Françoise Castex (A6-0024/2008)

  Jan Andersson, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have voted in favour of the report on the demographic future of Europe. However, we believe that the report is too far-reaching and addresses aspects that go beyond matters relevant to demographic change. We also oppose various proposals for tax breaks for companies that organise crèches and for people being able to work at home.

However, we have chosen to vote in favour of the report as it also addresses important aspects of the challenge Europe is facing.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We regret that not all the amendments we tabled have been adopted. These were intended to improve the report, question certain grounds and include measures which we feel are essential in order to defend the rights of women, families and children. For example, we know how low wages and precarious employment worsen social instability and, as a result, drastically reduce the stable prospects of those opting to have children.

That is why improving job stability, increasing wages, extending social security and occupational health and safety, reducing overall working time without any loss of wages and ensuring a fairer distribution of income and full employment constitute fundamental issues for the management of demographic change.

It is also important to create new and better educational and social infrastructures, for both young people and the elderly, including more lifelong learning, child-care, nursing care and elderly care structures. This requires more and better public services, with a guarantee of equal access for all.

By not fully promoting these aspects, this report does not effectively respond to these problems, despite containing positive proposals which we applaud but which are not sufficient to allow us to vote in favour of the report.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Large parts of Europe are facing demographic challenges. However, these should be resolved by national measures, not by catch-all EU proposals which perhaps suit certain countries, but may be unsuitable in other Member States. Many EU countries, including Sweden, have also largely coped with the low birth rate and the demographic problems, partly through a well-developed welfare policy and through immigration. The Member States that so wish may do well to study Sweden and other Scandinavian countries and copy the measures that they have taken.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. (PL) I fully support the report on the demographic future of Europe. It is a fact that the constant fall in natural growth in recent years, accompanied by an increase in average life expectancy, is likely to lead to significant changes in the population structure of the European Union by 2050. The changes will include general ageing of the population and a reduction in the number of persons working. This will result in a significant increase in the burden on Member States' budgets. The process will be a painful one not only for the individual Member States but also for the Union as a whole. The latter may be faced with losing its competitive edge and with a fall in economic growth compared to the situation in other parts of the world characterised by swift demographic growth.

It is clear too that this demographic imbalance will have negative consequences for the financing of social care and the sustainability of pension schemes. I therefore support the remedial measures proposed in the report aimed at demographic renewal, lengthening the period of professional activity, guaranteeing high-quality social care and promoting solidarity between the generations. These actions are vital to maintaining the competitiveness of the Union's economy whilst simultaneously guaranteeing the functioning of the European social model in the long term.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) Europeans are a disappearing species. With an average birth rate of less than 1.5, by the year 2050 EU-27 will have lost some 20 million people and those over 65 years old will account for 30% of the population.

The measures proposed by Mrs Castex to rectify the European birth rate are laughable because, like all Europeanists in power, our fellow Member does not want to renew the European population, but to replace it with immigrants from Africa and Asia. That is why she uses 15 articles in her report to call for facilities to reunite families, civil rights for immigrants, and increased efforts to integrate them ...

This policy, advocated in France by Mr Attali and implemented by Mr Sarkozy, will bring a further 80 million immigrants to Europe by the year 2050, and will eventually lead to the disappearance of our peoples.

To guarantee the survival of the European peoples, migratory flows must actually be reversed and a large-scale birth promotions policy implemented based on the family and the embracing of life. This means that our nations must seek their sovereignty and identity within a new Europe, the Europe of nations.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am in favour of a cohesion policy for the European Union's demographic development, as the structural shift in European society's age pyramid points to a worrying future. I draw attention to the fact that all Europe's industrialised countries face the same major social policy problems which constitute a serious risk to the European social welfare model that is essential for our current prosperity.

In this context, I would particularly like to stress the rise in the European average old-age dependency ratio to 53% in 2050, which is due to the current abnormally low average birth rate in the EU of 1.5, and which not only leads to intergenerational conflicts and can thus be regarded as an obstacle to social cohesion, but could also weaken Europe’s competitiveness in the world economy. The demographic change which is taking place thus requires a general adaptation of the individual social systems and rapid and efficient implementation.

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Castex report on the demographic future of Europe is appallingly trite, featuring all the clichés one might expect to find in surveys on the subject. Mrs Castex forgets, among other aspects, to mention contraceptive methods which have been largely responsible for reducing the birth rate in Europe, where it stands at only 1.5 per woman, a far cry from renewal of the future generations.

A population-friendly environment depends on the possibility of women being willing to bring up their children over a relatively long period of time. This is a priority investment for society, and would substantially reduce school dropout rates and juvenile delinquency.

As for immigration to offset empty cradles, this is a dangerous idea which would not only destabilise our western societies, but could be a genuine time bomb with all the consequences we can well imagine. Justifying immigration by a lack of manpower, qualified or unqualified, when Europe has over twenty million unemployed, is penalising European workers, who will certainly appreciate the proposals of the Commission or the European Parliament.

For these reasons we intend to vote against the Castex report.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Mrs Castex rightly points out that in view of the fact that the European average old-age dependency ratio (the number of persons aged 65 or over divided by the number aged between 14 and 65) will rise from 25% in 2004 to 53% in 2050, the European Union risks losing its competitive edge and suffering a fall in economic growth.

I agree with the proposals to develop five main directions for action aimed at demographic renewal, namely high quality active life, a more efficient Europe, better integration of immigrants, guaranteeing social care and solidarity between the generations.

  Marcin Libicki, Wojciech Roszkowski and Konrad Szymański (UEN), in writing. − We voted against this report because the solutions it proposes as regards the demographic crisis are counter-productive.

In contrast to what the report says, only traditional families and social respect for motherhood provide the remedy we need.

The social experiments proposed in the report (so-called ‘alternative family structures’) bring nothing but risks for our societies.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Rarely have I taken such pleasure in voting on a resolution, since it clearly shows that women and elderly people have a major role to play in the challenge of our demographic future.

Women are expected to be willing to bring more children into the world while carrying out a professional activity over a longer period of time. In that case, a facility must be created to motivate them.

Women cannot be expected to feel they are in the wrong, or to expose themselves to poverty, every time they bring a child into the world.

The more they procreate, the more they are discriminated against in terms of welfare cover, especially if they are full-time family carers, the less they earn, and the shorter their retirement will be.

The most wonderful resolutions, therefore, will serve no purpose if there is no political courage to implement them. This, unfortunately, was the case with the 1995 resolution on the distribution of pension entitlements in the event of divorce and the resolution on the situation of spouses helping with SMEs, aimed at rectifying the many discriminations still suffered by women, and the terrible plight of far too many men in relation to paternity leave.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Françoise Castex’s recommendations regarding Europe’s demographic future. The overall message of encouraging economic competitiveness while preserving the European social model is one that I feel is both logical and just. I agree with the report’s focus on the role of areas such as education, childcare and financial mechanisms in securing this goal. There also exists a necessity for the promotion of professional equality between men and women along with a well and calmly thought-out immigration policy that incorporates the goal of successful integration. The report deals with these issues and I voted in favour of its recommendations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Mass immigration and ageing are putting the stock of indigenous population at risk. The first is heralded as a miracle cure for the second, but merely leads to ethnomorphosis – in other words, to Umvolkung: the forced change of the population's ethnic composition. Unless the EU establishment finally starts to lobby for a pro-birth policy for the indigenous Europeans, promotes the traditional family with many children, finally takes action against attempts – such as gay marriage – to destroy the traditional family, and reintroduces zero tolerance to immigration, also in relation to family reunion, in fifty years' time we will be sitting here palavering about the Kosovisation of Europe, just as we are doing now with the Kosovo issue itself.

In the report before us, an attempt is made yet again to sell immigration to us as a panacea, with Europe's hereditary population soon having to adapt to the migrants. That is why I have rejected today's report.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SK) The EU must respond to serious demographic changes if it wants to preserve its demographic and territorial balance. On the one hand it is necessary to deal with population ageing. The situation is alarming. Each year after the year 2010 the number of people at work will decrease by 1 million and that will threaten intergenerational solidarity.

On the other hand there are the problems caused by the decreasing birth rate; these problems have already existed for several years. Postponing childbirth until later in life may be the reason for an increase in infertility of couples. Protection of mother and family must be the focus of all EU policies. Pension systems must not punish women for being mothers.

In recent years the differences between the Member States have been reducing but at the same time the differences inside the individual Member States have become much deeper. Disadvantaged regions in particular are less developed and on top of that they are also the ones most affected by demographic changes, namely by population ageing and migration. Since there are not enough well-paid jobs, qualified workers leave for the big cities. Heavy concentration of economic activities in capital cities erodes the demographic, economic, social and environmental balance and leads to a population decrease in rural areas that often lack the basic infrastructure needed for development.

I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Castex on the demographic future; this is one of the important reports. We have to realise that demographic development is a fundamental component of all policies, whether they are medium- or long-term.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The renewal of the European population is a crucial factor in ensuring a balance between the youngest and oldest and in increasing the working-age population. The consequences of the current falling birth rate and increased life expectancy will be an increase in the old-age dependency ratio and a decline in the working-age population. It is therefore essential to take steps to promote demographic renewal which will ensure a more productive and advanced Europe with a high degree of social protection and solidarity between the generations.

We must develop policies that encourage the continual renewal of the European population and which ensure continued economic competitiveness, at the same time as preserving the European social model.

We cannot ignore one other aspect of this issue which is linked to Europe being a point of destination for significant migration flows, given that these populations invariably help to increase birth rates. The combination of the demographic issue with the migration issue poses potential risks and we cannot simply count on these populations for demographic renewal. I therefore want to stress the measures aimed at stimulating the birth rate, accompanied by appropriate policies on education and training and on solidarity between the generations, intended to halt the demographic decline of Europe.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. − (SV) The demographic challenge faced by Europe is enormous. This is a perfectly relevant subject for discussion at European level – I addressed it myself as the author of an opinion on flexicurity. However, an essential condition is that the starting point for the discussion is that most of the measures proposed, such as a later retirement age, a prudent family policy, good conditions for parental leave etc., come under the subsidiarity principle. A number of proposals in the wide range of solutions, to say the least, that the report mentions are practised and have worked well in Sweden. However, that does not mean that they would turn out equally well in other parts of Europe.

The fundamental problem with Mrs Castex’s report is not therefore the intention, but that most of what is discussed relates to policies that should be conducted by the Member States – sometimes at municipal level. I therefore voted in favour of amendments which stressed the subsidiarity principle and abstained in the final vote.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE), in writing. (PL) We have adopted an important report on the demographic future of Europe. Enabling citizens to live longer certainly represents an achievement for the Member States of the Union. It also leads, however, to the gradual ageing of the population. In the long term, this situation can only upset the balance between the productive population and those who are past that stage. It is a threat to solidarity between the generations, because a smaller number of professionally active people than at present will have to bear the ever-increasing cost of benefits, allowances, pensions, care and health services for those who are not in work.

Action to lengthen the period of professional activity and increase the birth rate is called for in order to counter such a situation. Programmes for the full integration of immigrants are also required.

Technical modernisation and the introduction of information technology into the workplace will ensure that work is more effective and productive. This will make a significant contribution to improving the situation.

Consideration should also be given to the migratory flows from rural to urban areas, and to the hidden human capital in rural areas, notably in the less developed countries.

Demography is one of the key challenges for the European Union, especially in the context of significant overpopulation in other parts of the world.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN), in writing. (PL) In view of the serious nature of the demographic problem facing Europe, it is entirely appropriate for Parliament and the Commission to have devoted time to it. Unfortunately, I found it necessary to vote against the report on the subject by Mrs Castex because so many key amendments were rejected.

In particular, Parliament's acceptance of the provision indicating full acceptance of the definition of family in the legislation of an emigrant's country of origin in the event of conflict with the legislation of the host country, together with the consequent financial obligations in the case of polygamy, cannot be condoned. This intrudes upon the internal provisions of Member States, thus infringing the principle of subsidiarity.

- Report: Ambroise Guellec (A6-0023/2008)

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL) , in writing. ― (GA) I do not agree with everything that is written in Mr Guellec's Report, but nevertheless, I welcome the report and I voted in its favour. I welcome the emphasis Mr Guellec has placed on balanced regional development. Not only must the gap between Member States be decreased but we must also reduce the gaps within Member States as well as the gaps between regions. We must ensure that increased resources are aimed at promoting regional development and tackling social exclusion. The only way to deal with a cohesion policy is as a tool for the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Although this report contains certain aspects which, despite being moderate, we regard as positive, it does not effectively tackle the major funding issues.

An example of this compromise is the approach taken with regard to the Community financial resources needed for an effective cohesion policy. The report recognises, in the recitals, that ‘increased financial resources for cohesion policy must be guaranteed in the future in order to deal with the anticipated new challenges’ (whether or not this actually relates to cohesion is a separate issue which has yet to be clarified). However, in the articles, or in other words in the actual proposal, the report merely alludes to an ambiguous need to reinforce the cohesion policy, to which ‘sufficient’ financial resources should be allocated.

Regrettably, the amendments that we tabled were rejected. These amendments aimed, for example, to recognise that there are countries and regions which are at odds with the EU, to prevent use of the cohesion policy for other purposes, particularly to finance objectives included within the Lisbon Strategy which would be contrary to cohesion, to recognise the need to increase Community financial resources for cohesion, to impose conditions on Community aid for enterprises so that relocations are discouraged, to highlight the need to adopt permanent measures with adequate funding for the most remote regions and to recognise the role of fishing in cohesion.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I welcome Ambroise Guellec’s report on the Commission’s fourth report on economic and social cohesion. The findings point towards definite progress in improving economic and social cohesion across the EU. However, the findings that disparities have increased in a number of Member States, especially between capitals and rural areas, demonstrate the need to continue in this policy’s goal to try and reduce the differences within and among the EU’s multiple regions.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SK) Cohesion policy helps solve problems such as demographic changes, migration from rural to urban areas, segregation or climate changes. These challenges can be confronted only if cohesion policy remains a Community policy. This is why I definitely give my support to the report. We can see how beneficial this policy is when we look at the countries that received support from the Cohesion Fund in the past.

Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have recorded strong growth. Similar help must be available for the new Member States. Like everyone else who grew up and lives in a more remote region, I know that there are pronounced disparities between regions, and even inside individual regions. Sometimes these disparities are even greater than disparities between individual countries: disparities in living standards, in the number of jobs available, in income and in education opportunities. This is why I emphasise that there is a real need to reduce the disparity between territorially accessible regions and regions facing structural disadvantages. I see the way forward as prioritising such policies that would decrease the pressure on capital cities and support the development of second-tier cities. It is necessary to support the development of rural areas; this is where small and medium-sized towns play an important role. It is also necessary to direct the funds towards projects intended to make each region attractive in its own right. I support this report because I know that cohesion policy is the right answer to many demographic changes.

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. − (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, cohesion has been one of the mainstays of Community policy in the past, the expression of a principle of solidarity which marked out and accompanied economic growth in the European Union.

It has been an economic success story for many European countries and regions; there has even been talk of a miracle in some cases and, thanks to the proper implementation of cohesion policies, the quality of life has improved for many of our citizens.

Cohesion plays an even more important role in the Europe of 27, with its pronounced economic and social disparities. The first effects of EU economic aid are beginning to be seen in some of the regions where development is lagging behind, even though it will only be possible to assess economic convergence on a longer-term basis owing to a very low initial GDP per capita.

Comparative circumstances will be different in the near future, but perhaps even today. Therefore the cohesion policy will have to confront other, new challenges having a strong territorial impact, such as demographic change, urbanisation and new urban planning, migratory movements, energy supply and climate change.

While voting in favour of the report, I would call upon the Commission and national governments to devise a joint approach for tackling these issues in an appropriately dynamic and cooperative manner.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The aim of economic and social cohesion is to create a delusion among workers so that the gap in social and regional disparities can be narrowed, and the living standards of workers in countries and regions that diverge from the Community average can be raised.

The law of unequal growth within capitalism is, however, inflexible. These disparities are ever on the increase; the poor become poorer and the rich become richer. That is what workers have to put up with every day.

In the face of the charge made by capitalist restructurings and the frontal attack on employment rights, however, even verbal use of this term is tending to disappear, and with it the paltry provision of the Community budget.

In the third phase of implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, all the policies have to be replaced with imperialism’s magic word, ‘competition’. This will lead to competition between states, regions and workers, where the law of the jungle holds sway.

The resolution is limited to flowery declarations and mere wishes that do not touch upon the essence of the problem. Only the struggles of the workers, disobedience and insubordination to the EU’s anti-worker and unpopular policies can reverse the worsening trend in the living conditions of the working classes. This trend is now becoming more marked even in the more developed countries.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The cohesion policy is one of the distinctive trade marks of the European Union, one of its major successes and also one of the main attractions of our community. The idea that it is right and necessary to ensure an identical level of development across all the Member States is a concept that we must not abandon and whose positive result we must celebrate.

However, not everything has been successful in this area. Firstly, it is essential that the cohesion funds are increasingly integrated with other funding programmes in order to guarantee that the benefits of these funds are not lost in the absence of a concomitant investment in policies directly aimed at more advanced stages of development. Sometimes it is necessary to take bigger steps, otherwise we will always be lagging behind.

Secondly, it is worrying that we are seeing a constant process of retraction in the Portuguese State in terms of guaranteeing equal access to basic services throughout its territory. What point is there in calling for Community-level cohesion when this is absent from national policies, with citizens in less developed regions being abandoned in the name of, not a development idea, but a merely accounting-based view of the allocation of resources? None whatsoever.

- Report: Gisela Kallenbach (A6-0028/2008)

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (GA) I don't agree with everything written in Gisela Kallenbach's Report, but despite that, I welcome it and voted for it. I especially welcome the emphasis Mrs Kallenbach places on strengthening the role of the local urban authorities. Sustainable development of urban areas is extremely challenging in the twenty first century and the Framework presented by Mrs Kallenbach today can help us to face this challenge.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report on the follow-up of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter contains aspects which we consider important.

However, it must be stressed that the actual content of the territorial dimension of the cohesion policy is yet to be defined, with the adoption of a green paper on this issue being planned for next September.

Although many of the objectives mentioned so far are to be welcomed and all make sense – for example, establishment of a polycentric, balanced urban system and creation of a new urban-rural relationship ensuring parity of access to infrastructures, conservation of the natural and cultural heritage, preservation of high-quality public spaces and upgrading of housing stock and street furniture, strengthening the local economy and local labour market policy and ensuring proactive education and training policies for children and young people – we would stress that:

- Land management and planning must be the responsibility of each Member State;

- The new priorities must receive new financial resources;

- The territorial dimension must not contradict or dilute economic and social cohesion, in other words the reduction of disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the encouragement of the least-favoured regions that are lagging behind.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Gisela Kallenbach’s report ‘Follow-up of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter’ is a report that I voted in favour of. We need to be more sensitive to the territorial and urban dimension of EU policies. In improving cooperation between urban and rural areas and implementing efficient strategies that aim at sustainable spatial development we can successfully achieve this.

6. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 15.00.)

IN THE CHAIR: GÉRARD ONESTA
Vice-President

7. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

8. Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

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

9.1. East Timor

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution concerning East Timor⁽¹⁾.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz, author. (PL) Mr President, we are witnessing yet another crisis in East Timor. This crisis cannot be resolved without the involvement and cooperation of the East Timorese authorities. The latter must bring about the dissolution of all paramilitary groups and disarm civilians. Armed criminal groups must also be disbanded. Those responsible for attacks on the most important people in the country must be taken to court. All the political forces, both those in power and those in opposition must refrain from the illegal use of force.

Recent events indicate a strong likelihood that East Timor will become yet another country whose key institutions no longer function. It may well be deemed a failed state. We are all aware of the threat posed by such states. I am sure I do not need to quote examples, but let me just mention Somalia.

In view of the role it played in setting up the state of East Timor and its continued involvement in it, the international community cannot allow such a bleak prospect to become a reality. The European Union's commitment to supporting democratic forces and institutions remains essential. On its mission, Parliament should assess the effectiveness of that support.

  Pedro Guerreiro, author. – (PT) As underlined in our Group’s motion for a resolution, it is currently vital to express our solidarity with the East Timorese people and to condemn the attacks on the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister of East Timor. We would stress that such attacks can only increase the instability of the East Timorese political situation, created by the events of 2006 and 2007 and maintained by the political process resulting from the recent legislative elections in that country. We call for a thorough investigation, within the constitutional and legal framework of East Timor, to identify and try the main perpetrators of these attacks. We must be alert to any manoeuvres which, in light of these events, may aim to justify further outside interference and which may threaten the independence and sovereignty of East Timor.

We therefore reject the joint resolution of the European Parliament which, among other aspects, seeks to ignore all the outside interference which has tried to condition and mould the free choices of the East Timorese people. Also, by trying to lump everyone together, it seeks to exempt from responsibility the main perpetrators and mentors of the violence and destabilisation of the situation in East Timor. It also seeks to ignore the fact that, in order to understand the current situation in East Timor, it is vital not to forget that its people were victims of colonialism, brutal repression and the destruction of their country and that its people heroically won their independence and sovereignty, in particular over their natural resources, in a fairly recent past, even after having been abandoned, at fundamental points in their struggle, by the international community.

Despite referring to respect for the sovereignty of the people of East Timor, this resolution forms a basis for interference in the internal affairs of that country. In fact, it adopts a stance which seeks to present East Timor as a failed state. Finally, this resolution ignores the fact that the solution is political and lies solely in the hands of the people of East Timor. In the past, the East Timorese people have more than adequately proven their dignity and courage and we express our confidence in their ability, by their own hands, to declare East Timor a sovereign and independent state.

  Ana Maria Gomes, author. − (PT) On behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I want to express our solidarity with the people of East Timor and our strong condemnation of the barbarous attacks against the democratically elected institutions of the President and Prime-Minister of East Timor.

I also want to call for an independent investigation, as requested in the motion for a resolution before us which we support, to find out who carried out the attacks, what they represented and what has failed in the security system of East Timor, both within East Timor and, in particular, internationally.

I believe that this episode indicates that the international community must make further efforts to reinforce the state institutions of East Timor and, in particular, to reform the security system which was also called into question in the 2006 crisis.

In addition, the issues relating to justice, compliance with justice and law and order must be considered. In this context, I must say that the attempts at national reconciliation with the rebel groups may have given a negative and counterproductive signal of impunity which has led the rebels to carry out this miserable attack.

East Timor is not a failed state and bears no similarities to Somalia with which Mr Onyszkiewicz has tried to associate it. East Timor gained its independence heroically, despite the international community’s silence, and the East Timorese people have already demonstrated on several occasions that they are committed to democracy. They once again demonstrated this in an exemplary manner in the presidential and legislative elections that took place last year during which I had the honour of heading up this Parliament’s mission.

The international community now has a responsibility to show its support for East Timor, to coordinate this support which it clearly failed to do in relation to the security system, and to resolve the basic issues of the structure of the East Timorese state. In terms of the signals given by the East Timorese people, there is no doubt that they want democracy and the rule of law.

  Marcin Libicki, author. (PL) Mr President, East Timor recently won its independence fighting for its Catholic identity. The war of independence was bloody and involved heavy loss of life. The President of East Timor has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This is an additional reason for the international community to assist in restoring order to the country. I fully agree with Mrs Gomes that this country was developing appropriately and meeting all the standards required to function correctly. The war is now destroying those standards and the internal order.

I believe it is worth returning to the proposals made some time ago by Mr Kaczyński, the President of Poland, and reiterated lately by President Sarkozy. They involve establishing a European military force capable of intervening when necessary. Unless we have the capacity to intervene, we shall go on forever meeting here for debates on Thursdays and not achieving anything.

  José Ribeiro e Castro, author. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is a poem by Ruy Cinatti which I have committed to memory and which reads: ‘Perhaps we will be defeated or embattled, but only united’.

Unfortunately, on 11 February, crisis returned to East Timor, once again at the hands of the same people who were responsible for the crisis two years ago. This prompts us to ask questions about the return of those who would harm the stability of this country and the gravity of an attack which seriously injured, and could even have fatally injured, the President of the Republic, José Ramos-Horta, and which also, fortunately without any personal consequences, affected the Prime Minister, Xanana Gusmão.

The violence and the disruption of the normal functioning of the institutions have once again laid bare the failures of a country with the history and circumstances of East Timor, which courageously fought and is fighting for independence, democracy and progress.

Anyone having supported East Timor from the beginning cannot fail to feel renewed sadness at this incident which we vehemently condemn. We hope that President Ramos-Horta will fully recover and we call for a thorough investigation into what happened and into the necessary response to this.

Unfortunately, the international forces were slow to act, with the exception of the Portuguese GNR (National Republican Guard). There are also clear failings in the rule of law in East Timor which is not functioning fully and which has in fact never functioned fully. East Timor needs to rebuild the very core of its security system in order to ensure law and order.

The international community must assist the East Timorese people in these steps. This is not a failed state; it is a state with failings that we must support.

However, the main responsibility obviously lies with the East Timorese people who must try to achieve a cross-party compromise for lasting peace and respect for the rule of law and judicial decisions, without hesitation, without prevarication and without complacency. They have already managed to reach agreement on what we would call a national consensus with regard to the very core of the state’s operation.

It is this consensus that Ruy Cinatti referred to in his poem which is the most pressing need of East Timor. As a result, dear friends, we must help the people of East Timor to help themselves and make their country stronger.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, author. – (ES) Mr President, I think East Timor is an example of where self-determination processes can be carried out, and carried out well. It would, in fact, be a good idea if some of our friends, Spain included, for instance, took a leaf out of the Portuguese book and assumed their responsibilities in terms of legacies from former colonies, as is the case in Western Sahara.

It is, however, obvious that all these cases are no simple matter, nor do they produce immediate results. Mention must be made of the difficulties experienced by East Timor where, following peaceful elections a few months ago, there are still many disturbances, including an attempt on the life of President Ramos Horta. Here I wish to add my best wishes to those already sent by the House for a speedy recovery, and also to Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão.

No one, I feel, will dispute the willingness to reach agreement, as demonstrated by President Ramos Horta, among many others, and I am sure that even after this attack President Ramos Horta will lead any work that is required to find a political agreement between the opposing factions to settle differences in a democratic, non-violent manner.

For this, however, the international community must be fully committed, and the UN mandate renewed, as some countries have suggested. It must be renewed in any case until 2012 and at all times in response to the needs and requests of the Timorese Government and democratic forces.

The UN presence on the ground also ought to be in line with the needs of the country and should be reviewed not only in terms of reconstruction and dealing with basic necessities, but also in terms of the ability to act in a preventive fashion and react to disturbances.

Lastly, the EU must set up a delegation in Dili as soon as possible and Parliament must also make arrangements for a delegation of observers to support the democratic forces in the country and to assess the focus and effectiveness of EU assistance at the present time.

  Tunne Kelam, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, East Timor is certainly not a failed state. However, the fact that on 11 February 2008 both the democratically elected President and the Prime Minister became victims of armed attempts on their lives is proof of how fragile a young democracy can be.

I should like to make three points. First, we are really worried about the lack of timely and efficient reaction by UNPOL and other international forces to these attacks.

Second, the EU has a responsibility to assist the democratic institutions of East Timor and to consolidate the rule-of-law system there. The motion for a resolution rightly emphasises the urgent need to reach a national agreement on core issues of democracy.

Third, the EU, in full cooperation with the UN, has to contribute to the reform of the security sector in East Timor. East Timor, after all, is not as far from us as it may seem, and Ms Gomes is good proof of this.

  Karin Scheele, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I wish to add my voice to the expressions of solidarity with the badly injured President of East Timor, but also to the expressions of solidarity with the people of East Timor who had to struggle for a very long time for independence and their rights. The European Parliament condemns the attempted murder of President Ramos-Horta in the strongest terms. The attacks were carried out after the President had attempted to achieve a negotiated solution with the rebels.

As the precise sequence of events is still unclear, we call for a thorough and rigorous investigation into the attempt on his life and an inquiry into the failure of the security system. We welcome the joint investigation by the United Nations and the East Timorese police which has already been launched. We call for a ban on all paramilitary groups and armed gangs and for more financial resources to be provided to support the security sector reforms that East Timor needs.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) The EP motion for a resolution on East Timor is entirely appropriate. It explains the tragic situation of the people of that country and the powerlessness of national authorities, international institutions and the peacekeeping forces. The internal conflict is still continuing, despite many efforts and substantial international aid. People are losing their lives, livelihoods are being destroyed and cultural heritage damaged. There is widespread poverty affecting almost 80% of the population, unemployment, disenchantment and illiteracy. All this is having a negative effect on the people, leading to despair and inciting revolt.

The people of East Timor want to live in peace and harmony. They want to work, learn and develop their country's economy. For this to happen, the democratic authorities in the country must be strengthened, and aid from international institutions increased. The authors of this resolution therefore rightly call for East Timor to be assured political, technical and financial support. They also recall that both the European Union and the United Nations have made public commitments to supporting independence, democracy and rule-of-law governments. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group will support this resolution.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, some of my colleagues have already touched on the fact that it is no exaggeration to state that following the attacks on President Ramos Horta, East Timor is once again entering a critical phase. I will say it again, because who does not recall the pictures from last year, following the appointment of Gusmão, of hundreds of houses and some government buildings in flames?

Indeed, an international force is probably necessary in order to deal with the current crisis. However, it certainly must not create the impression by so doing that the government needs foreign soldiers to protect itself against its own people. A foreign force can maintain stability by manu militari in the short term, but in the long term the people of East Timor themselves must ensure their own future. In order to guarantee political stability, democracy and respect for human rights in the long term, in the first place they need an independent and reliable media, they need a reformed police force and they need a sound judicial system.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, East Timor is widely considered to be the most successful example of a transformation process in the history of the United Nations. East Timor does, however, seem to have forgotten the sacrifices it made during its war of independence to put an end to its brutal occupation by Indonesia lasting 24 years, and the joy with which it celebrated its own independence. Less than six years after regaining its independence, however, East Timor now stands on the brink of chaos. The transition to democracy and independence is never easy. It is not the end of the journey but only the beginning. One thing is absolutely certain, however, namely that violence never can be and never has been the way to deal with problems. That must be made quite clear. The way to resolve problems is through dialogue, political pluralism, strengthening democratic institutions such as the parliament, an independent judicial system and governments working under democratically elected leaders.

I call on the Council and the European Commission to ensure that as much as possible of the assistance allocated to East Timor under the 10th European Development Fund is devoted to strengthening democracy.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Thank you, Mr President. Eighteen months have now passed since the last European Parliament resolution on East Timor. Officially, this country became independent in 2002. Four years later a civil war broke out, triggered by a group of demobilised soldiers. After the attack on President Ramos Horta on 11 February of this year, East Timor experienced yet another political crisis. A state of emergency was declared and a request made for the then 1 600-strong peacekeeping force to be reinforced.

The political crisis in East Timor is accompanied by an economic one. Unemployment is in the order of 80%, and 40% of the unemployed are living below the poverty threshold.

The country cannot be stabilised unless all the political forces reach a consensus on the fundamental functions of the state. We must condemn the brutal attack on the President and the Prime Minister and call upon the government of East Timor to put an end to violence, including the activities of gangs. The international community, notably the UN and the Security Council, must support the consolidation of democracy. It should also be remembered that East Timor urgently needs economic aid to combat poverty and develop administration and infrastructure.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I want to express my support for the joint motion for a resolution condemning the attacks. I also want to congratulate the institutions of East Timor for their calm response to the tragedy and I must underline, like Mrs Gomes and Mr Ribeiro e Castro, that East Timor is not a failed state.

It is a state that requires international assistance, a delegation from the European Commission, the extension of the UN mission and support from all of us for any initiatives that might help to promote unity among the East Timorese people, with respect for the law and condemning all violence.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission has condemned the attacks against President Ramos-Horta and Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao in the strongest terms.

The young democracy of East Timor is still extremely vulnerable in its political, judicial and security institutions. The country is confronted with poverty and high unemployment, especially among the young people who have so far little expectations for a prosperous future and are amenable to violent groups.

In its meetings with the leaders of the country, the Commission has supported a peaceful settlement of the conflict, including the eventual disbanding and disarmament of any paramilitary group.

Following the 2006 violence, the European Commission has reacted quickly: firstly, with humanitarian assistance to the internally displaced persons; secondly, by supporting dialogue among the leaders; and thirdly, in implementing a cash-for-work programme for unemployed youth.

The European Commission also decided to open a fully-fledged delegation in Dili, and the new head of delegation is expected to start work in March 2008. The delegation will become fully operational towards the second half of 2008. This will create the opportunity for a formal political dialogue with the government and a faster assessment of support to the country.

The strategy of the European Commission for East Timor under the 10th European Development Fund has recently been approved. It aims to support the still weak judicial sector, the Parliament and other institutions, thereby assisting in building up a democratic culture.

Support to rural development will help to alleviate poverty and to improve infrastructure. Health-related activities will contribute to tackling poverty-related diseases and reducing alarmingly high mother and child mortality rates.

Addressing the root causes of the present conflict and providing support for their solution will be as important as the longer term programmes.

The East Timorese Government has submitted a comprehensive Governance Action Plan, which will be the subject of political dialogue between the delegation and the Government, supported by the Commission.

In a mission during the next weeks, the Commission will assess the situation and the possibility of assisting with further measures addressing some of the root causes of the conflict. This may include requests of the Government to support some labour-intensive programmes to combat unemployment.

In a joint Commission-Council paper of December 2007, both the Commission and the EU Member States supported the central role of the United Nations in coordinating the assistance to the security sector.

In summary, the envisaged support under the Commission programme, more than EUR 80 million, is comprehensive and will help to address many of the present problems of the country.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes.

9.2. Belarus

  President. – The next item on the agenda is the debate on six motions for a resolution concerning Belarus⁽¹⁾.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz, author, (PL) Mr President, most of the political prisoners held in Belarus were recently released, in fact nearly all of them were, with only one exception. This does not mean we can be confident that things are moving in the right direction in Belarus. On that very same day, the homes of a whole range of individuals connected with the opposition in Belarus were raided. In addition a secondary school teacher was sacked. By way of explanation he was told that since he was a member of the opposition Civil Party he did not represent an ideology in line with that of the State.

A very strange situation exists in Belarus. In that country, there is a concept of state ideology, and therefore it is hardly surprising that when candidates apply to study journalism, law, and international relations, they have to present recommendations from the authorities. That is how the selection process works. This is totally unacceptable, although we do welcome the step taken and are cautiously pleased about it.

As for Belarus itself, the question that immediately springs to mind is what the underlying reason for such action can be. It would appear that through this action and by consenting to the opening of a European Commission delegation in Minsk, President Lukashenko wishes to demonstrate that he does not feel irrevocably bound to adopt a pro-Russian policy to the exclusion of all others. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct such a policy in Belarus. The country does not wish to become totally absorbed by Russia. In this instance, even Mr Lukashenko has adopted such a stance, but events speak for themselves.

Russia is quite simply buying up Belarus. Gazprom has just concluded yet another transaction, as a result of which it now owns one quarter of the shares in the companies controlling the oil and gas transit routes through Belarus. Gazprom's share will soon increase to 50%. It also seems that Russia will succeed in persuading Belarus to adopt the rouble as its national currency.

As a result of all this, the situation is becoming increasingly threatening. Support for independent action in Belarus and for civil society is all the more necessary. Support is already being made available, but it must be scaled up. In particular, support must be provided for the institutions that have just been set up in Belarus. I could focus on television broadcasts to the country, which are an important resource for ensuring that the local people know what is actually going on. In my view, we should keep Belarus in the forefront of our minds, because this is an issue for Europe as a whole. We cannot tolerate a situation in which there is a country like Belarus, run by a dictator, in the very centre of Europe.

  Jiří Maštálka, author. − (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in spite of the strongly critical tone of the contributions I am happy to say that we have at least two positive aspects here.

The first one is the opening of the European Commission delegation in Minsk, which as far as I know, has also been approved by the President of Belarus. I believe that opening an EU delegation provides the bases for further development and activating of relations with the European Union in such mutually advantageous areas as energy, transport, transit and even protection of the environment.

The other positive factor I consider important is the meeting of experts in Brussels last June, which concentrated mainly on the issues of energy supply and also the planned expert talks on transport corridors and the environment. I consider this development to be extremely important. We must not forget that Belarus itself is still struggling with the extremely serious consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Present trends in mutual relations reveal that a certain view of Belarus has taken hold among the political circles of the European Union and that view is very critical and one-sided.

We need not just criticism but also cooperation. The time has come for a positive step on the part of Belarus as well, and I think that the official Belarusian regime should offer at least a moratorium on the death penalty, which could enable us to open new negotiations regarding the status of Belarus’ membership of the Council of Europe. On the part of the EU, I would welcome for example a relaxation of the visa system or support for young specialists from Belarus on work experience by providing them with opportunities to get to know the workings of the European institutions at first hand.

  Józef Pinior, author. − Mr President, this afternoon I would firstly like to welcome the positive sign of relations between the EU and Belarus. The recent developments on the agreements to establish the European Commission’s delegation in Minsk are a positive step toward renewing dialogue with the European Union and Belarus.

We would like to encourage the Commission to use the full potential of the opening of a delegation. The time has come for the international community as a whole to extend more support to civil society in Belarus, in particular to increase financial aid to the independent media, to non-governmental organisations and to Belarusian students studying abroad. The Commission’s decision to give financial support to the European Humanities University in Vilnius is very wise. The Commission and the Council should consider offering financial support to the project, which is already in existence, to create the independent Belarusian television channel Belsat.

Secondly, the European Parliament calls on the Commission and the Council to take further steps towards the facilitation and liberalisation of visa procedures for Belarusian citizens. We call on Member States in the Schengen area to use all available tools, mainly national visa costs, in order to facilitate the movement of Belarusian citizens within each Member State’s territory.

Thirdly, we call on President Lukashenko’s regime above all to move towards liberalisation and democratisation, to release all prisoners of conscience in the country, to introduce the rule of law and freedom of media associations and to abolish the death penalty.

In conclusion, I would like to express this afternoon our solidarity with the United Democratic Opposition of Belarus, the leader of the democratic movement, Alexander Milinkevich, and all Belarusian citizens in their struggle towards an open society.

  Adam Bielan, author (PL) Thank you, Mr President. The actions taken by Mr Lukashenko's dictatorship against his own people in Belarus are widely known. Since the beginning of this year alone, three peaceful demonstrations have been brutally suppressed. The authorities are systematically persecuting opposition activists. They have brought in restrictions on travel abroad by members of the clergy and religious instruction teachers. Some rather curious provisions have also been introduced. For example, anyone wishing to study law or journalism must be approved by the ruling authorities. Against this background, imposing stricter sanctions against Belarus unfortunately seems to be the only possible response to recent events. We must not forget, however, that it is our moral right and duty to create and support civil society in Belarus.

One of the immediate measures to assist the opposition is to overcome the news blackout. A good example of this is the initiative taken by the Polish national television service, which began to broadcast to Belarus on 10 December 2007 through the first independent channel, called Belsat. Unfortunately, as Mrs Romaszewska, the producer responsible for this project, told me today, no financial support from the European Union has yet been received. There is not even a budget line from which human rights and democracy in Belarus could be supported.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that the high cost of Schengen visas is another mayor problem for the people of Belarus. If access to the European Union for members of Mr Lukashenko's regime is restricted, we must make access to the Union easier for people who are not connected with that regime.

  José Ribeiro e Castro, author. − Mr President, in January of this year, 10 young activists of the Belarusian Popular Front Youth and Malady Front (‘Young Front’) were arrested after they met a delegation of the Democrat Youth Community of Europe (DEMYC) in Minsk, and then faced expulsion from their universities.

This is the last real dictatorship in Europe. Belarus still has the death penalty, political prisoners, arbitrary arrests, media censorship, violence and restrictions on access to the internet. All Europeans should not take their liberty for granted, and young Europeans should follow the DEMYC example in showing solidarity with their neighbours by standing up for democracy and human rights.

Belarus cannot be a partner of the EU while this intolerable intimidation and targeted arrests continue. Reading the official internet biography of President Lukashenko, I became aware that he considers himself to be ‘notable for his in-depth understanding of events, hard work, sense of duty, realism, fairness and fidelity to principles’. Why, then, can Mr Lukashenko not realise a very simple and plain fact: Soviet-style tyrants belong in the past?

As to the students, repressed and deprived of their fundamental right to education, I urge our Parliament to join me in paraphrasing the song: Hey, Lukashenko, leave the kids alone!

  Elisabeth Schroedter, author. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Belarus is and remains the problem child in our Neighbourhood Policy. Dictator Lukashenko continues to ensure that his country systematically distances and isolates itself from its neighbours. He tramples human rights under foot and maintains the death penalty. This is not only a concern for us; it is also encountering massive opposition among Belarus's own population. More and more young people are leaving Belarus. It is a dramatic situation for that country.

The European Union's task is therefore to help Belarus to return to the path towards democracy. From my perspective, this will not happen with Dictator Lukashenko and his presidential apparatus, but only with the opposition, civil society and the young people who could form the country's future elite.

So I appeal to the Member States to change their visa policy for these people and give them the chance to engage in exchanges with young people in the European Union, a chance of democratic education and a chance actually to experience democracy for themselves by visiting the European Union. Visa policy must not become an insurmountable obstacle which obstructs the path to democracy. That is extremely important.

In negotiations with Lukashenko, however, there should be no concessions on human rights. There is consensus on this point in Parliament, across all the parliamentary groups: we want the release of all political prisoners, a moratorium on the death penalty, media freedom and respect for all the basic principles of democracy. That is the fundamental prerequisite for negotiations. No concessions. The crucial factor here is what happens at the next elections. I hope very much for the Belarusian people that they take control of their own destiny.

  Urszula Gacek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Alexander Kazulin, the former Belarusian presidential candidate, has served two of the five and a half year prison term imposed on him for vandalism. Mr Kazulin's wife Irina is fighting tirelessly to obtain her husband's freedom, despite being gravely ill. President Lukashenko suggested that Mr Kazulin could be freed to enable him to accompany his wife to Germany where she could receive medical treatment. The President reacted with surprise when his offer was turned down. For Mrs Kazulin, acceptance would have meant a cowardly flight from her homeland.

In my view, if President Lukashenko really wants to improve his image, he should free Mr Kazulin immediately and unconditionally. Let us hope that Mr and Mrs Kazulin will soon be able to enjoy good health and freedom in their homeland.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Belarus is a neighbour of the European Union. It shares with us a difficult history of Communist domination, but still does not enjoy democratic rule and respect for human rights. The regime of President Lukashenko brutally represses any attempt to create civil society. I would remind the House that Mr Lukashenko infringed democratic procedures in order to gain a further term of office. Journalists and leaders of independent youth organisations and independent trade unions are being intimidated. Members of the political opposition have been arrested. I could mention the Kazulin case that Mrs Gacek referred to just now, and the repression of national minorities, including the Polish national minority. Latterly the regime has become concerned about the financial independence of small entrepreneurs and taken repressive measures against them. Such is the sad state of affairs in Belarus.

It is the European Union's moral duty to provide financial support and information for all those striving to defend human rights and democratic freedoms in Belarus by way of the independent media, for instance through television broadcasts to Belarus.

Establishing a European Union delegation in Minsk would be a good way to monitor the situation. Ten years after the Chernobyl disaster I took part legally in a demonstration in Minsk. I saw OMON special purpose police squads that had been brought from Moscow to deal with people evacuated from the danger area. I saw pools of blood on the streets of Minsk. This must not be allowed to happen again.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I have a foster nephew from Belarus, now an adult and considered a wonderful addition to our extended family. But I remember his condition the summer he first came to stay with my sister, and it is this experience that allows me, personally, to understand the difficulties, especially of someone disabled, raised in an institution in such an unstable environment.

Belarus needs relief – relief not only from economic and political instability but relief for the people. The people of Belarus are particularly isolated, controlled under a regime that continues to threaten the democratic values and freedoms to which people are entitled.

Before Christmas, I met two representatives from Belarus. They informed me of the ongoing problem of defending religious freedom. Religious activity is forbidden without registration with the Government, and a person can be charged a fine or face imprisonment for unregistered religious activity, though government registration is made extremely difficult to get.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to support the statements made by previous speakers. In addition, however, I should like to mention another very important issue, namely that we cannot deal with policy on Belarus in isolation from the European Union's eastern policy as a whole. We had a tendency to forgive the Russian administration a great many undemocratic actions. That should be borne in mind. I know that events in Belarus do not bear comparison with what is currently taking place in Russia, but they most certainly did and do bear comparison with what took place in Chechnya. We cannot adopt one course of action for Belarus and a different one for Russia.

Conducting our eastern policy from the point of view of enlargement of the European Union is another very important issue. The fate of Ukraine currently hangs in the balance, and if it swings towards democracy it will enrich the whole of Europe. If we are prepared to open the door to the people of Ukraine, it will send a signal to the people of Belarus and show them that there is another option, one involving closer links and relationships with the European Union. In the future it may also involve membership of the Union, although that may not come about for many years.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, I have encountered a difficulty.

We estimated two minutes for the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure: that is, two speakers. I already have eight or nine requests, and I can see more hands being raised, taking us up to ten or more.

Thus, either I give the floor to the first two, which is simple enough for me, or I can ask you to make a thirty-second statement and we try to get round everybody.

(The latter solution was chosen)

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, it has become clear from this debate that Parliament recognises the problem of Belarus and attaches great importance to it. I would like to thank all those who have referred to the situation regarding human rights in Belarus. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that parliamentary elections are due to be held in Belarus in the autumn of this year. We must do all in our power both as Members of this House and also as representatives of the large European political families, to support the Belarusian opposition in this just though unfair struggle for a democratic Belarus.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Some time has passed since Mr Bernd Posselt and I lit a candle in this House, in spite of the ban on safety grounds, to show our solidarity with the Belarusian people, in the presence of Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner. What is Belarus like today? The last European dictator Alexander Lukashenko is popular in Belarus in spite of the strictly regulated economy and the intimidation of political opponents. The government intensifies repression and imprisons opposition activists. The government controls the Belarusian media which is why people in the country often do not know that Lukashenko’s regime is unacceptable to the European Union.

The European Parliament cannot satisfy itself only with awarding the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to Alexander Milinkevich. This prize commits the European Parliament to detailed monitoring of the situation in Belarus.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to refer to a particular case. It concerns Frank Wieczorek, a young opposition activist who was recently expelled from university. The official reason for his expulsion was that he had failed to attend classes. The reason he had been absent, however, was that he had been arrested. Expulsion from university means that a person's education comes to an abrupt end. It also means that there is a strong chance of being conscripted into the army. I imagine that only people who have had personal experience of living under a dictatorship will understand what service in the regime’s army can be like for a member of the opposition. It could prove very dangerous for this young man. I believe we should do all we can to assist in resolving the situation in Belarus.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) (The beginning of the speech was inaudible)…as a medical doctor I personally visited the epicentre of the area affected by radiation. Doctors and scientists are being intimidated and even imprisoned for reporting the truth about the state of health of the local population. The people had their radiometers confiscated and they are eating radioactive food.

I only have 30 seconds so just to summarise: Lukashenko is a murderer and it has to be said out loud. By whom, if not by the European Union?

  President. – Thank you, the message has been received.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, one of the features of dictatorships is that they take no notice of anyone. We can say what we like, and they will act as they like. The only way to counter a dictatorship is through democracy. I would say to the Commissioner that, if I were in her place, I would make every effort to assist in training the thinking democratic elite. If we do not succeed in doing so in Belarus, we might yet do so in other countries. Someone needs to lead the way, and I would be inclined to rely on those elites.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, it is shameful for Belarus, a country that lies at the geographic heart of Europe, to be the subject of debate at the Council of Europe today because of its violation of human rights. It is shameful for Belarus that it is the only European country excluded from the Council of Europe, because of its failure to respect any fundamental human rights.

I therefore believe that Mr Bielan was quite right when he said that it is important to strengthen civil society in Belarus by supporting the media broadcasts from Poland aimed at that society.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to draw attention to the continuing repression against young Belarusian democrats. In mid-January, several of them were imprisoned for 15 days and then excluded from university. There are some specific names: Zmitser Zhaleznichenka, Anton Kalinouski and Franak Viachorka.

I invite EU universities to offer these brave young people alternative options to continue their studies, to facilitate the provision of visas and to add to the EU blacklist the names of those university officials who have consented to use them as tools in the Lukashenko oppressions.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I understand that the Free University of Minsk is today situated in Vilnius, Lithuania. I wonder if Commissioner Figeľ might consider writing a letter to the education and culture ministers of the 26 other EU Member States to suggest there should be 27 Free Universities of Minsk. When it comes to the United Kingdom, there are of course great universities like Oxford and Cambridge, but I would recommend Bristol.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, twenty years ago, I spoke at the underground universities in Czechoslovakia and Poland. It is very gratifying for me to hear, today, how much our colleagues from the Baltic countries, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland support the opposition in Belarus. I would like to express my sincere thanks to them. You are doing something important for the EU – more than the people who engage in talks which merely bolster and support a corrupt regime which needs to be abolished. I agree with Mr Buzek: Russia has a responsibility here. This is a post-colonial and pre-colonial situation and we should no longer accept it.

  President. – That concludes our new ‘speedy catch-the-eye’ procedure.

I see you have proved it is possible to say many things in a short space of time, and I thank you accordingly.

Now we move on to the Commission’s reaction.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, recently, the situation in Belarus has been evolving rapidly. Since mid-January, five of the six political prisoners previously identified as such have been released. One of these political prisoners, though, former presidential candidate Aleksandr Kozulin, is still in jail and in a poor state of health.

The Commission, for its part, through my colleague Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, has expressed its satisfaction with the release of the prisoners, which has been a long-standing request from all EU institutions, including the European Parliament.

But we have equally been clear that we want to see all political prisoners freed, and that we want to see an end to the systematic harassment of Belarusian civil society, before we can give a new dimension to our relationship with Belarus.

In other words, our message to Belarus remains the same: there cannot be a full partnership with Belarus until Belarus takes convincing steps towards democratisation, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

This is the gist of the European message to Belarus that the Commission released over a year ago and which includes the ‘12 points for democratisation’ that your resolution mentions. Again, the release of all political prisoners would be an important step in this regard.

In addition, we will be closely watching the parliamentary elections set for September 2008. The organisation of free and fair elections would be seen as a decisive step on the part of the Belarusian authorities. We hope that the OSCE will be able to send a full-scale observation mission to this election and that the European Parliament will also be able to send representatives.

Another important point that your resolution demands is that Belarus should apply a moratorium on the death penalty. The European Union has carried this message to the Belarusian authorities.

Coming back now to the recent developments in Belarus, another issue close to our hearts has been progressing fast over the last months: the opening of the European Commission’s delegation in Minsk, which we officially requested more than two years ago, is now imminent. We hope to be able to sign the establishment agreement soon, so that our delegation can be opened without delay.

This delegation will allow us to reinforce our links with Belarusian civil society and also to develop contacts with the middle rank of the administration that could be open to democratic change.

On this matter, as your resolution underlines, we have had a number of meetings at technical level with Belarusian experts on matters of mutual interest, such as energy, transport and environment. Let me, however, reiterate that the scope of these meetings remains limited as long as the current political conditions prevail in Belarus.

As regards to the Commission actions to support civil society in Belarus, the Commission remains committed more than ever to supporting Belarusian civil society, and our 2008 assistance plan is aimed in particular at cementing Belarusian civil society and independent media. In addition, the Commission has also made clear that its support to the European Humanity University in exile in Vilnius will continue as long as necessary. I will also pass the message about the Free University on to Commissioner Figeľ. I think that this is very interesting and a bright idea.

A few other comments to Mr Pinior and Ms Schroedter. The opening of the negotiations on visa facilitation and on readmission is amongst the elements that would be considered in the event of a real breakthrough in our relationship. According to EU policy, visa facilitation can only be considered in the context of the European Commission readmission policy as part of a real partnership in external relations.

This was explained to Belarus in the verbal notes sent by the Commission on 8 May. The European Union’s willingness to enter into such negotiations with neighbouring countries with an action plan in force has also been reaffirmed, by the Commission communication on this matter of December 2006. In the case of Belarus these conditions are not met.

On the point raised by Mr Bielan, Commission contracts are awarded following strict tendering procedures in order to ensure a transparent and fair competition. This means that the Commission does not support radio and TV stations as such, but specific programmes instead. The ENPI Regional Information and Communication Programme includes support to media activities of EUR 7 million over three years for seven countries. The tendering procedure is ongoing, and media from both European Union and partner countries are eligible to submit tenders for contracts.

  President. – The debate is closed.

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

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. – (PL) As joint author of the European Parliament's resolution on Belarus, I would like to draw attention to the state of democracy, respect for human rights and in general to the situation of the people of Belarus. Belarus is not only a near neighbour of the Union, involved in the European Neighbourhood Policy, but it is also an immediate neighbour of my country, Poland. We share a common border.

This is probably the best explanation of why the issue of fulfilling the real hopes and expectations of ordinary people in that country is so important to me in my work here in the European Parliament. After all, one cannot remain indifferent to what one can see happening just across the border: restrictions and administrative pressure on NGOs, intimidation, persecution and imprisonment of democratic opposition activists, including leaders of the youth movements known as the Belarusian Popular Front and Young Front.

Genuine dialogue between the Belarusian authorities and the European Union should therefore be set up quickly. It is not only the Union's right but also its duty to require the Belarusian Government to free all political prisoners, guarantee media freedom, the independence of the judiciary, and also respect for democratic values and the fundamental rights of the people of Belarus. Priority must be given to abolition of the death penalty.

For its part, the European Parliament has moved towards making it easier for Belarusian citizens to enter EU territory and spend time there. The reduction or even total lifting of visa charges is currently under consideration. That is the only way to prevent Belarus and its citizens from becoming even more isolated.

(1) See Minutes.

9.3. North-Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo)

  President. – The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution concerning North Kivu (Democratic Republic of the Congo)⁽¹⁾.

  Erik Meijer, author. – (NL) Mr President, this Parliament is rightly paying great attention to what is going on in the former Belgian colony of the Democratic Republic of Congo and in particular to the continued fighting, forcible displacement, rape and mass assassination in the east of that vast country. These horrors have been part of the conflict in the neighbouring countries of Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. Internationally recognised state borders have little meaning for groups of people who must seek new territories as a result of being expelled or the continuing lack of means of existence. Everything is in motion in this region, and the thing is that the slightest movement one way or the other potentially stirs up either violence or horror. Warlords who acquire respect, power and wealth by their innate love of conflict increase the already existing problems and make them even more difficult to solve.

Very recently, on 17 January, we discussed the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo here in this House and adopted a resolution that stated our wish to see all horrors cease. I fear that we could adopt many more resolutions on this matter without any solutions coming of it. The expectation that last year’s elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo could solve the problems has ended in disappointment. The incumbent president, Kabila, has won, but he represents different points of view from the movement from which he originated, and the outcomes of both the presidential and parliamentary elections were controversial for the opposition.

The question is, how is such a large country with poor lines of communication and a wide range of peoples to function in a way that is supported by its whole population and all its divergent political forces. It does not seem that this is likely to succeed in an area like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where life-threatening diseases reign, the environment and the land are over-exploited, and people remain completely without rights. The question is whether the armistice of 23 January for North and South Kivu, which takes for granted the disarmament of the warring factions and the return of refugees to their places of residence, is feasible, and whether the United Nations can contribute on the ground to this end. It will not succeed by electing parties in the midst of conflict but possibly by persuading parties, the warring party for example, to abandon sexual violence and allow doctors in.

  Alain Hutchinson, author. – (FR) Mr President, I do not intend to discuss the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in its entirety, but rather the north-east of the country, and the Kivu region, where a vile war has been raging for years, and even more intensely in recent months.

You might say that all wars are vile, but I feel this one is much more so. This war has produced, and continues to produce, hundreds of thousands of victims, deaths and displaced persons, but hundreds and thousands of women, little girls and grandmothers have also suffered what is now called sexual violence. It is more than that, however; it is the use of rape as a genuine weapon of war, and this goes on amid a certain amount of indifference in public opinion and the international community, and more specifically European public opinion.

This vile war has been raging for two years between rival factions: the rebel troops led by Laurent Nkunda, a dissident Congolese general, the former perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda who were imported after the end of the campaign in 1994, but also, unfortunately, certain elements of the recently dismantled Congolese army. That is enough. Fortunately a peace conference was held there recently, attended by all the factions involved, and it led to a cease-fire. Unfortunately, Mr President, the cease-fire is extremely fragile and tension is again mounting.

We therefore propose two essential priorities: the first concern is protection for civilians, to provide means for the MONUC mission on the ground to defend them. In accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter it can use weapons to carry out the mission, for these massacres simply must stop. The second priority is to support the peace efforts discussed there, because the solution to the problem in the Great Lakes region would be a political solution involving all parties, including Rwanda, which must honour its commitments to repatriate its nationals operating in Kivu.

  Adam Bielan, author, (PL) Mr President, since the end of the Second World War, no other conflict has been as cruel and barbaric as that in the Congo. Armed conflict in North Kivu province has continued with variable intensity for the last 10 years. It has resulted in more than five million victims. Some 1 500 people are dying every day as a result of the fighting.

Mass killings, the rape of young girls and mothers, and forced conscription of civilians and children into the armed forces are the order of the day. Many other serious violations of human rights have also taken place in recent months in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo. They have been committed by the rebel groups loyal to Laurent Nkunda, by the fighters of the democratic forces attempting to liberate Rwanda, and by the Congolese army itself. The eastern part of Congo is in need of immediate medical aid and food supplies, as recent events have forced most humanitarian organisations to suspend their activities.

I therefore call on the Council and the European Commission to make crisis funding available in view of the unusually grave humanitarian situation in this region.

  Bernd Posselt, author. − (DE) Mr President, anyone who has ever seen the Great Lakes region of East Africa from the air might think that it was paradise. In reality, it is often more like hell on earth. It is a region of fantastic natural beauty and a wealth of natural resources, on the one hand, and appalling suffering, on the other: natural disasters, war, expulsion, famine, disease, massacres, mass rape and ethnic conflicts – worse than almost anywhere else. There are 800 000 internally displaced persons in North Kivu alone.

It is important to recognise that this problem of expulsion exists on both sides of the border. In Africa, there is a phenomenon which does not exist in this form anywhere else, namely that people are not just displaced from one specific side of the border to the other. Instead, each country expels people from its side of the border into the other country, so there are refugees and displaced persons on both sides. As a result, the countries are completely unstable. That is why we need to provide humanitarian aid, and we need a massive presence here in order to help the people.

In essence, however, that is merely tinkering with the symptoms. Unless we can establish reasonably viable state and rule-of-law structures, the disaster will never end, no matter how much assistance we provide. That is why it is extremely important for us to play a major role, also politically. The cease-fire of 23 January is extremely fragile and only really exists on paper. That is why we need to force all the parties, as a matter of urgency, to get round the table and talk to each other, but it also means that we have to play our part.

Regrettably, Europeans often profit from these disasters. That is why the call for us to take certificates of origin more seriously, e.g. for natural resources, is justified, for often it is the Europeans who brutally exploit the people's suffering for their own economic interests. We have a responsibility here too, and we should not be content with making pretty speeches and applying sticking plaster solutions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, author. – (ES) Mr President, we have a new episode today in this tragic serial set in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In this case the scene is North Kivu, but the plot and the victims are the same, as covered by an emergency resolution in the January part-session.

Almost five and a half million people have died in the war since 1998, and forty-five thousand more die every month, directly or indirectly due to the war. The upshot of this is that one thousand five hundred people die every day: in other words, since we started this part-session on Monday, six thousand people have died already in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The last few months, moreover, particularly in the east of the country, have seen an increase in massacres, rape of little girls and women, and forced recruitment of girls and boys. Both Laurent Nkunda’s rebel troops and the soldiers fighting in the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda are responsible for all this.

We also ought to remember that the MONUC mandate is based on Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, giving it the authority to use all necessary means to dissuade any attempt to use force that jeopardises the life or integrity of civilians or constitutes a threat to the political process.

To date, however, the MONUC presence has proved totally insufficient to bring an end to these barbaric acts. We must therefore again appeal to the Security Council to react and provide all available means to curtail these massacres.

Moreover, although we must welcome the Goma Conference paving the way towards political negotiation, its agreements, especially agreements concerning demobilisation, remain ambiguous, and their application is unclear.

Lastly, this is another chance, as Mr Posselt has already said, to again call for control mechanisms to be activated and implemented such as the Kimberley Process for diamonds producing certificates of origin for natural resources imported by the EU.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Joseph Conrad referred to Congo as the heart of darkness. From the beginning of its existence, that is to say from 1960 onwards, Congo has been the scene of horrific pogroms, killings and civil wars. As a result, Congo has never been able to stand on its own two feet despite being endowed with abundant natural resources. The conflict in the area is the most cruel and barbarous to have occurred since the end of the Second World War. Sadly, it is still ongoing, claiming the lives of almost 50 000 human beings every month. Half of the victims are children under the age of five. The passage of the armies is accompanied by all kinds of crimes against the civilian population: rapes, looting and murder. That is why we welcome the outcome of the Goma peace conference and have such high hopes of it. It could mean the end of armed conflict in the Kivu region, but whether it does will depend partly on us too.

It may, however, prove impossible to resolve this conflict without support from the international community and neighbouring countries. It is important for international support not to be limited to political declarations, but to focus first and foremost on providing appropriate financial, organisational and technical assistance.

  Karin Scheele, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, according to the aid agencies, the situation in North Kivu is in some respects even worse than in Darfur. North Kivu is not in the spotlight, however, and no one in the international community is taking notice of what is happening there. Since the official peace agreement in 2002, Kabila's government has attempted to integrate the regional militia into a national army, so far without much success. The civilian population is still vulnerable to the impacts of the armed conflicts. Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) highlights the difficulties facing relief workers in gaining access to the civilian population due to the continued fighting and says that malnutrition is another major threat to the population in North Kivu.

We therefore urge the Council and the Commission to provide aid immediately and to launch comprehensive medical assistance programmes for the civilian population in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo without delay. We also urge the Council and the Commission to ensure that the recent strengthening of the UN mission leads to substantial improvements in the security of the population.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, despite the agreement reached in Goma on improving security and development in Congo, human rights are still being violated in Kivu province. Three hundred thousand individuals have been forced to leave their homes due to rising violence since the end of 2006 alone. The violence affects women and children in particular. They become the victims of rape or are forced to join armed groups. To date, six million individuals have been displaced, and five million have died as a result of conflict and war fuelled by economic interest groups and supported by governments eager to benefit from the riches available there.

That is why what is needed is more than debates and resolutions in the European Parliament and humanitarian assistance to the inhabitants of Congo. The predatory exploitation of natural resources has to be stopped, together with the speculative activities of international businesses that are enriching themselves at the expense of the life and health of the region's inhabitants.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI) . – (NL) Mr President, we know that our words here will probably not get us much further forward. We can only hope that all parties will permanently adhere to the agreement made at the Goma Conference and that the madness which has already gripped North Kivu for too long can come to an end. According to the UN, since the start of the conflict 800 000 people have fled their homes. Thousands and thousands of women and young girls have become the victims of vicious rapes, and children are forced to take part in the fighting.

Furthermore, we must not forget that the members of the Nkunda militia are not the only ones responsible for massive cruelties. No, all parties, including the government soldiers, have systematically committed crimes against humanity. There are not many ‘good guys’ in North Kivu. Ultimately, therefore, the same number of culprits must be tried. They must answer for their atrocities. It is not only the responsibility of the International Court of Human Rights to pass judgment, it is primarily the responsibility of the Congolese leaders and of Joseph Kabila.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, as Mr Posselt has stated, large areas of the Congo are hell on earth. This has been exacerbated by certain entities not all of which are Congolese. I wish to draw attention to a situation I have seen for myself, namely the high numbers of children orphaned in the area as a result of the conflict. In my view the funding should go to missionaries to enable them to care for those children, especially the boys, so that they are not conscripted into the armies. Once the boys are conscripted they become incapable of anything except shooting and raping. Allow me to reiterate, Commissioner, that funds are needed to teach and care for those unfortunate individuals.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Commissioner, I appeal to the Commission here in Strasbourg to release funds reserved for crisis situations now and to start immediately reconstruction projects, notably with a wide-ranging programme of general medical support for civilians in North-Kivu.

The recent earthquake just worsened what already was a humanitarian disaster. All of us here also ask the Commission and the Council to initiate immediately an Africa-wide coalition to find a political solution to the conflict.

  Meglena Kuneva, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission remains very concerned about the dire humanitarian situation in the Kivus, and North Kivu in particular, where the number of internally displaced people – currently exceeding 800 000 in North Kivu alone – has as much as doubled in the course of 2007, thus alarmingly increasing the vulnerability of the population already suffering hardship.

At the same time, we are aware of, and condemn, the severe human rights abuses – including recruitment of child soldiers and widespread sexual violence – taking place in the region.

Yet, in this context, it is important to remember that today’s critical situation in North Kivu, while exacerbated by the fighting taking place in the second half of 2007, is a result of years of war in the region. The root causes of the Kivu conflict can be traced all the way to the Rwandan genocide at the beginning of the 1990s, while also bearing in mind that there are several local components – such as insufficient political representation of ethnic minorities, pillaging of natural resources and land tenure issues – that significantly contribute to the instability and insecurity in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

That is why the Commission welcomes the recent Goma Peace Conference and the following cease-fire as positive steps towards solving the enduring conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The Conference restored President Kabila’s credibility after the army’s defeat against General Nkunda’s troops at the end of 2007, and launched an inter-provincial dialogue process – something that the Commission has always advocated.

Moreover, along the lines of the commitments made by the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in their Nairobi Joint Communiqué in November 2007, the Goma Conference also re-emphasised the need to tackle the problem of the ex-FAR as a priority. At the same time, it was made clear that there is a need to address the root causes of the conflict, while restoring the State authority in the east.

That said, it should not be forgotten that nothing was definitively solved at Goma or Nairobi. Finding a permanent solution to the root causes of the Kivu crisis, and thus a sustainable restoration of peace in the region, will take time. Indeed, while complementing each other, the Nairobi Joint Communiqué and the Goma Conference represent an encouraging start – but only a start – of a difficult and lengthy process.

The main challenge ahead is now an effective implementation of the Nairobi and Goma commitments. It ought to be assured that all the concerned stakeholders stand by their commitments. The EU will continue to follow closely and participate actively in this process.

In this context, international action in support of the Congolese is very much needed. The Commission, together with the Member States, is ready to continue to play an important role in the Kivus. We have traditionally been one of the most important donors in the east, via our humanitarian assistance and our rehabilitation and capacity-building programmes. We are willing to further increase our support for the region, especially through European initiatives, as well as in close collaboration with the United Nations.

  President. – The debate is closed.

(1) See Minutes.

10. Voting time

  President. – The next item on the agenda is voting time.

(For outcomes and other details concerning the vote: see the minutes)

10.1. East Timor (vote)

10.2. Belarus (vote)

– Before the vote on paragraph 3

  José Ribeiro e Castro, author. – (FR) Mr President, this is just to correct the names of the organisations mentioned in paragraph 3. You have the names on the voting lists, and thus there is no need to repeat them.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

– Before paragraph 1

  Urszula Gacek (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I rise on behalf of my group with an oral amendment to the proposed amendment. While freedom of expression is laid down in the Commission’s non-paper, the internet is sadly not particularly included or singled out. Therefore, to be factually correct and to include all freedoms of expression, not just on the internet, we ask that the phrase ‘on the internet’ be removed from the amendment.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

10.3. North-Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo) (vote)

11. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

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

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

14. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

15. Adjournment of the session

  President. – I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned and wish everyone a pleasant journey home.

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

What, if any, communications have been received from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in response to the European Parliament's Resolution P6_TA(2007)0631 on women's rights in Saudi Arabia, dated 13 December 2007? Does the Council consider any of the responses to be positive or encouraging?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has received no communication from the Government of Saudi Arabia in response to the European Parliament’s resolution on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia dated 13 December 2007.

You will of course be aware that the question of human rights is always discussed at the annual Joint Council and Ministerial Meeting between the EU and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), which includes Saudi Arabia. The specific question of women’s rights is discussed with the GCC within that framework.

Therefore, the Council expects that it will be possible to bring up discussion of human rights, including women’s rights, at the next EU-GCC Ministerial Meeting which is due to take place on 26 May 2008. At that meeting the Council will present the EU’s view on women’s rights and listen to the view of its partners from the GCC.

How does the Council assess the outcome of the Bali Summit?

The 187 countries which took part in the UN conference in Bali decided to initiate negotiations leading in 2009 to a new treaty on climate change, without however adopting specific targets.

Given that EU heads of state and government had already agreed in March 2007 to a package of specific measures and targets combining energy policy with efforts to address the problems of climate change, how does the Council evaluate the outcome of the Bali conference? Which initiatives does it intend to take within the framework of the new roadmap to adopt specific binding targets and a timetable for their attainment in the new treaty on climate change? How will it persuade the US to move in this direction? What position does the European Union intend to take in the international conference on climate change to be organised by the US in Hawaii in 2008?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Bali Action Plan marks the beginning of a comprehensive negotiation process to be concluded in December 2009 at the Copenhagen Conference at which it will be necessary to discuss, inter alia, the shared vision for long-term cooperative action, mitigation, adjustment, technology and funding. If I may, I will set out the component parts in greater detail.

The first component, that is to say the shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, is of essential importance in guiding future joint efforts in the fight against climate change.

The second component, that is to say enhanced national and international mitigation action, is set out in a carefully worded text which balances the action of the developed countries and that of the developing countries.

The Bali Action Plan has also brought the USA back into the UN process. Furthermore, the traditional line which had divided Annex I parties and non-Annex I parties since 1992 was abandoned in the text of that resolution. A clear distinction was also established between the action to be taken by developed countries and that to be taken by developing countries in order to prevent the developed countries from using this opportunity to abandon their quantified emission reduction commitments.

The third component, that is to say enhanced action on adaptation, will include international cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation actions, risk management and risk reduction strategies, disaster reduction strategies, and an increase in economic diversification.

The fourth component includes enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation, and the fifth component relates to enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation.

The text of the resolution contains all the items which the EU called for and in no way prejudices the final outcome of the negotiations on them. A final assessment of the Bali Conference will be possible only in the light of the text drawn up at the Copenhagen Conference.

The Council General Secretariat and the Commission have so far not delivered a clear picture of the future European External Action Service. Since it is a matter of primary concern for the national diplomatic service and EU representatives and most relevant for ordinary citizens, it is important to provide some answers for the national capitals as soon as possible and preferably before ratification of the Treaty.

Under the new plans, how will the European External Action Service function and how large is it likely to be? What changes will occur to the existing Foreign Service structure that already deals with the EU's foreign policy?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

At this stage the Council does not have a view on the future structure or organisation of the European External Action Service. The Council will be able to take an administrative decision on the future organisation and work of the Service only on the basis of a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy once the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, that is to say after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining consent from the Commission.

The preparatory work relating to the European External Action Service will form an integral part of the preparation process for implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. As Minister Rupel informed President Pöttering in his letter of January 2008, the European Parliament will be regularly informed of the technical work relating to the preparations for the European External Action Service.

The Commission is scheduled to submit a green paper on an EU entry/exit system and other border management tools such as Electronic Travel Authorisation. How does the Council consider that such projects would work alongside the Visa Information System (VIS) and the Schengen Information System (SIS)?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The European Council and the Council have repeatedly called upon the Commission to draw up proposals for improving effectiveness and increasing interoperability and synergy between European databases.

The European Council of 14 and 15 December 2006 stressed the importance of using new technologies to improve border surveillance and called upon the Commission to study the feasibility of introducing a common entry and exit system.

On 13 February 2008 the European Commission presented three communications, including a communication on new tools for a European integrated border management strategy which could form an integrated part of the European border management of the future. The proposed general automatic recording of border crossings by all third country nationals could significantly complement the VIS and SIS.

The Slovenian Presidency will organise a ministerial-level conference at which the ministers for internal affairs will discuss these communications for the first time.

According to the weekly 'Der Spiegel' (January 2008), the German authorities are planning to exchange a hostage of German nationality, Donald Klein, who has been held by the Iranian authorities since 2005, for a number of terrorists belonging to the Iranian satellite organisation active in Lebanon, Hezbollah, among them the ringleader of the terrorist operation of the Iranian regime which resulted in the elimination of four opposition figures in the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin in 1992.

The Federal Court of Berlin concluded that the terrorist act was the brainchild of Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khameini, and the former Iranian president, Ali Hashemi-Rafsanjani.

There have been recent press reports concerning the release of those responsible for these assassinations of Iranian opposition figures.

While of course fully sympathising with Donald Klein and his relatives, the author of this question believes that conceding to the demands of the world's number one terrorist nation is liable to have severe repercussions for all Europe's citizens, be it in Germany or in other Member States.

Does the Council not believe that to make concessions to terrorism, as in these negotiations, could end up worsening the risks to all European citizens of becoming targets of the terrorism of the Iranian regime?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council did not consider this question.

What possibilities does the Council see of promoting and developing transalpine routes between Bavaria, Austria, Italy and Slovenia so as to increase economic exchange and at the same time maintain ecological standards?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As regards the possibilities of promoting and developing transalpine routes, as the member will no doubt be aware, and in accordance with Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, the priorities of the trans-European transport network include: establishment and development of the key links and interconnections needed, inter alia, to fill in missing sections, complete major routes and overcome natural obstacles, and integration of security and environmental concerns into the design and implementation of the network. Article 8 of the abovementioned decision further states that the Member States must also take account of environmental protection in connection with the trans-European transport network.

Mention should be made of the two priorities set out in Annex II to the abovementioned decision, namely the rail link Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo and ‘Priority Project No 6’, the rail link Lyon-Turin-Venice-Ljubljana-Budapest. According to the progress report drawn up by the project coordinator Karel Van Miert in July 2007, activity on the rail link Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo has progressed swiftly in the second year and a memorandum of understanding on the Brenner Tunnel has been signed between Austria and Italy. In December 2007 the Commission adopted a decision on the request for cofunding for the Brenner Tunnel.

‘Priority Project No 6’ - the rail link Lyon-Turin-Venice-Ljubljana-Budapest - also resolves the problem of crossing the Alps, that is to say from west to east. This priority also includes the Mont Cenis Tunnel, which is already under construction and is a cross-border project of Italy and France. In connection with this project mention should also be made of the Trieste–Divača link in respect of which the Commission approved cofunding for drafting design documentation and preparatory work in December 2007. Activities on that project are under way and a memorandum of understanding between Italy and Slovenia concerning that section was signed in July 2007.

The Slovenian Presidency has made the Western Balkans one of its priorities. The EU offers the countries of the Western Balkans clear prospects of accession, opening up a whole range of political, economic and social opportunities both for the EU and to Balkan countries.

Does the Council consider that the EU’s enlargement strategy for the states of the Western Balkans which is essentially based on the step-by-step enlargement model used hitherto (SAA – applicant country status – accession negotiations – accession) is realistic?

Which criteria has the Council set itself to establish whether countries with a past of ethnically-motivated civil wars are ready for accession?

Which time-framework can the Council give for the individual successor states to former Yugoslavia? When can such states be considered stable enough to be able to accede to the EU?

How does the Council view the proposition that the EU cannot allow itself to import ethnic conflicts?

Which timetable can be followed in granting Montenegro applicant country status? What are the greatest obstacles in this process?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Slovenian Presidency will devote particular attention to the Western Balkans. The stability of that region is of crucial importance for the security and prosperity of the entire EU. A number of events can be expected during the transition process in 2008: a review of the 2003 Thessaloniki Agenda, conclusion of the network of stabilisation and association agreements, and strengthening of regional cooperation in several areas. The Council will continue to support the prospect of EU membership for the Western Balkans and bring it closer to the people of the region (primarily it will help prepare the beginning of dialogue on liberalisation of the visa regime with the countries of the region). In addition, the establishment of a Regional Cooperation Council will be a further important achievement of regional cooperation and an expression of enhanced regional ownership. The Council has emphasised the importance of regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations and the need for cooperation between neighbouring countries in seeking mutually acceptable solutions to unresolved issues.

In carrying out a comprehensive examination of the Western Balkans, account must be taken of the considerable progress that has been achieved in recent years: greater stability, democratic reforms, economic growth, enhanced regional cooperation and progress on moving closer to the EU as part of the stabilisation and association process. However, certain significant challenges remain: the fight against organised crime and corruption, compliance with international law (ICTY) and finding a solution to the issue of Kosovo’s status, the latter being the most important from the point of view of stability in the region. Therefore, the issue of Kosovo’s status is a key priority of the EU presidency. The Council considers that it is a European problem to which it is necessary to find a solution which will contribute to regional stability and the prospect of EU membership for the countries of the Western Balkans.

On 17 February 2008 Kosovo’s parliament passed a resolution on Kosovo’s independence. In the conclusions of its February meeting the General Affairs and External Relations Council stated that the resolution commits Kosovo to the principles of democracy and equality of all its citizens, the protection of the Serb and other minorities, the protection of the cultural and religious heritage and international supervision. The Council welcomed the fact

that the international community will maintain its presence in Kosovo on the basis of UN Security Council resolution No 1244. The Council noted that the Member States will decide on their relations with Kosovo, in accordance with national practice and international law.

In the conclusions of its February meeting the General Affairs and External Relations Council recalled the EU’s longstanding commitment to the stability of the countries of the Western Balkans. The Council reiterated the EU’s readiness to play a leading role in strengthening stability in the region, and recalled the European Union’s commitments contained in the conclusions of the European Council of 14 December 2007, as well as the agreement to Joint Actions establishing an ESDP Police and Rule of Law mission and appointing an EU Special Representative in Kosovo. The European Union will also continue to cooperate with the UN, KFOR, OSCE and other international actors in order to preserve stability in the region.

The European Council reaffirmed its commitment fully and effectively to support the prospect of EU membership for the countries of the Western Balkans. It asked the Commission to use Community instruments to promote economic and political development and to propose concrete measures to the broader region in order to advance in that direction.

The main objective of the EU presidency with regard to the successor States of the former Yugoslavia in the EU on the road towards the EU are as follows:

Serbia: the EU presidency will encourage Serbia to create the conditions necessary for the swift signing of the SAA and to make progress on attaining applicant country status, and will support Serbian leanings towards the EU, improve the EU’s visibility in Serbia and encourage Serbia to continue its successful regional cooperation.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: the presidency will encourage the political actors to create the conditions necessary for the earliest possible signing of the SAA, promote the prospect of EU membership for BiH and enhance the EU’s visibility. It will support political dialogue and State-building efforts in order to provide, through constitutional and other reforms, functional and effective State institutions which will enable the country to improve the lives of its citizens. It will also support efforts by EUSR Miroslav Lajčák and continue preparations for the planned transition from the OHR to a strengthened EUSR office following an assessment of the PIC and creation of the necessary conditions.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: the presidency will, in close collaboration with the Commission, support the deepening of political dialogue and continued implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and encourage speeding-up of the reform process to create the conditions necessary for the next stage of the country’s integration into the EU. The presidency is aware of the name issue and encourages both sides to make efforts to attain, through a constructive approach and negotiations under the auspices of the UN, a mutually acceptable solution and thereby to contribute to regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations.

Montenegro: like all the countries of the Western Balkans, Montenegro is a possible applicant country for membership of the European Union. The speed of progress along the road to the EU depends on the speed at which Montenegro adopts and implements the necessary reforms. As regards signing a stabilisation and association agreement, Montenegro has made good progress. However, at present it is necessary to focus on implementing the SAA, building and strengthening Montenegro’s national institutions, further strengthening administrative capacity, and the rule of law and promoting the fight against organised crime and corruption. These areas are of fundamental importance to any functioning European country. The Council will continue to support Montenegro in these efforts.

Can the Council make a statement outlining the updated political situation in Palestine at present?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council’s position is that ‘the political situation in Palestine’ to which the member refers in his question necessarily requires the fostering of institution building, good governance, civil society contributions, support for the growth of the Palestinian economy, and the strengthening of the rule of law to prepare for the establishment of an independent, democratic and successful Palestinian State on the West Bank and in Gaza, which will unite all Palestinians and coexist in peace and security with Israel and its neighbours.

The EU therefore welcomes the results of the International Donors’ Conference for the Palestinian State last December at which over USD 7.4 billion were pledged to support efforts to build effective, democratic institutions and a successful economy for a future Palestinian State in accordance with the Reform and Development Plan presented by Prime Minister Fayad. The EU remains determined to contribute considerably to this effort in accordance with its Action Strategy ‘State-building for Peace in the Middle East’, which includes the broad range of its aid operations. The PEGASE funding mechanism, which will provide support for the Palestinian people, was also launched recently.

In its conclusions of 28 January 2008 the Council expressed its deep concern about recent events in Gaza and the grave disturbance at the border between Gaza and Egypt. It condemned the constant firing of rockets into Israeli territory and all other activities which are contrary to international law and endanger civilians. While recognising Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence, the Council called for an immediate end to all acts of violence. It reiterated its grave concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza and called for the continuous provision of essential goods and services, including fuel and power supplies. It reiterated its call on all parties to work urgently for the controlled re-opening of the crossings in and out of Gaza for both humanitarian reasons and commercial flows. In that context, the Council underlined its support for the proposal by the Palestinian Authority to take control of the crossings, and supports the Arab League resolution in that respect. The EU will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza and stands ready to assist in the economic rehabilitation of Gaza. The Council stated that the EU is ready to consider the possibility of resuming its monitoring mission at Rafah under the provisions of the relevant international agreements related to access and movement, which were concluded in November 2005.

After the 1999 conflict in the Kosovo province of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the criminal and civil justice system collapsed. Although the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had jurisdiction over Kosovo, it was clear that it would only be able to try a very limited number of cases. Therefore, the UN established the International Judges and Prosecutors Programme to incorporate a limited number of foreign judges and prosecutors into the local criminal justice system. Regrettably, the performance over more than seven years of the International Judges and Prosecutors Programme has failed to meet expectations. Local prosecutors and judges are still not prepared for cases involving crimes under international law. Legal reforms essential for such cases still have not been enacted into law. No date has been set for completing the rebuilding of the justice system so that it can operate without a continuing international component.

What does the Council plan to ensure that international judges and prosecutors deliver the benefits they promised to bring to the Kosovo justice system?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The judicial system in Kosovo continues to deteriorate and the judicial institutions are finding it difficult to provide an appropriate service in terms of both criminal and civil justice. Local judges and prosecutors are still unable to deal with the most sensitive criminal and civil cases, inter alia, on account of security issues and pressure from local communities and the majority population. At present those cases are covered by international judges and prosecutors with the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

EULEX Kosovo⁽¹⁾ emphasises the key role which its judges and prosecutors will have to play at a high level and also in the various competent courts and through the Kosovo Special Prosecutor’s Office.

As regards first-instance cases and complaints, cases will be assigned in a transparent manner to judges and prosecutors of the ESPD mission and their colleagues at local level, using predetermined objective criteria. The ESPD judges and prosecutors will also operate within the framework of the Supreme Court and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Can the Council make a statement on the political situation in Sri Lanka at present, in particular on the efforts to bring peace to this country?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is still deeply concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka, as demonstrated by the EU declaration of 8 January 2008:

‘The EU deeply regrets the Sri Lankan Government’s decision to abrogate the ceasefire agreement concluded with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2002. This decision and the current military campaign further deteriorate the country’s already difficult situation, including the humanitarian and human rights situation. Without the ceasefire agreement prospects of negotiating a lasting, peaceful solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka are narrowed further. The EU particularly regrets that the work of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission will be terminated.

The EU has been similarly concerned by LTTE acts of terror in recent months and statements promising further violence from their side. The EU urges both parties to put an end to all hostilities and avoid further escalation.

The EU calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to come forward with a substantive devolution offer around which negotiations can start, as soon as possible. For an arrangement to serve as a feasible basis for negotiations, it needs to go beyond past offers and the EU urges both parties to work towards a solution that would bring a peaceful and lasting resolution to the conflict.’

The EU is presently examining a proposal for a political solution to the conflict on the island, which the All Party Representative Committee presented to President Rajapakse.

It is clear that the situation in Sri Lanka has still not stabilised. The Council has therefore decided to send a diplomatic mission there to study the development of events and express concerns on behalf of the EU.

Can the Council say where it is possible to find a complete, officially consolidated edition of the Lisbon Treaty, as adopted by the EU Heads of State and Government in Lisbon in December 2007? If a complete, officially consolidated edition is not yet available, when is one expected to be published?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

As Mr Søndergaard will be aware, the Lisbon Treaty which was signed by the Heads of State or Government on 13 December 2007 is a treaty which amends the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. The text of the Lisbon Treaty was published in Official Journal C 306 of 17 December 2007. A consolidated version of the treaties amended by the Lisbon Treaty is not yet available.

However, in accordance with the practice relating to previous amendments (Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice) a consolidated version of the treaties amended by the Lisbon Treaty will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in all the official languages of the European Union, in all probability in the next few months.

The Basque Autonomous Community and the Autonomous Community of Navarre have taxation systems distinct from that of the Spanish State. The economic agreements with Euskadi and Navarre (Concierto Económico and Convenio Económico respectively) govern these tax systems. Although these systems are independent of the Spanish system, neither past Treaties nor the Lisbon Treaty attribute any competence in the field of European fiscal policy to the Basque and Navarrese Governments. This fact makes it difficult for these autonomous communities to defend their tax systems within Europe.

The Spanish State is not the only European Union Member State with different tax systems inside its borders. The difficulties Euskadi and Navarre have in defending their tax systems crop up repeatedly.

Does the Council intend to press for recognition of these regions’ competences in the field of taxation?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Under existing Community law, the imposition of taxes does not fall within the competence of the EU and in any event falls within the sole competence of the Member States. Moreover, the Member States alone are able to decide on the internal allocation of taxation powers to the various territorial and/or regional sub-units in a country. The Community legislature has no role to play in such decisions. The relevant Member States may at most call on it to take account of the specific features of national systems when amending legislation to harmonise Member States’ tax legislation.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has consistently held that the Member States have competence in the field of taxation but must exercise that competence in accordance with Community law. Therefore, national law cannot be incompatible with harmonisation measures, where they have been adopted. Furthermore, national taxation powers must be exercised within the bounds of the Treaty and therefore cannot constitute prohibited State aid or a prohibited restriction on free movement. However, it is not the Council but rather the European Commission and the courts which establish whether or not national tax measures are consistent with Community law.

Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA⁽¹⁾ laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking lays down that Member States must inform the Council and the Commission by 12 May 2006 how they have transposed their obligations arising from the Framework Decision.

How is the Netherlands complying with its obligations? How can the fact that the municipality of Maastricht has granted a permit for a major construction project for the sale of drugs directly on the border of Belgium be reconciled with these obligations?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council answers the question relating to the effectiveness of the implementation of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA as follows:

Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA⁽²⁾ of 25 October 2004 lays down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking.

Under Article 9 of the Framework Decision, Member States are to take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 12 May 2006 and transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council and to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Framework Decision.

In a letter of 4 September 2006 the Netherlands informed the Council of the implementation of the Framework Decision in its national law and also submitted the text of the provisions transposing the relevant obligations into its national law. Those provisions entered into force on 1 July 2006.

As regards the question of how an individual Member State fulfils its obligations under the Framework Decision, it must be borne in mind that under Article 9 the Commission is, by 12 May 2009, to submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the effectiveness of the implementation of the Framework Decision, including its effects on judicial cooperation in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Following this report, the Council is to assess whether Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Framework Decision.

Azerbaijan has a huge number of refugees in relation to its population: around one in seven Azeris is a refugee. Some 4% of the world's total number of refugees are in Azerbaijan. The problem of 'internally displaced persons' (IDPs) has already existed for 14 years in Azerbaijan. Many children have known nothing but the life of a refugee and are living in inhuman conditions and do not go to school. The huge camps in which they live are hotbeds of social unrest, epidemics and crime. The government is failing to tackle this problem. The majority of 'internally displaced people' are being left to their fate, without proper accommodation, food or medical and health care.

Azerbaijan is bidding to hold the Olympic Games in 2016. Will the EU be putting pressure on Azerbaijan to tackle the refugee problem and in general to show greater respect for human rights? Azerbaijan does not hold democratic elections, the rights of the media are restricted and impunity and corruption are rife. Will the EU if necessary be opposing Azerbaijan's bid to hold the Games, bearing in mind that initial hopes that the holding of the Olympic Games would encourage China to improve respect for human rights are proving vain?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council attaches great importance to the refugee problem and also to elections, human rights and media freedom in Azerbaijan and thus devotes particular attention to these issues. These issues concern fundamental European values which Azerbaijan recognised by its membership of the Council of Europe and the OSCE and its involvement in the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan (ENP).

The European Union strongly supports the Azeri refugees and internally displaced persons and hopes that they will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible once an overall peace agreement has been reached. Furthermore, the EU frequently stresses that it is prepared to provide financial support for the reconstruction/repair of Nagorno-Karabakh and the neighbouring occupied areas when a peace agreement has been reached. This would facilitate the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.

The Council has repeatedly – in particular in the statement by the EU Presidency on the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan dated 7 November 2005 – expressed its disappointment at the assessment of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) that in spite of some progress compared with previous elections the 6 November 2005 parliamentary elections fell short of many OSCE obligations and Council of Europe obligations and standards with regard to democratic elections. The European Union is now encouraging Azerbaijan to increase its efforts to establish democracy, having regard to the fact that presidential elections will take place in October 2008.

In recent months the EU has repeatedly expressed its concern at the worsening of the situation in the country with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms. These developments will have to be closely monitored in the run-up to the presidential elections.

EUSR Peter Semneby and SG/HR Personal Representative on Human Rights Riina Kionka visited Baku together in July 2007 to encourage further dialogue on the media.

A statement on the sentencing of Eynulla Fatullayev in Azerbaijan was published on behalf of the European Union on 8 November 2007.

On 8 January 2008 the European Union expressed its pleasure at the pardoning by President Aliyev of 119 prisoners, including several imprisoned journalists, and its belief that the presidential pardon is a positive step towards Azerbaijan’s fulfilment of international and European obligations with regard to freedom of the press. Nevertheless, the EU remains concerned that three journalists (Mirza Sakit Zahidov, Ganimat Zahid and Eynulla Fatullayev) are still in prison. It called upon the Azerbaijani authorities to release or pardon them at the earliest opportunity. In addition, it supports the introduction of a moratorium on proceedings for defamation.

Furthermore, the EU will – also within the framework of cooperation with the OSCE and the Council of Europe – continue to take every opportunity to express its concerns about the refugee problem, elections, human rights and media freedom in Azerbaijan. It has already done so at meetings of the EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Committee (in Baku on 28 September 2007) and the EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Council (in Luxembourg on 16 October 2007).

The European Union Special Representative for the Southern Caucasus, Ambassador Peter Semneby, is also helping Azerbaijan implement political and economic reforms, in particular in the field of the rule of law, democratisation, human rights, good governance, development and poverty reduction. During his visits to Azerbaijan Ambassador Semneby also meets members of the opposition party in that country.

The Council therefore intends to keep monitoring very closely developments in Azerbaijan in those respects and, where necessary, to discuss them with the Azerbaijani authorities. One such opportunity for discussions with the Azerbaijani authorities was presented by the visit of the EU Troika foreign ministers to Baku on 4 February 2008.

What efforts is the Council Presidency making to reach agreement on the draft directive on temporary agency workers proposed by the Commission in March 2002 (COM(2002)0149 - COD/2002/0072) and approved by the European Parliament on 21 November 2002?

What are the main issues under discussion and when does the Council expect to be in a position to agree a common position on this proposal?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The member asks what efforts the Slovenian Presidency is making to reach agreement on the draft directive on temporary agency workers. The Slovenian Presidency is willing to continue work on this legislative proposal and is presently studying greater opportunities for progress, having regard to the December Council.

The main issues discussed by the Council were:

– the review of the prohibitions and restrictions on temporary agency workers (Article 4) and

– the period during which less favourable conditions of employment may apply to agency workers than regular workers of the same undertaking (Article 5(4)).

The Slovenian Presidency is willing to continue work on the draft directive on temporary agency workers but is not in a position to judge when a common Council position might be forthcoming.

Since there is no police force in the Union with cross-border powers, does the Council believe that Europol should take the responsibility for warning EU citizens (as the FBI is doing in the USA) that their computers have been hijacked by organised crime and are being used as slave computers in bot-nets in order to spread spam emails, to steal identities, and to launch denial of service attacks on financial commercial websites? If not, then who?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In its November 2007 conclusions on cybercrime the Council stressed the need to enhance coordination and further improve the performance of all available players and resources, in Member States as well as in organs such as Europol and Eurojust and international bodies like Interpol. The Council also emphasised the need to put into practice and assess the working of arrangements for cooperation between authorities in different countries, with particular reference to the 24/7 network provided for in Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24 February 2005, which ensures round-the-clock cooperation between authorities seven days a week, thus speeding up the response to cybercrime.

Success in combating a disease often depends on early diagnosis, and this is particularly true in the case of breast cancer. Modern equipment - a positron emission tomograph (PET)/computer tomograph (CT) - is essential to such early diagnosis, and Lithuania has no such equipment. Patients are forced to travel to other countries to be examined and their sickness insurance schemes do not reimburse the expenses incurred.

Could the Council outline the situation with regard to cancer diagnosis in the EU, in particular in the new Member States? What good practices have been identified in this area? What measures can we take to resolve this problem?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council would like to thank the member who has expressed interest in this important matter. Reducing the burden of cancer is a priority of the Slovenian Presidency in the field of public health. On the basis of discussions as part of the conference entitled ‘The Burden of Cancer – How Can It Be Reduced?’ held in Brdo (Slovenia) on 7 and 8 February 2008, the Presidency will draw up conclusions on cancer which the Council will adopt on 10 June 2008.

Considerable inequalities and gaps in terms of cancer mortality, morbidity and survival rates have existed for a long time within and between the Member States. The reasons for these differences are the very different levels of service as regards disease prevention, diagnostics, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care. In its draft conclusions the Council therefore stresses the need in the EU to adopt an overall cancer prevention and control strategy which will help remove gaps in diagnostics, treatment and care.

Although it should be stressed that the organisation and provision of health services and care, such as are required where cancer is discovered for example, fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States, in its draft conclusions the Presidency proposes that the Council call upon the Member States to give cancer patients the best possible care. However, this is possible only with the aid of qualified multidiscipline staff, the appropriate equipment and facilities and effective diagnostics and medicines.

The European Commission has announced two sets of European guidelines for best practice in the screening and diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer (guidelines on colorectal cancer are to be drawn up by 2009). These guidelines demonstrate the role the European Union can have – in collaboration with national governments, professional organisations and civil society – in preserving and improving the health of European citizens.

Given that according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women under 45 years worldwide, and according to the World Health Organisation there are roughly 60 000 reported cervical cancer cases and an estimated 30 000 deaths each year in Europe. Cervical cancer is a major health, psychological and social burden throughout Europe.

While acknowledging the benefits of screening programmes, does the Council agree that the introduction of a cervical cancer vaccination programme in conjunction with screening programmes is vital for cervical cancer prevention and for reducing the number of cervical cancer cases in Europe?

Has the Council considered encouraging Member States to conduct a cost-benefit analysis with regard to making a vaccine programme widely available?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Reducing the burden of cancer is a priority of the Slovenian Presidency in the field of public health. Following the recent conference entitled ‘The Burden of Cancer – How Can It Be Reduced?’, which was held in Brdo (Slovenia) on 7 and 8 February 2008, the Presidency will present Council conclusions on cancer which the Council will adopt on 10 June 2008.

It has been demonstrated that targeted screening is an effective strategy for reducing the risk of developing and dying from cervical cancer. The Commission recently finished drawing up a second edition of the European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening which should be regarded as a European reference standard and best practice.

Furthermore, a new field has opened up in the field of cancer prevention with the development of vaccines for certain kinds of carcinogenic strains. In its draft conclusions the Presidency proposes that the Council encourage the Member States to consider these new preventive measures against the pathogen that can cause cancer.

It is reported in the media that King Mohammed VI of Morocco has urged the French President to lobby within the EU for an ‘advanced status’ for his country. On 21 January 2008, this advanced status was the subject of a speech by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch reports acts of out-and-out repression against peaceful human rights movements calling for the independence of Western Sahara.

Respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights constitute an ‘essential element’ of the Association Agreement concluded by the EU and its Member States with Morocco. A Subcommittee on Human Rights, Democratisation and Governance has also recently been created in this connection.

Has the Council already denounced the human right violations in Western Sahara? Have steps towards an 'advanced status' for Morocco been made dependent on progress in this area?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Morocco has taken a strategic decision to move closer to the European Union. The European Union and Morocco are establishing increasingly close partnership in many fields. For the European Union it is a strategic partnership of fundamental importance since it involves a region where sources of instability continue to exist.

At the same time, the partnership with Morocco is founded on a commitment to certain common values. Respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms forms the basis of relations between the EU and Morocco and an essential element of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement. These values also form the core of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and were confirmed in the EU-Morocco European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan in 2005. The relevant issues, including the situation in Western Sahara and its consequences, are normally to the fore at all the meetings held as part of bilateral dialogue. Morocco is committed to these values. This is reflected in the significant reforms which have been implemented in recent years in the field of politics and also in the fact that Morocco is willing to discuss these issues with the European Union, in particular in the Subcommittee on Human Rights, Democratisation and Governance, which has met twice to date, most recently in November 2007.

Morocco has been seeking advanced status in its relations with the European Union since 2001. Since then considerable progress has been made. Within this overall framework and the framework of the neighbourhood policy the European Union and Morocco agreed at the most recent meeting of the Association Council on 23 July 2007 that they would facilitate ways of examining options to strengthen considerably relations which would grant Morocco the advanced status it was requesting.

The EU-Morocco Association Council decided that it was necessary to assess implementation of the ENP Action Plan. The Association Council also established an ad hoc working group which, on the basis of the progress made in implementing the action plan and the other plans submitted within the framework of other forums, is studying new objectives for the partnership and further steps to develop bilateral relations, including a large number of contractual relations, as already provided for in the Action Plan. The Commission’s next communication on European neighbourhood policy, which is due to be presented in April, will be significant in that respect. All this will be included in the discussions at the next meeting of the EU-Morocco Association Council, which will be held in the second half of this year.

On the pretext that there is no ‘realistic prospect for a world without nuclear weapons’, five former chiefs of general staff and senior NATO commanders insist that the ‘nuclear first strike’ option remains an ‘indispensable instrument’ for prevention. The ‘preventive nuclear strike’ is part of the arsenal of the USA’s bellicose, imperialist policy. Thus, as part of their proposals for an enhanced role for NATO, the five former top officials recommend the use of a preventive nuclear strike, even without authorisation from the UN Security Council, when, in their view, there exist ‘threats to western values and the western way of life’. Their recommendation, which has already been presented to the US Pentagon and to the Secretary-General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is due to be discussed at the NATO summit meeting due to be held in Bucharest in April where it is certain to elicit strong reactions.

Will the Council say whether it condemns this proposal for a ‘preventive nuclear strike’?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council did not consider the statement to which Mr Toussas refers.

As we approach the 2012 Olympic Games, what lessons can London learn from the 2004 Athens Olympics? For example, what special measures will the EU need to consider taking to ensure the free movement of participants, spectators and journalists in light of security and illegal migration concerns?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The United Kingdom does not participate in the Community’s common visa policy. Therefore, the Community does not have to take any measures which would be binding on the United Kingdom as regards facilitating procedures for applying for and issuing visas for members of the Olympic family to enter the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom may, if it so wishes, take account of Council Regulation (EC) No 1295/2003 relating to measures envisaged to facilitate the procedures for applying for and issuing visas for members of the Olympic family taking part in the 2004 Olympic or Paralympic Games in Athens⁽¹⁾ and Regulation (EC) No 2046/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 relating to measures envisaged to facilitate the procedures for applying for and issuing visas for members of the Olympic family taking part in the 2006 Olympic and/or Paralympic Winter Games in Turin⁽²⁾. These two regulations are based on the fact that Greece and Italy are Member States which implement fully the Schengen acquis and thus participate fully in the Community’s visa policy.

On a more general level, United Kingdom bodies can make use of the recommendations from the handbook for police and security authorities concerning cooperation at major events with an international dimension (OJ C 314, 22.12.2007, p. 4). The handbook was recently amended, primarily to include the experience gained at the previous Olympic Games.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus 'there were positive advances in relations between Belarus and the European Union in 2007 such as the initialling of the agreement between the Republic of Belarus and the Commission of the European Communities on the establishment of the delegation of the European Commission in the Republic of Belarus'; 'bringing special attention to the trade and economic collaboration of Belarus and the European Union'.

How does the Council evaluate relations between the EU and Belarus in 2007, especially in terms of the country's human rights situation? What strategy does the Council plan to adopt in the immediate future and in the long term with regard to relations with Belarus? Are there any prospects that visa fees for Belarusian citizens will be reduced in the coming years?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

EU policy towards Belarus continues to be based on a dual approach. On the one hand, it maintains restrictive measures (the visa ban and assets freeze) against Belarusian officials responsible for oppression and abuse of democratic principles and, on the other, is increasingly willing to cooperate with Belarusian society, including contacts with the authorities. The EU has laid down the release of all political prisoners and an end to the arrest of opposition supporters and civil society activists as the first condition for the actual commencement of cooperation with Belarus. This message has been stressed repeatedly, inter alia in interviews with the High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, for the independent Belarusian media in 2007 and also directly in talks with the Belarusian authorities.

The Belarusian authorities often infringe basic human rights as regards the political opposition, the media and freedom of assembly. Although involvement in opposition political organisations in Belarus is not unlawful, in practice it is impossible for those organisations to carry on their activities. Politically motivated arrests and detentions (albeit sometimes only for a short period) are continuing. Last year dozens of opposition activists were beaten up and detained. However, in January and early February five out of six political prisoners were released. Only Aleksandr Kozulin remains in prison for political reasons.

The Council is aware of the problem of increased visa fees for Belarusian nationals since the end of 2007 when the neighbouring countries which are EU Member States joined the Schengen area. The European Union does not want Belarusian nationals to have more favourable treatment with regard to obtaining visas than nationals of its other neighbouring countries. However, visa facilitation negotiations are necessary for the introduction of lower visa fees. Unfortunately, the Belarusian Government has not responded positively to the EU’s proposal for participation in European neighbourhood policy which would encourage that country and at the same time impose obligations on it. Consequently, it is still not possible to commence visa facilitation negotiations.

The Council is still willing to conduct dialogue with Belarus on the gradual regulation of bilateral relations, including relations as part of an agreement on partnership, cooperation and European neighbourhood policy, if the Belarusian authorities demonstrate that they are actually willing to respect democratic values, human rights and the rule of law.

A report by the British NGO 'Reprieve' has offered yet another reasoned denunciation of the use of CIA flights or similar services for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, in other words for the clandestine US operations known as 'extraordinary renditions'.

The method used is to abduct 'terrorist suspects' – as they are discriminatorily classified by the CIA – who are pursued and detained anywhere in the world and are then sent to secret prisons in a number of countries, where they are maltreated and even tortured. The US Secretary of State has publicly confirmed the practice of 'extraordinary renditions'.

This has not been denied by the CIA's director, and in September 2006 President Bush himself recognised the existence of these secret CIA jails, as an environment where [prisoners] can be kept in secret. These statements gave rise to interventions by ombusdmen and legal authorities, calls for parliamentary inquiries, a Council of Europe report, investigations still under way by the EP, declarations by authorities in the Member States concerning landings on their territory by aircraft used by the CIA, and confirmations by people taken prisoner in those conditions.

Can the Council state what explanations it intends to ask for from the US Administration?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The EU has repeatedly drawn attention to these matters in political dialogue with the USA.

The Council’s position is set out in the Council conclusions of 11 December 2006: ‘The EU remains firmly committed to the absolute prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. It guides our own actions and we raise our concerns with third countries. (…) The existence of secret detention facilities where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum is not in conformity with international humanitarian and human rights law.’

In accordance with the EU guidelines on torture, States should also prohibit secret detention facilities to ensure that any person deprived of liberty is held in an officially recognised place of detention and that his whereabouts are known.

Acting in violation of Greek law – the law of the flag of a vessel – Egyptian armed forces boarded the Roll-On Roll-Off ship ‘Nikolas A’ on 2 January 2008. It had been detained since 6 October 2007 owing to a civil law dispute at the port of Safraga in Egypt. The Greek shipowner has complained that the six members of the crew were savagely beaten and two of them suffered serious injuries. The Egyptian military then arrested and imprisoned the ship's Greek second engineer and the Spanish captain of the company and seized the passports of the other crew members.

In view of the above, does the Council intend to intervene to ensure that the rights of the Greek and Spanish seamen who are victims of a clash of interests between shipowners and charterers are respected?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council did not consider the question posed by Mr Pafilis because it does not fall within its competence.

In a bid to bring down costs and increase their profits, the multinational food companies are encouraging animal cloning for livestock breeding and food production purposes, showing total disregard for the possible impact on the health of consumers. In its recent report, drawn up in response to a request from the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority indicated that it approved animal cloning for food production.

Does the Council intend to endorse the findings of the EFSA and authorise food production from cloned animals, a development which is causing great concern with regard to food safety in the light of scientific findings to the effect that cloned animals are not only short-lived but also affected by numerous genetic or other anomalies, that, as a result of genetic manipulation, the replicants may differ from the naturally occurring animals from which they were cloned and that artificial characteristics may be inherited, slowing down subsequent livestock development and improvement through crossbreeding?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It should be pointed out that no definitive findings of the European Food Safety Authority exist at present. The cited ‘opinion’ is merely a draft which is available for public consultation until 25 February 2008 and whose findings are only provisional. The European Food Safety Authority has still not adopted a definitive position and its final opinion is expected by the end of May 2008. In future, when any EU measures on the cloning of animals and products acquired from such animals are considered, it would be useful for them to be adopted once the Commission has submitted its proposal.

Therefore, the Council will adopt a position on this issue only on the basis of a Commission proposal.

The EU has taken upon itself the role of driving force in efforts to reduce the greenhouse effect. A decisive measure in this connection is reducing citizens' energy consumption. The EU countries and the Commission should not, therefore, on the one hand urge Europe's citizens and undertakings to increase their energy efficiency and reduce their carbon dioxide emissions while at the same time imposing barriers to imports and increasing the cost of such measures by means of punitive tariffs on imports of low-energy light-bulbs from China.

Moreover, this does not only damage Chinese manufacturers: it also damages European businesses which produce these bulbs in China. The EU should aim to achieve equal treatment - not special treatment: punishing certain European producers, as in this case, is contrary to the fundamental principle of equal treatment in the EU.

What will the Council do to help eliminate antidumping levies on imports into the EU of low-energy ('green') light-bulbs?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council would first like to draw the member’s attention to the answer of 5 March 2007 to written question E-0080/07 and the answer of 23 May 2007 to oral question H-0291/07 concerning anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China.

On 15 October 2007 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) 1205/2007⁽¹⁾, which extends that measure by one year following conclusion of the review. The aim of the regulation is to address unfair competitive advantages resulting from the export of such lamps to the Community and to find a proper overall balance between the wishes of consumers, manufacturers and retailers.

By adopting the regulation and restricting the payment of duty, the Council took account of the interests of importers and consumers and was able to affect the introduction of those measures. If those measures had been implemented for more than one year, their negative effects would not have been proportionate to the benefits which they bring to Community manufacturers.

The Council’s objective is to strike the correct balance between one agreed objective, namely to increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the Community, and another equally important objective, namely to protect the Community’s industry from the trade-distorting practices of non-member countries. The questions put by the member were discussed and taken into account in the final decision on adopting the regulation.

Officials are entitled to an annual flat-rate payment of travel expenses for themselves and, if they are eligible for the household allowance, for their spouse and dependents from their place of work to their place of origin (according to Article 8 (under Section 3(C)) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities of 1 May 2004).

How much did the Council spend in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively on these payments provided for under the Staff Regulations?

How many Council officials were entitled in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively to benefit from this provision?

How many Council officials did, in fact, benefit from this provision in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

In his question the member stated that under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and Articles 26 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, which are used in respect of temporary and contract staff who have completed at least ten months' service, members of staff are to be paid a lump sum equivalent to the cost of travel from the place of employment to the place of origin.

As regards the number of officials and temporary and contract staff entitled to such payments on the abovementioned conditions, the following statistical data exist.

Statistical data on travel expenses for 2005: 2 394

Statistical data on travel expenses for 2006: 2 420

Provisional (*) statistical data on travel expenses for 2007: 2 504

*(additional payments still have to be made for 2007)

Since these payments are automatic lump sum payments and there is no need to submit an application or supporting documents, the number of those entitled and those who benefit is the same.

The amounts paid are calculated to that end in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

In respect of the relevant years the General Secretariat of the Council made the following payments:

Payment of travel expenses for 2005: EUR 3 791 397.83

Payment of travel expenses for 2006: EUR 3 995 868.19

Provisional payment of travel expenses for 2007: EUR 4 239 547.68

What view does the Council take of the recent statements by the Russian ambassador to NATO and the Russian army's chief of staff, threatening one of the EU Member States (Poland) with retaliatory – and even military – action in the event of US anti-missile-shield bases being installed in Poland?

This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is not binding on the Council or the Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time to the Council at the 2008 February part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is unfamiliar with the view that was purportedly expressed.

According to EU legislation all official languages and alphabets are equal, and EU citizens can use them equally. How can the Commission explain the lack of possibility for EU citizens to use the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets when ordering publications from the EU bookstore, managed by the EU Official Publications Office?

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities welcomes the interest in its publications.

In order to facilitate web access to the publications of the institutions, agencies and other decentralised bodies of the European Union, in 2005 the Office set up an online service called ‘EU Bookshop’⁽¹⁾.

This electronic bookshop allows users to search the publications of the European Union in all the official languages, and to order them and download them free of charge.

The honourable Member refers in his question to ordering publications from the ‘European Bookshop’⁽²⁾, it is assumed that he means the online ‘EU Bookshop’ service run by the Office. The ‘European Bookshop’ is in fact a private bookshop based in Brussels that does not belong to the European institutions but is linked to the Office for Official Publications through a commercial distribution agreement.

The online ‘EU Bookshop’ service provides several search functions to meet the information needs of European citizens in all the official languages (23).

The Office is constantly improving the site’s technical aspects, including use of all the official languages when ordering publications. This function is currently only available in English. As far as the other official languages are concerned, the IT system that runs the ordering system does not yet have the capacity to recognise all the characters specific to each language. The Office is aware of this technical challenge, particularly with regard to the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets.

A feasability study is currently being carried out to identify the best technical options to ensure that in the future orders can also be made in all the official languages.

For the first time since the inception of the Greek CSF in 2001, there will be no meeting of the monitoring committee in December. In view of this, will the Commission say what progress has been made so far (legal commitments, take-up) both for the CSF as a whole and for each sectoral and regional programme separately? Has a proposal for a review of the CSF been submitted by the Greek authorities? What are the proposed transfers of appropriations between operational programmes and/or funds? What amount of preparations is involved?

For which programmes does the Commission intend to accept the application for an extension of the CSF submitted by the Greek authorities following the forest fires? How long will this extension last?

Under the Third Community Support Framework 2000-2006 for Greece, an amount of some € 22.7 billions has been committed for Community assistance in the Greek regions from the four Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF and FIFG)⁽¹⁾. By the end of the year 2007, an amount of some € 16.6 billions was paid from the Structural Funds. This amount corresponds to 73% of the total EU structural allocations to Greece. However, it should be underlined that, late December 2007, the Greek authorities submitted to the Commission a payment claim of some € 2.5 billions, all Structural Funds included. The evaluation of this claim by the Commission's services is still ongoing.

Following the wildfires which ravaged part of Greece in summer 2007, the Greek authorities applied for modifying the Operational Programmes and Community Initiatives of the third programming period (2000-2006). This modification will not include any retrospective modification to the financing plans of the programmes. The programming period 2000-2006 has been completed and therefore re-programming is no longer permissible. Consequently, no transfer of credits from one Operational Programme to another, from one Priority Axis to another within the same Operational Programme, or from one Community Fund to another could be acceptable. The only modifications that the Commission could accept are those which do not require the modification of the financing plan of the programmes, namely, transfer of credits from one measure to another within the same Priority Axis through revision of the Programme Complement.

The Greek authorities also applied for a one-year extension of the eligibility deadline of the Operational Programmes and Community Initiatives of the third programming period (2000-2006). In reply to the Greek request, the Commission considers that a one-year extension of the eligibility deadline of the Operational Programmes and the Community Initiatives can be granted, provided there is a direct and substantial link between the unforeseeable event of the wildfires occurred in summer 2007 and the implementation of the Operational Programmes and Community Initiatives for which the extension is requested. Consequently, such an extension can be accepted for Western Greece, the Peloponnesus, Continental Greece and Attica, as these programmes concern precisely the regions where the wildfires occurred.

As regards the national Operational Programmes and the Community Initiatives Leader+ and Equal, the Greek authorities were asked to communicate to the Commission all substantive elements demonstrating that the aforementioned criterion of direct and substantial link is met. The technical discussions on this issue between the Greek authorities and the Commission's services are still on-going.

The appropriations earmarked for payments under heading 1a in 2008 come to over EUR 40 billion and, although they are higher than the sum proposed for this heading in 2007, there are fears as to whether they will cover the funding needs of the individual Member States. It should be borne in mind that the majority of both sectoral and regional programmes presented by the Member States for the 2007-2013 period were approved by the Commission. That being the case, implementation of at least some of them will take place in 2008 and requests for appropriations for payments will rise noticeably.

Can the Commission ensure that there will be sufficient appropriations for payments under heading 1a in 2008?

The question seems related to the expenditure under Heading 1b (Cohesion for growth and employment) rather than 1a (Competitiveness for growth and employment). The following information should be presented.

2008 payment appropriations for Heading 1b amount to € 40.6 billion, an increase of 7.5% over the 2007 figure. This amount comprises three components:

advance and interim payments relating to the commitments under the new 2007-2013 Financial Framework, which is the largest component;

reimbursements to clear the stock of outstanding commitments (RAL) for the 2000-2006 programmes and projects;

and a residual amount to clear the remaining RAL for the pre-2000 programmes.

In order to propose the level of payment credits for the 2008 budget, the Commission took into consideration:

forecasts of payments provided by Member States (for both programming periods);

analysis based on the previous years' payments execution;

experience with the start up of the 2000-2006 programming period.

In the budget 2008:

In accordance with Article 82 of Regulation 1083/2006⁽¹⁾ (Pre-financing), the Commission reserved sufficient payment credits to execute the second advances for all new 2007-2013 programmes. It is worthwhile to underline that most of the programmes have been adopted late in 2007 and thus the first advances have just been paid (in December 2007/ January 2008).

The 2008 budget contains also € 13.6 billion for execution of interim payment according to Article 86 of Regulation 1083/2006 under the new programming period.

In accordance with Article 71 of Regulation 1083/2006, before the submission of the first interim payment claim, or at the latest within 12 months of the approval of each operational programme, each Member State shall submit to the Commission a description of its management and control systems. The description shall be accompanied by a report setting out the results of an assessment of the systems set up and giving an opinion on their compliance with Articles 58 to 62 of Regulation 1083/2006 (Management and control systems). These documents are subject to the Commission's approval.

The above-mentioned requirements may lead to significant delays and in effect result rather in under-spending of the budget than shortage of funds.

How were the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund used in the 10 new Member States during the 2004-2006 period?

What is the possibility of full use by the new Member States of the funding available for the 2004-2006 programming period?

The final date of eligibility of expenditure from the 2004-2006 period for Structural Funds can be up to the end of 2008 for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) and up to the end of 2010 for the Cohesion Fund projects. That said, the Commission has launched in 2007 the ex post evaluation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3 2000-2006, which will evaluate the impact of Structural Fund resources in all 25 Member States before the 1 January 2007 and will provide information on how the Funds were used, in terms of what the resources were spent on, what was achieved and the effectiveness of implementation systems. Results from this evaluation will be available in 2009. Ex post evaluation of the Cohesion Fund will be launched in 2009, with results available in 2010. The later date of the Cohesion Fund evaluation arises from the need for as large a number as possible of projects to be completed in order to evaluate their impact.

At this point, the absorption of Structural Funds – ERDF and ESF – is more advanced than that of the Cohesion Fund.

The current state of play as of 17 January 2008 indicates a payments absorption rate of 79.7% for the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), 72% for ERDF, 65.29% for ESF, and 44% for the Cohesion Fund (CF) for the ten new Member States. So far, all of the Structural Funds operational programmes have complied with the n+2 rule and no budget has been lost (apart from Slovenia for EQUAL and Slovakia on Objective 3). Implementation of Structural Funds programmes in the Member States concerned has been taking off in the last year and is now on track.

The present situation therefore indicates satisfactory progress in respect of project implementation and compliance with the planned implementation timetables.

The vast majority of Cohesion Fund projects are still ongoing and most projects will only be finalised by 2010. The final date of eligibility of expenses for the Cohesion Fund is 31 December 2010. Full absorption will depend mainly on the timely implementation of projects and the timely certification of expenditure to the Commission. Although the Cohesion Fund implementation is somewhat slower than for the ERDF and ESF, there are no grounds at this stage to suggest that the absorption of Funds will be other than very good. Implementation challenges can be observed particularly in the environment sector (Poland, Lithuania). The majority of the delays are due to the technical and administrative complexity of the projects in the environmental sector. However the countries concerned are working toward improving the progress of projects and addressing the administrative shortcomings and at this stage the expectations are for a very good absorption of the 2004-2006 allocations.

One of the goals of both the old and new Lisbon Strategies was to make the European Union the most competitive economy in the world by 2010. Sustainable competitive advantages can only be gained in an innovative economic environment. However, some regions in the European Union have natural limits placed on their innovative capacity by their geographical and infrastructure situation, most notably mountain regions. In the light of the most recent developments, what specific measures is the European Commission planning in order to improve innovative capacity in mountain areas by 2013 and thereby ensure the even development of competitive capacity, territorial cohesion and regional development in the European Economic Area? How will account be taken, in particular, of the requirements of areas with a strong SME structure and cross-border trade relations?

Mountain areas with their various disadvantages and considerable diversity stemming from their geographic peculiarities (e.g. isolation, difficult accessibility, climatic conditions) constitute a particular challenge for regional policy.

The Commission is of course aware of these problems and has been very active in pursuing a policy aimed at the improvement of the situation of disadvantaged regions i.a. by adopting the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion on 30 May 2007. It confirms the importance the Commission attaches to achieving greater territorial cohesion in Europe and to the particular difficulties certain territories are facing. The Commission will communicate the results of the discussion on the questions raised in this report in the context of the Fifth Progress Report on Cohesion due for spring 2008.

As you know, the new regulations for 2007-2013 and the Community Strategic Guidelines contain explicit provisions for mountain areas, thus creating the basis for progress in addressing territorial specificities in programming documents. Additionally, the Territorial Agenda of the European Union adopted at the informal ministerial meeting in Leipzig in May 2007 strives to strengthen territorial cohesion.

During this meeting the Commission presented also a document which assesses the way national strategies for 2007-2013 would propose to tackle territorial issues. One of its observations was that only a few Member States set clear and explicit interventions for specific types of territories. However, some € 6,400 million were "earmarked" specifically for mountain areas. As a consequence, the Ministers requested the Commission to develop further this analysis and to present a Report on Territorial Cohesion (Green Paper) in 2008.

This report under preparation and its adoption is scheduled for the third trimester of 2008 with the aim of launching a broad debate on the concept of territorial cohesion of the European Union and its Member States. It will raise a number of issues concerning the need for a more integrated approach on territorial cohesion in the future as well as the use and implementation of the concept at various levels and in different policy domains. This report will also cover policies specific to mountains and other areas facing geographical difficulties supporting a harmonious and balanced development of the Union. This common vision is essential for avoiding the fragmentation of European policies while taking into account the specificities of the areas concerned.

It is also worth recalling that under the European Territorial Cooperation and especially under the trans-national strand there are spaces among the 13 cooperation areas where partners can clearly benefit from the trans-national approach both from a geographical and thematic point of view. The programme "Alpine Space" 2007-2013 which covers the Alpine regions of Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia and in which Liechtenstein and Switzerland also participate, is an example of one such trans-national programme. Approved in September 2007, the 130 million euro programme, 98 million of which represents European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funding, aims to increase the area's competitiveness and attractiveness through working jointly in fields where trans-national cooperation has been shown to be more effective and solutions more sustainable than acting alone. The programme has three priorities. In the field of competitiveness and attractiveness, the programme aims to promote innovation, entrepreneurship and research and development (R&D) among small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to enhance cultural heritage and strengthen urban areas as engines for sustainable development. Another area of paramount importance to Alpine Space countries is accessibility. Here the programme will focus on securing fair access to public services, to transport, particularly sustainable and innovative mobility and also to connectivity which forms the basis for a knowledge-driven Information Society. The prevention, mitigation and management of natural and technological hazards is the programme's third priority. Enhancing cooperation in environmental protection issues, stimulating an integrated approach to conservation and resource efficiency are among the issues addressed.

The broad consultation launched by the Commission at the occasion of the 4th Cohesion Forum put forward the question how cohesion policy should address territorial specificities and how the global challenges affecting these areas should be treated. There is undoubtedly an urgent need to reinforce multi-level governance and to ensure consistency between actions to promote territorial development and the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs.

Illegal immigration into the EU Member States has been spiralling in recent years, particularly those countries with a long maritime border (for example Greece).

Has the Commission taken into account of this problem in drawing up its cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013 and has it calculated the effects thereof on the economic, social and other aspects of the cohesion policy?

The Commission Communication "Towards a Common Immigration Policy"⁽¹⁾ of December 2007 establishes the need for a stronger and coherent European approach towards migration. This appeal was confirmed by the most recent European Council.

This need felt by many European citizens is also reflected in the various instruments the European Union has at its disposition.

There are first of all the instruments in the area of justice, liberty and security. These include the External Borders Fund, the Frontex Agency and the European Refugee Fund.

The issues related to demographic change and specifically migration flows have indeed been one of the elements that Member States have taken into account when drawing up their national plans and operational programmes. Illegal immigration is one of these issues that affect both the economic and social cohesion within a region and between regions.

The framework for Cohesion Policy, through its Regulations and strategic guidelines, provide the interface between these European policies and the national needs and opportunities that have been identified.

The management and implementation of Cohesion Policy programmes financed through the Structural Funds is primarily the responsibility of the Member States and their regions.

In the above mentioned context, the European Social Fund (ESF) outlines action aimed at the better preparation of migrants and reinforces their social adaptation, while the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) also makes provisions – of relevance to migration – that could support investments and infrastructure expenditure in the sectors of public health, social inclusion, labour market conditions, cross-border activities and even activities in non-EU countries under certain conditions provided that such expenditure is foreseen in the relevant operational programme(s). The answer to the first part of the question is therefore positive. The policy has taken the migration dimension into account in its particular national, regional and local context.

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member of the recent Cohesion Reports in which the involvement of local and regional authorities in the development and implementation of immigration and asylum policies is stressed. These authorities, together with the social partners, non-governmental organisation(NGOs) and other local actors, play an increasingly important role in integrating third country nationals into society and economic life. A coordinated approach is needed, which includes ensuring access to education and training, health and social services, decent housing and so on. The reports also contain information on net migration and linked issues such as demographic and labour market change. The policy developed has also been fed and inspired by various calculations using social economic models and thus implicitly taking immigration aspects on board.

In relation to Greece, the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) for Greece for 2007–2013 sets out the overall strategy for Cohesion Policy. It takes account of the socio-economic situation in Greece, in order to develop a vision for the development of the country. In doing so, the presence of immigrants is of course a factor in the analysis undertaken.

The resulting Operational Programmes (OPs) address the issues posed by the presence of immigrants and focus in particular on their integration into labour market, with specific actions being foreseen.

The particular challenges posed to Greece as a frontier country in terms of illegal immigration are addressed by programmes administered by Directorate-General (DG) Justice, Liberty and Security (JLS). The Commission has elaborated a number of measures, based on the principle of solidarity, to support in particular those Member States such as Greece that are confronted with increasing migratory pressures. Member States are already working together in joint operations in the Mediterranean, under the coordination of the Frontex Agency, aiming at a more effective surveillance of the EU's Southern maritime borders and the open sea with a view of curbing seaborne illegal immigration and of preventing humanitarian tragedies. Taking into consideration that countries with a maritime border have experienced pressure of spontaneous arrivals of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, they should actively use the financial support available from existing or planned funding possibilities, like the European Refugee Fund, the External Borders Fund, the Integration Fund and in near future the Return Fund, which are allocated to the Member States in proportion to their share of burden.

The Commission proposes to introduce functional separation to ensure fair competition in telecoms markets. How will the Commission assess whether it is necessary to introduce functional separation and when?

The measures on functional separation proposed by the Commission as part of the reform of the EU telecom rules⁽¹⁾, aim to provide to national regulatory authorities, not the Commission itself, the legal basis to impose that obligation. The national regulatory authority can only impose functional separation if the Commission, having assessed the draft measure, in light of the conditions and criteria that are set out in the proposed Art. 13a of the "Access Directive" decides that it is compatible with Community law.

The assessment of the draft measures by the Commission will include in particular:

evidence that the standard regulatory remedies⁽²⁾have failed – and would fail on a persistent basis – to achieve effective competition;

an analysis of the impact of the draft measures on the regulatory authority, on the undertaking, on its incentives to invest in its network, and on other stakeholders including in particular the expected impact on infrastructure competition and any potential entailing effects on consumers;

a draft of the measure being proposed including elements concerning the nature and level of separation, the identification of assets of the separate business entity as well as the products and services to be supplied by this entity, the governance arrangements of the separate business entity, the rules for ensuring compliance with the obligations, the rules for ensuring transparency of operational procedures and a monitoring programme to ensure compliance including publication of an annual report.

The assessment and subsequent authorization of the draft measure by the Commission aim to ensure a consistent implementation of the regulatory framework across the EU with the objective to achieve the internal market for electronic communications.

Does the Commission believe that the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 97/36/EC⁽¹⁾ will be able to keep pace with developments in audiovisual technology and advertising?

Is the Commission satisfied that requesting media service providers to develop codes of conduct towards children is a sufficiently robust measure to protect children's particular interests - for instance, to prevent advertising of so-called 'junk food' aimed at children?

In the Commission’s opinion, Directive 89/552/EEC, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (previously known as the Television without Frontiers Directive), as amended by Directive 2007/65/EC of 11 December 2007, updates the European legislation to adapt it to the current European audiovisual landscape, the envisaged changes in the markets, technological progress and new advertising techniques in use. The reasons are set out below.

Firstly, the Directive concerned covers all linear audiovisual media services (provided on the basis of a programme schedule), irrespective of the technology or platform used (traditional broadcasting, mobile telephone, Internet Protocol (IP) television, etc.), and non-linear audiovisual media services (on-demand video or programmes). The result is that all audiovisual commercial communications, not just television advertising, are now subject to the rules stipulating that such communications must not cause physical or moral detriment to minors.

Secondly, the Directive stipulates that the Member States and the Commission must encourage audiovisual media service providers to develop codes of conduct regarding inappropriate commercial communications, accompanying or included in children’s programmes, concerning nutritional substances such as fat, trans-fatty acids and salt, excessive intakes of which in the overall diet are not recommended from a medical point of view. These codes, which are to apply to the media service providers themselves (and indirectly to sponsors and advertisers), are in addition to the new provisions that Member States will have adopt to transpose into national law the provisions of the Directive aimed at protecting consumers, especially minors, and must facilitate their application. Moreover, since obesity in children is a problem that is caused by different factors, the Commission proposes in its White Paper on obesity of 30 May 2007⁽²⁾ a comprehensive multi-sector strategy promoting various measures aimed, in particular, at providing better information to consumers, facilitating access to healthy food, encouraging physical activity, etc.

Thirdly, the Directive recognises the importance of, and calls on the Member States to promote, media literacy as a special means of protecting families and children from harmful or offensive material (paragraph 37 of the preamble). The communication on media literacy in the digital environment⁽³⁾ encourages actions that enable young audiences to develop a critical approach to commercial communication.

European Network Information Security Agency (ENISA) has so far achieved very good results, considering its limitations in terms of funds and personnel. In only two years of activity, ENISA has proven, as supported by plenty of evidence, to be the right answer to Europe’s needs in the field of network and information security. All unsubstantiated claims about the ‘location’ of the seat have been definitively answered. Greece has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness and commitment to actively contribute towards the success of ENISA, by providing the Agency with substantial support. The presence of ENISA in Heraklion is also a significant step forward towards decentralisation and regional development in Europe.

There is a strong need to avoid wasting accumulated know-how and invested resources. We ask the European Commission why it does not support ENISA to continue effectively its successful activities by increasing its budget, staff and competences? Why are the tasks, competences, budget and staff of the new Telecoms Agency not assigned to ENISA?

The Commission made proposals for the reform of the EU Telecom Rules on 13 November 2007. A key aspect is the proposal to create the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (EECMA),⁽¹⁾ to stimulate creation of pan-European services in a Europe without frontiers, and further strengthen the internal market in electronic communications.

In the Commission’s opinion, network and information security must be a key policy priority of the reform to enable all stakeholders, including telecoms operators and regulators to respond faster, quicker and in a coordinated way to security breaches and attacks. This is why the Commission proposed to enhance the security-related provisions of the current EU rules, taking into account the results of a public consultation last year. Notably, the proposed package introduces better instruments to fight against network security breaches and to strengthen networks against cyber attacks.

Even though the findings of the evaluation of ENISA indicate that its achievements were adequate or even good,⁽²⁾ the Commission believes that today’s network security challenges should be addressed by ensuring new synergies between the work of telecommunications regulators and security experts, with a view to making Europe’s information and communication networks more secure. Moreover, these synergies should be utilised in assisting the effective implementation of the strengthened network security rules. This is why the Commission’s proposal includes a substantial focus on the challenges posed by network and information security in the broader context of the dynamics of the internal market in electronic communications.

The scope of EECMA is much wider than that of ENISA. EECMA will play a very important role in the reform of the whole field of electronic communication regulations. Because the activities of ENISA relate to a limited, albeit important, part of this field, the Commission has proposed a new Authority that will integrate responsibility for the activities currently undertaken by ENISA. A proposal for a Regulation amending the current ENISA Regulation to extend its duration until the EECMA assumes responsibility for its activities on network and information security on 14 March 2011 was necessary and has therefore been adopted by the Commission on 20 December 2007.

In Communication COM(2007)0409 the Commission puts forward a strategy for the development of mobile TV in the European Union. 'Mobile TV' is referred to as 'the transmission of audiovisual content to a mobile device'.

How does the Commission define 'mobile TV' in the light of the definitions of 'audiovisual media services' in the audiovisual media services directive, Directive 2007/65/EC⁽¹⁾, and of 'audiovisual services' in the directive on electronic commerce, Directive 2000/31/EC⁽²⁾?

Does the Commission see a different role for audiovisual media services and audiovisual services with regard to the freedom of information and opinion and the safeguarding of pluralism in the media?

If so, what differences in the type and extent of regulation and with regard to spectrum allocation does the Commission see arising for audiovisual media services and audiovisual services?

The Commission recalls the scope of its strategy for mobile TV outlined in the Commission Communication of July 2007 on Strengthening the Internal Market for Mobile TV. In this document, the term mobile TV refers to broadcast terrestrial mobile TV services only. The Commission is aware that there are various ways to provide mobile TV, ranging from cellular networks to satellite. However, terrestrial broadcast is an indispensable element to develop a mass market for these new innovative services and this is why it is at the centre of the Commission's current action. The Honourable Member in her question asks for a clarification of the definition of mobile TV in the context of content regulation. As mentioned, mobile TV in its scope as mentioned refers to a sub-set of audiovisual media services which are governed by the recently adopted Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Like "fixed" television broadcasts, broadcast terrestrial mobile TV is defined as a linear audiovisual media service as outlined in Article 1(e) of the Directive.

The eCommerce Directive, which does not provide for a specific definition of audiovisual services but a general definition of information society services, also coordinates certain fields with regard to those audiovisual services which are provided at the individual request of the recipient.

Regarding the second part of the question, which deals with media pluralism, the Commission would like to quote from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive: "Audiovisual media services are as much cultural services as they are economic services. Their growing importance for societies, democracy – in particular by ensuring freedom of information, diversity of opinion and media pluralism – education and culture justifies the application of specific rules to these services." Provisions in terms of protection of minors or cultural diversity as stipulated in the directive apply to mobile TV as to any other service covered by the Directive.

Mobile TV is a nascent service platform which should benefit from a light touch regulatory approach. Therefore inappropriate obligations such as must carry rules should not be imposed. However, the main national channels, both public and private, will be most certainly in every mobile TV bouquet out of business decisions, as offerings would lose much appeal without them.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that DVB-H, the mobile TV standard favoured by the Commission, can carry a large number of channels, thus enhancing media pluralism.

The last aspect of the question deals with radio spectrum. The two Directives mentioned have no direct relationship with the regulation of radio spectrum. From a spectrum policy viewpoint, mobile TV services delivered over the airwaves should follow the same rules and regulations as any Electronic Communication Services, as defined in the current EU regulatory framework.

On 3 January 2008 the Commission decided to give a fresh boost to the European digital content industry, providing easier and faster access to television programmes, music, films and games via the internet, mobile phones and other digital devices.

In the light of this initiative, and bearing in mind that new communication instruments and channels have rendered the existing model for managing copyright obsolete, since it does not make it possible successfully to tackle the challenge that these new developments represent, will the Commission pursue the debate on how to maintain respect for intellectual property rights whilst at the same time continuing to support innovation and digital development?

Does the Commission not believe that, as well as considering the problems that the new technologies pose for authors and creators, the debate should also address the new advantages that they offer and the fresh opportunities that are being opened up with a view to strengthening the creation, marketing and competitiveness of European culture in general, and music, literature, films and games in particular?

The Communication on Creative Content Online was indeed adopted on 3 January 2008. It explores added-value actions that could be taken at European level to improve the competitiveness of the European online content production and distribution industry.

The online distribution of high value "creative content" represents a major structural change in the European content market. Such high value "creative content" covers music, audiovisual content, radio, online games, online publishing and educational content. New market developments also arise from Web 2.0, i.e. user-created content.

The Commission encourages the content industry, telecoms companies and Internet service providers to work closely together to make available more content online, while at the same time ensuring a robust protection of intellectual property rights.

The Commission would like to stress that the debate within the Content Online initiative will also address the new advantages and opportunities offered by the new technologies with the view to strengthening the creation, marketing and competitiveness of European culture in general. In line with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on cultural diversity, the Commission considers as a priority to support cultural diversity in creative content.

The Commission deems that there are four main, horizontal challenges which merit discussion, exchange of good practice and possibly a coordinated approach at EU-level: availability of creative content; improved licensing for creative content; interoperability and transparency of Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems; and an effective fight against piracy.

The market for online creative content is emerging and developments take place at a rapid pace. This calls for a twofold approach to deal with already identified challenges that need to be addressed quickly, and to launch further discussions on some of the existing and forthcoming challenges.

To help kick start the process the Communication on Creative Content Online has launched a focused public consultation in preparation for the adoption of a Recommendation by the Council and the Parliament. The public consultation is based on a questionnaire included in the Communication and the deadline for replies is 29 February 2008. The questionnaire focuses on three issues: interoperability and transparency of DRM systems; multi-territory licensing for creative content; and legal offers and piracy.

Furthermore, in parallel, the Commission is creating a stakeholders' discussion and cooperation platform, the so-called "Content Online Platform". The remit of the Content Online Platform will include the issues mentioned in this Communication such as: availability of content, improvement of rights clearance mechanisms, development of multi-territory licensing, management of copyright online, and cooperation mechanisms to improve respect of copyright in the online environment.

When the 'Eurotariff' for making and receiving calls by mobile phone abroad (Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007⁽¹⁾) entered into force, the Commission said that it would also strictly monitor agreements between service-providers concerning the costs incurred by people living in border regions. The first report of the European Regulators' Group (ERG), which was published on 17 January 2008, now states that operators do not regard this as a major problem because relatively few consumers are involved. Moreover, it is possible for most providers to cancel charges arising from 'inadvertent' roaming as a sign of good will. However, we learn from an inquiry to the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) that many residents of border areas are still receiving excessively large bills. Technically, it is possible to prevent inadvertent roaming by means of location using triangulation and by means of traffic steering. It should also be possible to inform consumers that inadvertent roaming can be prevented by switching off the 'automatic network selection' option in their telephone.

Does the Commission consider that the goodwill policy of operators, referred to in the ERG report, is sufficient? What does the Commission think of the idea of requiring providers to inform consumers about this and also to take measures at source to definitively put an end to the annoying phenomenon of inadvertent roaming?

Under Article 7 (3) of the Roaming Regulation, national regulatory authorities are required to be alert to the particular case of involuntary roaming in the border regions of neighbouring Member States. The Commission is required to report to the Council and Parliament on the functioning of the Roaming Regulation at the end of 2008 and will include the issue of involuntary roaming in that Report. In that context all national regulatory authorities, under the auspices of the European Regulators Group (ERG), have carried out a first detailed data collection exercise which, at the behest of the Commission, included questions to all operators in the EU on the issue of involuntary roaming.

As stated by the Honourable Member in his question, the ERG has now issued its Report which included responses from operators to questions that had been raised concerning inadvertent roaming. Operators claimed that inadvertent roaming was not a significant problem, with apparently relatively few consumers adversely affected. Providers claimed that information was generally available on their websites, and where a particular issue was identified by national regulators (for example between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) providers generally took additional steps to ensure consumers were aware of the issue, in some cases offering specific bespoke tariffs. The majority of providers also reported that where roaming genuinely occurred inadvertently, charges may be waived as a goodwill gesture.

The Commission is now considering the ERG's findings and will shortly discuss this issue again with the national regulatory authorities to ascertain what further action could be taken by them to address this issue. The Commission shares the concern that this is not an insignificant problem for those affected. Also, following specific complaints, the Commission has recently contacted national regulatory authorities in Germany, France and Luxembourg asking for their comments and details of the action they are taking on this issue. The Commission believes that the initiative undertaken by the Irish and United Kingdom authorities provides a very good example for others to follow. It is too early to say what conclusions the Commission will come to on this issue in its end of year Report to the Council and Parliament. ERG will publish a second Report to the Commission in July of this year.

Ultimately, the Commission believes that problems such as involuntary roaming are the result of the fragmentation of the EU telecoms markets into 27 markets. This issue can be addressed by its proposals for greater harmonisation of regulation including a European Telecom Market Authority to support the Commission and national regulators in regulating better, more speedily and more consistently across the EU.

The Commission’s proposal COM(2007)0699 raises serious questions about its effectiveness and efficiency, because it ignores the significant efforts made and the considerable resources devoted over a long period, disregards the good results presented so far by the existing Agency, and discards a valuable asset of the Community in a key policy area, making no provisions for taking on board the staff of ENISA and their expertise.

The majority of Member States appear to favour a coordination of activities in the telecommunications area rather than a heavy-handed regulatory approach, a role that may be well fulfilled by ENISA, if a thin layer of competences in telecommunications is added to ENISA’s mandate (currently under revision).

The Commission is therefore asked: why is the Community value built by ENISA being discarded instead of expanding the mandate of ENISA with a view to encompassing the planned new activities of ETMA?

The mid-term evaluation of ENISA, launched in 2006 by the Commission⁽¹⁾, indicated that the Agency’s achievements were adequate in the light of the limited means at its disposal. They confirmed the validity of the policy rationale behind the creation of ENISA and its original goals as well as the relevance of acting through a European agency. Improvements made following suggestions by the evaluators and the Management Board are contributing to improve ENISA’s work.

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that today’s network security challenges should be addressed by ensuring new synergies between the work of telecommunications regulators and security experts, with a view to making Europe’s information and communication networks more secure. Moreover, these synergies should be utilised in assisting the effective implementation of the strengthened network security rules. This is why the Commission's recent proposals include a substantial focus on the challenges posed by network and information security in the broader context of the dynamics of the single market in electronic communications.

The Commission believes that its proposal⁽²⁾ to create the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (EECMA) will stimulate the creation of pan-European services in a Europe without frontiers, and further strengthen the single market in electronic communications while enabling all stakeholders, including telecom operators and regulators, to respond faster and in a coordinated way to security breaches and attacks.

The scope of EECMA is wider than that of ENISA and it will reach a critical mass in terms of human resources and budget. EECMA will play an important role in the reform of the whole field of electronic communication regulations. The activities of ENISA in contrast relate to a circumscribed albeit very important part of this field, which is one of the reasons why the Commission has proposed a new Authority integrating responsibility for the activities currently undertaken by ENISA.

A proposal for a Regulation amending the current ENISA Regulation to extend its duration until the EECMA assumes responsibility for its activities on network and information security on 14 March 2011 was necessary and has therefore been adopted by the Commission on 20 December 2007.

A new Authority must be free to hire its own staff. Naturally, it will be hiring the best people that apply for positions. ENISA staff should have good prospects in this process, since they are highly qualified, have the right profile and in addition can put forward their directly relevant experience at ENISA.

What measures are under consideration by the Commission with a view to tackling the high level of unemployment still prevailing in the EU's most remote regions?

The Structural Funds, and the European Social Fund (ESF) in particular, will continue to support the outermost regions (ORs) over the period 2007-2013 with a view to combating unemployment. The ESF supports the Member State policies aimed at achieving full employment, high-quality jobs and greater productivity, promoting social inclusion, notably access to jobs for disadvantaged groups, and reducing the national, regional and local disparities in terms of employment.

During the period 2007-2013 the seven ORs will receive financial support totalling €1.3 billion. The Member States are responsible for implementing the Structural Funds on the basis of the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion⁽¹⁾ and the priorities agreed with the Commission in the national strategic reference frameworks.

The new legislative framework also provides for specific aid to the outermost regions to compensate for the additional costs generated by their remoteness. One particular challenge will be to ensure that this aid contributes to the implementation of the programme strategy as a whole, i.e. in this case that it helps to generate sustainable growth and employment.

Furthermore, as part of its evaluation of the Member States’s implementation of the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission is proposing to the Council that it put forward recommendations to them aimed at improving the functioning of their labour markets and improving lifelong learning with a view to increasing the quantity and quality of jobs available.

The Commission has spent substantial time and money in recent years analysing the problem of copyright levies. Copyright levies are acknowledged to hold back development of an inclusive information society in Europe. The Commission has consulted stakeholders and Member States on several occasions and has produced impact assessments which clearly show that reform of the copyright levy system is necessary. Indeed, in a speech delivered to the European digital industry on 10 May 2007, Commissioner Reding said she regarded progress on this issue to be: 'part of the unfinished business of this Commission'.

Can the Commission explain its current position with regard to the copyright levy system? In particular, can it explain why there has been no action on reform of copyright levies, given that the problems associated with the current system continue to mount?

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the continued interest she takes in the ongoing efforts in reforming private copying levies. In 2006, the Commission analysed the 20 national schemes that compensate for private home copying. A preliminary report on this issue had been drawn up at the end of 2006.

On 14 February 2008, the Commission re-opened the consultation of interested parties with a view to establishing possible options for moving forward.

Culture and cultural diversity are core objectives behind all initiatives the Commission pursues in the field of copyright. The Commission's policy in respect to the private home copying levies therefore aims at fostering adequate compensation for authors and performers, transparent remittances to those beneficiaries and cultural diversity.

In order to provide effective support for the fundamental principles of good governance and intercultural dialogue in ACP countries, it would be particularly useful to enhance their populations’ capacity for critical analysis of social and economic realities. That enhancement hinges on the need for ACP countries to have an independent and effective media. The 10th European Development Fund, which is the instrument for implementing the aid granted by the EU to the ACP countries for the period 2008-2013, promotes good governance, but makes no provision for targeted support to foster the emergence of an effective and independent media and, more broadly, of a functioning information society.

What does the Commission intend to do to help ensure the independence and effectiveness of the media in the ACP countries and to guarantee their inhabitants better access to the information society?

The Commission agrees with the honourable Member that it is essential for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to have an independent and effective media.

As part of the programming for the 10th European Development Fund (EDF), priority has been given to democratic governance in all its dimensions in the dialogue between partners in the preparation of the cooperation strategies and national indicative programmes. In that regard, the Commission and the EU Member States represented in each partner country have carried out an analysis of the democratic governance process and governance profiles have been drawn up.

The press situation and restrictions on press freedom and capacity are analysed in the profiles. The conclusions are incorporated in the programming dialogue with the partner country, which is encouraged, where necessary, to commit to reforms in various areas and to implement measures to tackle the problems highlighted. All press matters are thus an integral part of the programming dialogue, but they are also discussed during the regular political dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement.

As regards financial support, where the reform measures or actions envisaged by the government require financial backing within the framework of the cooperation between the Community and the partner country under the Cotonou Agreement, EDF funds may be used. Indeed, €1.5 million was recently allocated to the media support project in Mauritania for analyses and viability studies on press firms, strengthening radio services, improving the distribution of the print media, supporting radio and written production, and enhancing journalist capacity.

Furthermore, most of the media support activities financed by the EDF are part of broader projects focusing on democratisation, human rights and the rule of law. This applies, for example, to most electoral assistance projects, which have a component on media assistance, journalist training, logistical support for communication agencies and support for civil society organisations for the monitoring of media activities.

EDF financing can be usefully supplemented in particular by funds from the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which does not require any explicit prior agreement from the partner country authorities. The EIDHR provides direct support for the initiatives of civil society actors. Examples of actions to support the press or promote press freedom in ACP countries include actions in Chad, Namibia, Rwanda and Sudan. Network support projects and transnational actions have also been implemented.

In the spirit of equal opportunities and non-discrimination (the theme of the European Year 2007) and of intercultural dialogue (the theme of the European Year 2008), what action does the Commission envisage to tackle stigmatising campaigns in the media against certain groups of the population without infringing genuine freedom of expression?

The Commission is fully aware of the key role of the media in Europe in creating and/or in challenging stereotypes. Indeed, in a Eurobarometer survey⁽¹⁾ carried out as part of the 2007 European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007 European Year), the media was considered to be the most important player in the fight against discrimination after schools and parents. Although the Commission is not in a position to monitor or comment on campaigns in national media against certain groups of the population, it works with the media to support its positive role in changing discriminatory attitudes and behaviour.

Within the framework of the 2007 European Year, the 30 participating countries worked closely with the media to raise awareness about discrimination issues and fighting stereotypes. The Commission also worked together with the media as part of the 2007 European Year information campaign.

As part of its work on combating discrimination, the Commission has also launched a series of initiatives with the media. In the context of the "For Diversity – Against Discrimination" information campaign, the Commission has worked with the media, for example through organising seminars with journalists on the theme of discrimination. A special award for journalists was also launched four years ago as part of this campaign to honour journalists who contribute to creating a better understanding of the benefits of diversity. The 2007 award scheme was organised in conjunction with the 2007 European Year and more than 750 entries were received from all 27 Member States⁽²⁾.

The Commission will undertake a new study in 2008 to examine the most significant and innovative initiatives taken by or about TV and radio broadcasters as well as by or about the print and online media to combat discrimination and to promote diversity.

The role of the media represents a key theme to be addressed throughout the 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008 European Year)⁽³⁾. Media has an essential role to play in creating a demand for and in providing more culturally diverse content. One of the "Brussels debates" to be organised as part of the 2008 European Year will be dedicated to the role of the media in promoting intercultural dialogue.

Given the outcome of the 2006 public consultation on strengthening the protection of the rights of passengers travelling by sea, what future action is the Commission planning in this area?

In particular, when does the Commission intend to publish a proposal on denied boarding compensation and access for people with disabilities to ferries, as they have done for aviation and rail transport? This was a notable omission from the Commission's 2008 Work Programme and a source of concern for people with disabilities who are currently being denied access to ferries

The Commission has adopted a policy aimed at establishing and strengthening passenger rights. In line with this policy, the Commission launched in 2007 an impact assessment study on the establishment of rights of passengers with reduced mobility in maritime transport. On the basis of this study, the Commission is currently finalising an impact assessment that assesses different options in view of improving the rights of passengers when travelling by ferry or cruise, and more particularly passengers with reduced mobility.

It is correct that such initiative does not appear as such in the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme 2008. It has to be reminded that the Commission's Legislative Work Programme only focuses on main strategic and priority intitiatives. However, the work programme of the Directorate General for Energy and Transport foresees the possibility of such proposal in this field.

The Commission has always expressed a clear commitment in favour of passenger rights. The maritime sector is no exception to this as shown by one of the proposals related to passenger rights in the third maritime package already tabled by the Commission in November 2005.

According to Article 39 of Directive 2004/38/EC⁽¹⁾on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Commission shall submit a report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and the Council no later than 30 April 2008. The European Parliament, in its resolution P6_TA(2007)0534 on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC of 15 November 2007, furthermore called on the Commission, ‘without delay, to submit a detailed assessment of the steps taken by Member States to implement Directive 2004/38/EC and of the correctness of its transposition by the Member States, together with any necessary proposals, acting pursuant to Article 39 of that Directive’. According to the ‘2008 Commission forward programming document’ (http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm"

), the Commission will only issue this report in November 2008.

Can the Commission illustrate why the Commission will not release the report within the time limit set by the Directive? What are the problems encountered and who is responsible for this delay?

Can the Commission inform Parliament whether it foresees the possibility to extend the period of time during which Union citizens and their family members may reside in the territory of the host Member State without any conditions, as provided in Article 39?

The control of the application of Directive 2004/38/EC⁽²⁾ is an absolute priority for the Commission. Between June 2006 and February 2007, infringement procedures against 19 Member States were opened for their failure to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopted in the field covered by this Directive. Eleven infringement procedures currently remain open and the Commission decided to bring three Member States before the European Court of Justice.

The Commission is at the same time examining conformity of the national transposition measures with the Directive. The Commission started to prepare a tender to produce a conformity study of Member States’ national implementation measures transposing the Directive already in November 2006.

The contract could not be signed under the applicable legal base (Council Decision 2007/252/EC of 19 April 2007⁽³⁾) until the ensuing ad-hoc financial decision on the 2007 Work Programme had been adopted. Following a positive opinion by the Management Committee (Article 10 of the Decision), the financial decision was adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2007. The contract was signed on 13 December 2007.

The contractor is obliged to submit the final report to the Commission by 13 August 2008 at the latest. The Commission’s report, which will be drafted on the basis of the contractor’s report, is envisaged for the second half of 2008.

The Commission is currently not in a position to indicate whether it will propose any amendments to the Directive in its report.

Officially, the Zambian Government aims to guarantee access to HIV treatment for all by 2010.

In a recent report, Human Rights Watch describes in detail how the Zambian Government is failing to provide HIV treatment for women. Numerous obstacles prevent women from gaining access to appropriate treatment; these include inveterate gender-based violence and the discrimination inherent in property law and divorce law. Human Rights Watch's conclusion is clear: unless the Zambian Government enacts specific legislation against gender-based violence and eliminates discrimination in other fields of the law, women will never enjoy full access to HIV treatment (report by Human Rights Watch, 'Hidden in the mealie meal: gender-based abuses and women's HIV treatment in Zambia', in: Human Rights Watch, 'Zambia: abuses against women obstruct HIV treatment', 18 December 2007).

Does the Commission endorse the conclusions of Human Rights Watch? How is this issue raised? Does not the Commission consider that the provision of development aid should be made conditional on progress in this vital field?

The report by Human Rights Watch to which refers the Honourable Member has been reviewed with interest by the Commission. The comprehensive review of the situation regarding women's access to antiretroviral treatment and in particular the qualitative analysis based on a series of interviews and focus group discussions provides important insights with regard to the impact of gender-based abuses on women's human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment. It can be assumed that the findings are equally relevant to other countries in Southern Africa and developing countries at large.

As noted in the report, in 2006 women accounted for 57% of the approximately 1.1 million people living with HIV in Zambia. While more women than men have ever been tested (15.3% and 11.4% respectively), and 61% of those accessing HIV treatment were women, the report rightly underlines the significance of addressing gender inequality and gender-based abuses as barriers for scaling up access to HIV treatment for women, and in particular to ensure optimal adherence for women receiving HIV treatment.

The Commission is equally concerned with regard to the marked difference in HIV prevalence in particular among young women and young men (in 2005 12.7% and 3.8% respectively), which is driven by and reflects the great and persistent disparity among men and women in Zambia, ranking number 130 among 144 with a Gender Development Index of 0.383. The situation in Zambia is also characterized by widespread violence against women including children, rape and sex-for-food practices.

However it is important to note the impressive progress made by the Government of Zambia and partners in scaling up access to HIV treatment, from only 1,483 people in 2004 to more than 122,700 in September 2007. In addition, the government has taken several steps to enact and enforce legislation and services addressing sexual abuses, including the creation of victim support units and shelters as well as the recent amendment of the Penal Code to widen the scope of sexual crimes, which has led to more severe punishment for sexual offences.

The conclusions and recommendations of the Human Rights Watch report correspond well with the support planned for Zambia in the context of the 10th European Development Fund. Human Development/Health will be a focal sector with the objective of enhancing human development in Zambia through secure, improved access to good quality basic health services, including equitable access to health services especially for children, women and disadvantaged localities.

The Commission works in close coordination with Member States and other donors to support the Fifth National Development Plan, where gender features as a full chapter with the goal to eliminate gender imbalances and attain gender equality, and also appear as a specific focus under the health chapter. The government plans to fully integrate the gender dimension in the monitoring and evaluation system related to the human development area, in particular addressing poor performance in reduction of maternal mortality and discrimination against women in access to health care including family planning.

The constructive and concrete recommendations of the Human Rights Watch report provide valuable guidance for government efforts to ensure women's rights, services which work for women and women's participation in decision making, and for the European Commission's policy dialogue with the government.

In 2006 and 2007, many millions of euro were expended, by the Commission alone, as part of its ‘Period of Reflection’, in promoting ‘debate on the future of Europe’.

Would the Commission please say, with the benefit of hindsight, what were the purpose, and outcome, of that expenditure?

In June 2005, the European Council called for a period of reflection on how to take the institutional reform forward. In response to this call, the Commission adopted Plan D for Dialogue, Democracy and Debate on 13 October 2005⁽¹⁾. It experimented ways of bringing people together locally, nationally and across borders and of giving them the means to debate in an informed way about European issues. It also encouraged Member States to organise a broad public debate on the future of the European Union, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties, with the support of the EU institutions. The main axis of Plan D was defined as listening better, explaining better, and going local to engage citizens. As a matter of fact, Plan D did not involve any extra money. The initiatives were financed through the re-focusing of the Directorate-General Communication (DG COMM) budget in order to make the Commission action more efficient and citizen-oriented.

The leading vehicles of these actions were the trans-national European citizens' projects co-funded by the Commission. Three were EU-wide⁽²⁾and three involved part of the Member States⁽³⁾.The aim of these projects was to enable people from the different national public spheres to connect with each other and with the decision-makers. Therefore, the projects explored different ways of combining virtual and face to face communication as well as deliberative consultation and polling at national and European level. Overall, approximately 40,000 citizens participated physically in the six trans-national projects, while they reached out to about 1.5 million people via the internet.

Besides these projects, Citizens' Fora events took place in the majority of Member States. The "Debate Europe" forum was conceived as an online discussion space where EU citizens could exchange their views and opinions on a variety of EU-related subjects. Since its launch in March 2006, the forum has received thousands of contributions and over 1.3 million views. It won the European eDemocracy Award in 2006. The Europe Direct centres organised 3672 regional and local events with citizens. A special Eurobarometer survey on the future of Europe was published in May 2006 and some of its items were integrated into the standard Eurobarometer surveys.

In November 2006, the Commission decided to co-fund a series of regional and local civil society initiatives targeting youth and women; to develop a network of European public spaces in Member States; to re-launch the debate on the Internet; and to better target Eurobarometer surveys. Fourteen Commission Representations are now co-funding a series of local civil society projects covering a wide range of issues including the social inclusion of women, helping young people to understand better the European Single Market, food safety and climate change. In 2007, "European public spaces" were set up as a pilot project in three locations: Tallinn, Dublin and Madrid. These spaces provide information and documentation, host exhibitions, films, debates, forums and lectures as well as training and seminars on European issues. Using web-based multilingual conferencing facilities, they are also able to host trans-national debates. The "Debate Europe" website on Europa was re-launched at the end of January 2008. It is easier to use and will, for the time being, focus on three main topics: the Future of Europe, Energy and Climate Change and Intercultural Dialogue.

The listening, two-way dialogue approach promoted by Plan D proved to be well suited to the period of reflection of 2005-2007. The standard Eurobarometer surveys carried out in spring and autumn 2007 show a marked increase in citizens' support for membership of the EU, in the positive perception of the EU and of trust in its institutions. Although these developments also depend on other factors, the Plan D approach is a useful way to accompany the development of a European public sphere. It is a form of political communication which is well adapted to the emergence of multicultural and cross-border democracy in Europe. It is therefore destined to become a long-term framework for communicating with citizens and promoting participatory democracy on EU-related affairs.

2008 has been designated the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. It is in the interests of Europe and is also our responsibility to address Europe's rich cultural heritage and its various cultures. This dialogue has an increasingly important role to play in promoting European identity, notably because of the increasing number of languages and ethnic and cultural backgrounds in the EU. 10 million euros have been set aside for various initiatives, such as information campaigns, projects in areas such as urban culture, popular art, migration and exchanges between local initiatives.

The intercultural dialogue also has a fundamental role to play in future EU enlargements. In view of the above, will the Commission say whether specific programmes exist to promote the dialogue between EU Member States, candidate countries and future EU Member States, such as countries in the Western Balkans? What momentum will they provide as regards the dialogue between the peoples of the future accession states and the EU?

As part of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008, intercultural dialogue is integrated as a horizontal and trans-sectoral priority into relevant Community policies, programmes and actions. This objective has been implemented both for programmes relating to culture, education, youth and citizenship and in a number of other areas such as employment, social affairs, equal opportunities, external relations and development aid.

The Commission is already supporting a number of programmes aiming to promote dialogue between EU Member States and candidate and potential candidate countries, including countries of the Western Balkans. In addition to efforts towards the negotiation of agreements to ensure visa-free travel, considerable funds are allocated to support education cooperation and mobility opportunities for students from the Western Balkans⁽¹⁾:

Under the Tempus Programme, an amount of €20 million has been earmarked on an annual basis for the cooperation between academic institutions of the Western Balkans and the EU Member States in the field of higher education.

In addition to the possibilities offered to the students from all the third countries under the Erasmus Mundus Programme, the Commission has been offering through the pre-accession instrument a considerable number of scholarships for students from the Western Balkans. Specifically, €4 million have been earmarked on a yearly basis since 2006 for scholarships to students following an Erasmus Mundus master course as of the academic year 2007-2008 (“Western Balkans window”), and an additional €6 million have been earmarked since 2007 for scholarships to students and academic staff at all levels as of the academic year 2008-2009 (“the Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation window”). A further increase of the amounts allocated and the corresponding number of scholarships offered is currently under consideration.

In the framework of the Youth In Action Programme, additional support has been provided from the pre-accession instrument (€1 million in 2007, and €1,5 million planned in 2008) to expand the possibilities of youth exchanges and trans-national projects among young people and youth organisations in the Western Balkans and with the EU Member States, which contributes to foster inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue.

Inter-cultural dialogue is also promoted through the Culture Programme, which stimulates cooperation and cultural exchanges in order to promote the diversity of cultures and languages in Europe and improve knowledge among European citizens of European cultures other than their own. The Culture Programme is open for all candidate and potential candidate countries. The candidate countries (Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey) and Serbia already participate in the Culture Programme. Candidate and potential candidate countries are also eligible to participate in the Europe for Citizens Programme. Croatia participates already, and preparations are under way for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.

As announced in the 2007 Strategy Paper on enlargement⁽²⁾, a new facility to promote civil society development and dialogue will be established this year. This new Civil Society Facility aims to contribute to open democratic societies in the candidate and potential candidate countries through strengthening civil society bodies and their role in the political process. The facility will cover three areas of intervention:

support for local civil society initiatives and capacity building, reinforcing the role of civil society;

programmes to bring journalists, young politicians, trade union leaders, teachers etc into contact with EU institutions (“people-to-people” programmes);

support for building partnerships and the development of networks between the civil society organisations in the beneficiary countries, business, trade unions and other social partners and professional organisations, and their counterparts in the EU to promote transfer of knowledge and experience.

Overall support to civil society in the Western Balkans through the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) will increase substantially, reaching an estimated amount above €90 million for the period 2008-2010, an estimated threefold increase with respect to the period 2005-2007. Assistance provided to civil society under the IPA complements support given under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)⁽³⁾.

Inter-cultural dialogue is also supported through projects on natural and cultural heritage as well as the cross-border-cooperation component of the IPA Programmes, which include projects for people-to-people contacts and other inter-cultural activities.

Can the European Commission state if it intends to bring forward any new information and awareness programmes which will set out clearly the dangers of the use of illicit drugs in Europe?

The Commission is not running drugs awareness campaigns in Europe. These campaigns are run by the Member States and receive financing from national, regional or local sources.

However, the Commission will continue to finance drug prevention projects through the second programme on Community action in the field of Public Health 2008-2013⁽¹⁾.

The Commission will also finance drug prevention projects through a new specific Drug Prevention and Information programme as part of the general Fundamental Rights and Justice programme 2007-2013⁽²⁾.

While the Public Health programme 2008-2013 is promoting health through actions on health determinants, such as drugs, the main objective of the Drug Prevention and Information programme is to provide better information on and prevention of drug use, the reduction of drug dependence and drug-related harms as well as to support the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy. The target groups of the programme's activities are all those who may be affected by the consequences of drug use. The programme is open to institutions and public or private organisations working in the area of information on and prevention of drugs use and drug-related harm.

Can the European Commission state if it intends to bring forward any new programmes to promote different cultural diversities that exist in Europe and to state the nature of such programmes?

Pursuant to EC Treaty (art. 151), EU competence in the culture area consists in contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.

Indeed, the Commission is very active in the promotion of cultural diversity and is mainstreaming this value in many of its activities and programmes.

Intercultural dialogue is one of the three objectives of the Culture programme (2007-2013), meaning that projects supported under this programme have a strong intercultural dimension. The two other objectives are the mobility of cultural players and of art and cultural works.

Furthermore, 2008 is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. The Commission is going to support many projects specifically aimed at fostering intercultural dialogue. Several other activities are planned in this context throughout the year in order to bring the richness of European cultural diversity to the fore.

In addition, under a pilot scheme for artist mobility voted by the Parliament, the Commission will undertake a feasibility study this year for a comprehensive scheme designed to provide a European wide system of information on the different aspects to mobility in the cultural sector. It will also publish a call for proposals aimed at funding networking structures supporting mobility at national level in order to develop exchanges of best practices.

All these activities will nurture the Commission's medium-term reflections with a view to preparing the next generation of programmes in the field of education and culture for the post-2013 period, in which cultural diversity will continue to have a central position.

It is alleged in the media that the EU is drafting legislation which would permit animals to be slaughtered without stunning.

Can the Commission confirm this? If so, what are the reasons for drawing up such legislation, from whom did the initiative come and what authorities were consulted? Would not such legislation allow a serious form of cruelty to animals?

Today, the provisions of Directive 93/119/EC allow for derogation from stunning in the case of religious slaughter taking place in slaughterhouses. This reflects the Protocol on the Protection and Welfare of Animals⁽¹⁾ annexed to the EC Treaty which insists on respecting religious rites when considering the welfare requirements of the animals. In addition freedom of religion is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 10).

As the right of freedom of religion, including the freedom to manifest one's religious beliefs in worship, teaching, practice or observance, is part of the fundamental rights that all EU citizens enjoy, the Commission has no intention to put this right into question when revising the directive. At the same time, the Commission has no plans to extend further this derogation from stunning prior to slaughter.

As regards the drafting of a new EU legislative proposal on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, the Commission confirms that it has started in 2006 a process of revision of Directive 93/119/EC⁽²⁾. The possible content of new provisions in this area has been widely discussed with stakeholders, and the Commission expects to present a draft proposal by July 2008.

The Commission will aim at developing animal welfare measures in order to ensure that, whatever the type of slaughter, animals will not be submitted to unnecessary pain or suffering.

In particular, new and strengthened measures to promote the training of personnel employed for slaughtering and also to improve the design of restraining equipment will be considered.

There are significant differences in the cost of medical consultations between the 27 Member States. For dental treatment in particular, while the cost of a tooth filling in the UK is € 156, the same service is provided for € 8 in Hungary. Paradoxically, the more a Member State spends on subsidising its health system, the higher the final cost of those services to the public. The Commission recently announced that it would publish a guide to this subject setting out proposals for opening Member States' borders so that all citizens of the 27 Member States can benefit from lower prices for medical services which may be available in a neighbouring Member State.

Will the Commission say what practical proposals this project has produced and what the possible implications are for Member States' social security systems? Has the Commission investigated the total cost (travel to a neighbouring country and the cost of care) for citizens who prefer to seek treatment by way of medical tourism?

The organisation of healthcare is primarily the responsibility of the individual Member States. Member States can nevertheless benefit from cooperation and benchmarking at the EU level.

The Commission is currently preparing an initiative regarding the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare. As soon as the Commission has finalized that initiative it will present in detail the foreseen effects of it for all stakeholders.

The Commission has estimated that cross-border healthcare represents around 1% of public healthcare expenditure. Costs of cross-border healthcare for national health systems are expected to remain only a small phenomenon.

The company which is to build a pipeline through the Baltic Sea intends to pump out billions of litres of polluted water at Gotska Sandön, one of the finest nature reserves in Sweden. The chemical which the company intends to use to treat the water is glutaraldehyde, which is classed as R50, i.e. highly toxic to aquatic organisms. There is a risk that large areas of the Baltic will be affected. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, the body usually responsible in such cases, would have rejected this application under normal circumstances.

The matter will, however, be decided by the government. Is the Swedish Government under any obligation to obtain the views of the other countries around the Baltic? Would authorisation be consistent with EU legislation and, if so, on what conditions?

The Commission is aware of the project concerning the gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea, known as the "Nord Stream" project. Indeed this project is included in the list of priority projects of Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006⁽¹⁾, as "North European gas pipeline". Article 13 of this decision stipulates that where an environmental impact assessment is required in accordance with relevant Community legislation, the results of such an assessment have to be taken into consideration before a decision on the carrying out of the projects is actually taken in accordance with the relevant Community legislation.

An environmental impact assessment under the Espoo Convention (Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context) is currently in process and expected to be concluded later in 2008. Similar questions related to environment have to be treated in that framework and assessed by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. It has to be noted that consultations with other countries, contracting parties of the Espoo Convention are an important part of this process.

With respect to the specific question, it is understood that glutaraldehyde is to be used in pressure tests of oil and gas pipelines as a biocide to prevent bacterial growth that produces corrosion. This use of glutaraldehyde would be covered by Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market⁽²⁾ and would fall under product-type 12 (ie slimicides), which covers products used for the prevention or control of slime growth on materials, equipment and structures used in industrial processes.

Glutaraldehye for product-type 12 is to be assessed under the 10-year review programme established by Directive 98/8/EC for the evaluation of substances used in biocidal products which were already on the market at the time of entry into force of the Directive. Until the substance evaluation has been concluded, biocidal products containing glutaraldehyde and used in product-type 12 can remain on the market and Member States can continue to apply their national rules regarding the placing of biocidal products on their market.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC⁽³⁾ aims to protect both the inland and coastal waters against pollution. One of its objectives is to prevent deterioration of the ecological status of water bodies. In authorising any activity like the one described in the oral question, Member States should ensure that the WFD's objectives are respected and that any deterioration of status is prevented.

With respect to nature protection, the site in question seems to relate to a Site of Community Importance (Natura 2000 site) of Gotska Sandön-Salvorev. This site is located at the Northeastern corner of the Island of Gotland and it has been mainly designated for the protection of underwater sandbanks. The total size of the area is 60 500 ha. The site is also distribution area of grey seals which are protected under the Habitats Directive⁽⁴⁾. The rules for the protection of sites which have been designated as Sites of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive are laid down in article 6 of the Directive. This protection regime inter alia foresees that the effects of projects which are likely to have a significant impact on a Natura 2000 site must be duly assessed and that such projects may be authorised only under certain conditions. If the pipeline project mentioned by the Honourable Member is likely to have significant impact on the above mentioned Natura 2000 site, it is the responsibility of the competent Swedish authorities to make sure that the abovementioned provisions are being respected. This means that the authorities must ensure that a sound assessment of the project's impact on the protected nature values is carried out before the project is authorised.

On the orders of the New Democracy government, the port administrations of Piraeus and Thessaloniki 'decided', in an unacceptable and arbitrary fashion, to announce that the operation of the container terminals (SEMPO) at those ports would be transferred by concession to monopoly conglomerates, on the basis of predatory contracts, at the same time as riot police were in the process of attacking striking dock workers with chemicals. The transfer of the ports to the monopolies will have an adverse impact on exports and imports and will, in general, be to the detriment of the workers. This policy has been rejected by dock workers in the Member States through the organisation of mass strikes and demonstrations.

Does the Commission condemn the Government's decision and the order to the riot police to attack the strikers? Will it persist in publishing these invitations to tender in the knowledge that they will encounter radical opposition from the workers in the ports?

Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union provides that Member States themselves are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in their country. Consequently, the Commission is not able to examine alleged violations of fundamental rights which do not have any link to Community law.

If fundamental rights may have been violated in the case in question, the alleged victims could seek a redress at national level through the competent authorities, including the internal police inspectorate and the national courts. Further, anyone who considers that any of her or his fundamental rights have been violated may lodge a complaint with the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights, under the conditions specified in the Convention (Council of Europe, 6075 Strasbourg-Cedex, France⁽¹⁾).

As the Commission is aware, many air passengers travelling from third countries and transiting through EU/EEA airports have had their liquid ‘duty free’ purchases confiscated. Does the Commission believe that the regulation it adopted on 31 July 2007 (EC) No 915/2007⁽¹⁾to address this problem is being implemented satisfactorily and with sufficient speed?

The aim of Commission Regulation (EC) 1546/2006⁽²⁾ is to address the threat to civil aviation that is posed by home-made liquid explosives. As such, it prohibits passengers on flights departing from Community airports from taking liquids in hand luggage in individual quantities greater than 100ml.

However, an exemption has been granted for liquids sold at airport shops and on-board aircraft when certain security conditions are met, including the "tamper evident" bag system.

Given that Community legislation does not apply in third countries it cannot be assumed that airports in third countries or non-Community air carriers have security requirements that are equivalent to those applied within the European Union and the European Economic Area. Consequently, such airports and airlines cannot automatically benefit from the exemption.

However, the Commission has developed, in Commission Regulation (EC) 915/2007⁽³⁾, a means of establishing equivalence of security measures for liquids sold at third country airports, and in such cases an exemption may be granted.

This possibility is available to all third country airports and the Commission has thus far received applications from several third countries.

To date, one country – Singapore – has satisfied the Commission of the equivalence of the security provisions at its airport with those applicable in the European Union in accordance with Regulation (EC) 915/2007. Thus liquids bought there may be exempted from confiscation at security points at Community airports, provided the liquid is in a tamper-evident bag and that it also displays satisfactory proof of purchase on airside at Singapore within the preceding thirty-six hours.

The process of granting equivalence for the security provisions at third country airports is determined largely by the third country itself, as is any wish to apply for the process. In order to be granted equivalence they must demonstrate that their security standards are equivalent, which includes analysis of the national legislation and other pertinent information. In addition, they shall be applying the recommended security control guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organisation for screening liquids, gels and aerosols and using tamper-evident bags for liquids sold at the airport. After the analysis of this information the Commission may supplement it by means of an inspection.

Whilst many third countries have expressed an interest in having their airports added to the list of exempted airports few have provided this information to substantiate their case or, in some cases, have regrettably not introduced the use of tamper-evident bags in airport shops.

Can the Commission explain the exact meaning of the phrase ‘established practices’ and any relevant time frame or special situation that might apply in the context of the sentence - ‘Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with established practices not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive’⁽¹⁾?

Can the Commission confirm that if established practice has been that certain sectors, e.g. schools, community facilities and other users have not paid water charges, then they come under Article 9 Paragraph 4, and therefore the provisions of Paragraph 1 second sentence and the relevant provisions of Paragraph 2 for a given water use activity do not necessarily have to apply to such users?

If this is not the case can the Commission please explain why not and outline the relevant legislation applicable to these sectors?

The Water Framework Directive⁽²⁾ (WFD) allows for a particular water-use activity to be potentially exempted from water charges only in cases of "established practices", i.e. practices that already existed under national laws at the time the Directive was adopted (2000). Therefore, it does not allow for new exemptions for specific water uses. According to the Irish authorities only households were exempted from paying water at the time the Directive was adopted.

It is important to point out that there are other conditions applicable to a possible exemption under Article 9.4. Member States must ensure that it does not compromise the achievement of the objectives of the Directive and should report the reasons for not fully applying the principle of cost recovery in the river basin management plans.

A proper water pricing is one of the most important tools to provide incentives to use water resources efficiently. The principal purpose of water-pricing under the WFD is therefore not to raise revenue, but to send a price signal acting as an incentive not to waste an exhaustible resource that requires expensive infrastructure to deliver and that may be necessary to sustain biodiversity and protect other important resources such as fisheries.

Charging for water on a metered basis – just like electricity or other utility – is perfectly consistent with EU water policy. Therefore the Irish Government approach to charge for water is in line with the WFD. On the other hand, while the choice of mechanisms for the funding of schools is entirely a matter for the Irish authorities, the Directive creates no obstacle to funding arrangements which enable Irish schools to meet their essential running costs, including for water. There is therefore no objection to block grants (a global amount) or capitation grants (amount per pupil). This combination of water charging and fixed allowance would allow schools to meet the normal metered costs while still providing an incentive for them to save water.

On the occasion of the recent signing of the South Stream agreement between Bulgaria and the Russian Federation (along with an agreement worth EUR 4 billion on the construction of the Belene nuclear power plant by the Russian company Atomstroyexport - the first contract of this kind to be concluded within the EU), President Putin did not hold back from referring in a press release to the political price that Russia is placing on the agreement: 'The most important thing for us is that Bulgaria should not develop a defence policy that is subject to the security interests of other countries. Bulgaria's new commitments as a NATO ally should not become a barrier to the expansion of its relations with Russia'. The response from the Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs (via his spokesman Ferran Tarradellas) to the Russian Federation's efforts to become (in the words of the Jamestown Foundation analyst Vladimir Socor) 'the political manager of an energy supply system for Europe' provides no indication of what implications the Commission expects the agreement to have.

Bearing in mind the significant consequences for European energy policies and the regional geostrategic impact, how will the Commission modify its position and, if any adjustments are planned, what are the basic principles which the Commission is not prepared to renounce?

The question of the Honourable Member highlights the issue of the European Union speaking with one voice on external Energy issues. The Commission is working on all the aspects of the external energy policy falling into its present competence and is working towards a coherent approach outlining the possible instruments in this respect, which it expects to detail further this year. The EU's medium term security of energy supply, as well as the international geopolitical situation affecting energy supplies, is a cause of common concern for all Member States and requires the definition of a common European concept of security of supply, bearing in mind the following aspects.

First, the Member States of the European Union have the right to determine their choice between different energy sources and the general structure of their energy supply. However, in the context of the growing role of imports in the EU’s energy mix and the need to adopt a more coherent and focused EU approach to external energy security, the European Council of March 2007 recognised the importance of developing a common external policy approach in support of energy policy objectives.

Second, for major infrastructure projects, it is crucial to have a concrete debate within the EU on the collective interest in order to identify common priorities and promote greater co-ordination between Member States' policies. This happens already within the Trans European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) programme, which allows for the setting of European priority projects. Such a debate should contribute to a better understanding of the full impact of South Stream on EU interests and security of supply.

Third, it is important that Member States increasingly exchange timely information with the Commission and with each other on such bilateral projects that have implications for the EU’s security of energy supplies.

On 6 September 2006 the European Court of Justice passed judgment in Case C-88/03 - the so-called 'Azores' case. In its judgment the Court refers to the reference framework which has to be taken into account when determining whether aid is illegal and it suggests that that framework does not always coincide with the territory of the Member State concerned. Despite this legal precedent, the Commission insists in its Decisions upon taking the Member State as the reference framework, disregarding the specificities of the regions and their fiscal autonomy.

Can the Commission confirm that, in its view, no region can have its own reference framework? If so, does the Commission realise that this attitude prompts moves towards independence?

In the ruling to which the Honourable Member refers, the European Court of Justice indicated the specific circumstances under which the exercise by a regional government of autonomous tax competences does not constitute state aid in the sense of Article 87, paragraph 1, of the EC Treaty.

Since the Azores ruling, the Commission has not adopted any decision concerning the issue of regional selectivity. The Commission will of course apply the interpretation of Article 87 provided by the Court.

The Commission wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the role of the Commission is to ensure the correct application of state aid rules. In this respect, it must verify, in the light of the case law, that the exercise of fiscal autonomies by regional authorities satisfies the criteria laid down by the Court, and is not used to circumvent the proper application of state aid rules.

The adverse effect of odorous substances on the environment and on people is a concern increasingly raised by EU citizens. Some EU countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, have experimented with specific legislation on odour reduction problems. Other countries, however, have failed to take such action, blaming the lack of appropriate options at Community level.

Does the Commission intend to take any steps to regulate quality standards for atmospheric odours in the European Union and or to use other legal means to tackle the problem of reducing odour nuisance? If so, what progress has been made with these provisions and when will they be introduced?

Atmospheric odours are not specifically regulated at Community level and the Commission does not intend to propose the introduction of quality standards in that respect. Measures specifically addressing odour therefore remain within the competence of the Member States. However, where problems of odour arise from the operation of certain industrial installations, those problems fall within the scope of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).⁽¹⁾ The industrial activities covered by that Directive include among others the production of chemicals on an industrial scale as well as waste water treatment plants in case they are associated with activities covered by the Directive.

Under the IPPC Directive, competent authorities are required to issue for each installation a permit including emission limit values or equivalent parameters and technical parameters based on best available techniques, taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

All the environmental impacts of the IPPC installations need to be controlled in the permits issued, for instance the releases into air, water, the generation of waste, the efficient use of energy and the protection of soil. Appropriate measures need also to be taken to address problems of odour which might arise from the operation of certain installations and, for example, the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in Common Waste Water and Waste Gas Treatment/Management Systems in the Chemical Sector is specifying Best Available Techniques for the reduction of odour emissions.

Odours from waste management are regulated by Article 4 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste, which provides that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular without causing a nuisance, inter alia, through odours.⁽²⁾In addition, Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste⁽³⁾mentions that measures shall be taken to minimise nuisances and hazards from a landfill through emissions of odours.

The Commission has repeatedly announced a new informatics system called Symmetry, which is intended to replace the current Appfin system. Despite having being invested in for seven years, its entry into force has been postponed yet again.

Many questions arise. How much has been spent already? What will its annual running costs be compared to Appfin? Who are the contractors, and how were they selected? Why can the contractors not meet their deadlines?

Does the Commission agree that it should now launch an in-depth external audit, re-examine the budgetary and human resource costs as a sound cost-benefit analysis, and assess any possible failures in management?

Symmetry is the name given to the integrated management system designed to provide full life-cycle management of the programmes, actions and projects of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (EAC) as well as the Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), and not simply the local financial system intended to replace Appfin.

The core financial and contractualisation module of Symmetry has been in pilot production since September 2007. An initial group of 41 pilot projects from 4 actions split between the Directorate-General and the Executive Agency have been used to prove the system (100% of commitments and 75% of pre-financing have been successfully completed; the remaining pre-financing could not be completed yet for budgetary reasons). These outcomes are considered positive and will lead to a gradual ramp-up to full production capacity over the course of 2008.

The principal contractor for the supply of the system is Intrasoft International; while in a secondary lot worth about 5% of the market, Siemens Business Services was selected as Quality Assurance contractor. The contractors were chosen by means of open public call for tender⁽¹⁾ and the first specific contracts for developing the system were signed in December 2001.

To date a total of €7,485,982 has been paid to cover all aspects of development including quality assurance, acceptance testing, user helpdesk and training services. A payment of €903,216 was made in 2007 to procure a high-performance server platform in the Commission's Luxemburg Data Centre for a period of four years.

The system has taken longer to reach its targets due to the need to be adapted to significant changes in the financial and organisational environment; in particular the introduction of the New Financial Regulations 2003 and 2006, the creation of the EACEA and the introduction of accrual accounting in January 2005.

When comparing Symmetry with Appfin, the latter is a local financial system with a restricted interface towards the central ABAC system and a limited set of functions. Symmetry offers a far wider range of functions including: online proposal submission, proposal selection, project contractualisation, follow-up, closure and reporting. Comparison of running costs is therefore difficult; however, once the main wave of development is concluded (end 2008) the running costs of the financial sub-systems of Symmetry should be lower than those of the ageing Appfin system.

The Internal Audit Service (IAS) has planned an information technology (IT) audit of the Symmetry application, once it is in large-scale operation, in the period 2008-2009.

Some large European companies, such as Total and Shell, are continuing to burn off gas in Nigeria in conjunction with their oil-extraction operations, which is enormously damaging to the environment and also to the health of people living nearby. Gas is the by-product of the oil which is extracted in Nigeria and provides 95% of the country's income. The quantity of gas which is flared in Nigeria is equivalent to a quarter of Britain's entire consumption. According to the World Bank, 40 billion dollars is wasted every year by flaring natural gas, and the practice is responsible for 400 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere per annum. According to the World Bank, companies would do better to catch the gas and sell it in liquefied form. However, this would require investment.

In October 2007, the Nigerian Government announced that, as from 1 January 2008, flaring of gas would be banned. At the beginning of January, however, it decided to postpone the deadline until the end of 2008. The postponement is said to have resulted from pressure from the multinationals. In European countries, gas flaring in conjunction with oil extraction is prohibited. Will the Commission pressurise these companies to halt this damaging practice, or will it impose penalties on them if the Nigerian authorities do not punish them for their activities?

The damaging practice of gas flaring in the Niger Delta has a severe impact on the local environment, on the economy of Nigeria and also contributes massively to global climate changes. The Commission's recognition of the importance of taking action to reduce gas flaring is recalled in the "Africa-EU Strategic Partnership" (Priority action 5 "Partnership on energy") issued at the Lisbon EU-Africa Summit in December 2007. The Niger Delta is the place on earth in which the largest flaring operations occur. This practice – which begun some 40 years ago – has only been marginally reduced by the large investments made by multinational oil companies to liquefy natural gas. Nigeria, traditionally an important oil supplier is also becoming a major gas supplier. Its reserves make it the seventh largest natural gas reserve holder. In 2006 Nigeria exported to Europe 83% of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) production corresponding only to about 60% of the total gas extracted. The remaining 40% - mainly gas associated to oil wells lacking the infrastructure to collect and produce natural gas – was flared. Recent estimates indicate that some 24 billion m3 of associated gas are flared every year. The government plans to raise earnings from gas exports to 50% of oil revenue by 2010 which will require investment in the range of € 10-12 billion to build large infrastructure including more gas liquefying plants and gas pipelines. One of the projects under consideration is a Trans-Saharan gas pipeline crossing the Sahara desert which in the future will provide an additional opportunity for gas export and could supply gas directly to Europe, through Niger and Algeria.

In such a context it was indeed disappointing to learn that the deadline set by the Government to stop gas flaring had been postponed to the end of 2008. While we hope that the new deadline will be met, we note that stopping gas flaring seems to have become a priority for the Government of Nigeria. Major stakeholders recently came together to develop a road map for the elimination of flaring within a realistic time frame. The representatives from several ministries and sector companies agreed to establish a Flare Reduction Committee – chaired by the Minister of State for Gas - the work of which is likely to be facilitated by the World Bank Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR), which the Commission is supporting and contributing to.

Two avenues are available to the Commission to address gas flaring concerns: i) the EU/Nigeria political dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement; and ii) the ongoing programming of the development cooperation under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF).

Concerning possible interventions against the EU oil companies operating in Nigeria, in the form of pressure or action, the Commission does not have the legal power to impose sanctions. As part of its policy to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR), however, the Commission does support CSR codes of conduct that are adhered to by companies on a voluntary basis in and outside the EU. For example, the Commission is supporting and contributing to such codes of conduct as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which is a powerful tool to monitor the revenues derived from the mineral sector. The Commission is also committed to promoting awareness and implementation of reference international instruments and initiatives on CSR, such as the International Labor Organisation (ILO) Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) and Social Policy, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for MNEs and the United Nations (UN) Global Compact.

It is reported in the media that King Mohammed VI of Morocco has urged the French President to lobby within the EU for an 'advanced status' for his country. In a significant speech at a state dinner, he said: 'The European Union's policy towards its neighbours has reinforced Morocco’s aspirations for an advanced status giving its relations with the Union the strategic dimension they deserve.’

Mrs Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Affairs, has already stated that the Commission is considering this request. Commissioner Louis Michel has said in the past that it should be possible for the Maghreb, too, to form part of a concept of 'Europe’.

What is the nature of this ‘advanced status’? In the light of the accession negotiations with Muslim Turkey, does the Commission consider that eventual EU membership for Morocco is also a possibility?

On the occasion of the last EU-Morocco Association Council on 23 July 2007, the European Union stated its willingness to consider ways and means to strengthen bilateral relations with Morocco, in the context of Morocco’s request for an advanced status. Indeed, since the year 2000, the king of Morocco has requested an advanced status that would be ‘more than association and less than accession’. The EU-Morocco Association Council has set up an ad-hoc working group to reflect on how to strengthen bilateral relations. This working group has not yet met. It should report at the next meeting of the Association Council. Finally, countries covered by the European Neighborhood Policy have not been given the perspective of Accession to the European Union.

In the 2007-2013 period, Lithuania will be participating in cross-border cooperation programmes between Poland-Lithuania-Russian Federation and Lithuania-Latvia-Belarus under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Various projects will be set up to promote economic and social development in cross-border regions, tackle common challenges in the field of environmental protection and public health, combat and prevent organised crime, ensure secure and effective border control and support local, intercommunal initiatives.Both programmes provide for the possibility of implementing strategic projects of national importance.

Could the Commission specify the selection procedures, assessment criteria and extent of aid provided for strategic projects? What recommendations could the Commission make concerning the preparation and implementation of strategic projects (particularly in the light of experience gained in other countries)?

The term "strategic projects" originates from the Structural Funds terminology and should not be mixed up with the term "large scale projects" being used under the Neighbourhood Programme. According to Chapter 1, Article 2 of the implementing rules for cross-border cooperation programmes "large-scale projects are projects comprising a set of works, activities or services intended to fulfil an indivisible function of a precise nature pursuing clearly identified objectives of common interest for the purposes of implementing cross-border investments".

The participating countries may, in agreement with the Commission, jointly identify large-scale cross-border investment projects which will not be selected through calls for proposals.

During the preparation of the Joint Operational Programme document of each individual cross-border cooperation (CBC) programme, the participating countries will jointly identify and decide on the number, the nature and the approximate amount of the large scale projects.

These projects shall either be specifically mentioned in the programme document and thus be part of the Commission decision, or be selected in agreement with the Commission, at a later stage by the Joint Monitoring Committee.

The large scale projects would be of common "strategic" national or regional importance for all the participating countries under the programme; such as the construction of a specific bridge or border control infrastructure.

Each large scale project would be the subject of a grant contract between the beneficiary (national, regional or local authority) and the relevant Joint Managing Authority. After the launch of an international tender the identified large scale project would be implemented.

The funds allocated to the large scale projects under each neighbourhood cross-border programme should be kept to a reasonable size and cannot, due the nature of these programmes, constitute the majority of the funds.

We expect the two CBC programmes Lithuania participates in – Poland-Lithuania-Russian Federation and Lithuania-Latvia-Belarus – to be submitted to the Commission in June 2008 to allow a decision to be taken in the autumn.

Climate change is being exacerbated by the enlargement of dry regions on all continents, which are rapidly warming up and changing both local and regional climate. The drying-out of the landscape is caused not only by the rapid drainage of rainwater but also by land improvement and deforestation. Storing rainwater in water containers situated mainly in locations where land has dried out as a result of human activity constitutes a cheap, fast, effective and unproblematic way of alleviating extremes of weather.

Is the Commission open to a new water paradigm aimed at using water to restore the climate, the objective being to solve the problem of climate change using alternative approaches?

Would the Commission support a programme of rainwater storage in populated areas as a strategic measure to alleviate climate change?

In July 2007 the European Commission adopted a Communication on water scarcity and droughts. These issues have emerged as a major challenge and climate change is expected to exacerbate it further as underscored by the Commission Green Paper on adaptation to climate change⁽¹⁾.

The Communication identifies a set of policy options at European, national and regional levels to address and mitigate the challenge posed by water scarcity and droughts. To name just two key orientations promoted in the Communication: (1) Progressing towards full implementation of the Water Framework Directive; (2) Putting priority on water savings and all possibilities to improve water efficiency.

This Communication is based on the assessment of the EU water saving potential. In some regions, up to 30% of the volume of water consumed in buildings could be saved. In some cities, leakages in public water supply networks can exceed 50%. Similar wastage of water has been recorded in irrigation networks. There is therefore a huge potential for water saving across Europe. Water saving must become the priority and all possibilities to improve water efficiency must therefore be explored.

Policy making needs to be based on a clear water hierarchy. Additional water supply infrastructures should be considered as an option only when other options have been exhausted, including effective water pricing policies.

Alternative options like rain water harvesting are increasingly considered as potential options across Europe. Their development is subject to EU legislation and needs to be in line with the water hierarchy principle.

Further to the Communication, the Commission is now launching an in-depth risk and impact assessment of all alternative water supply options including rain water harvesting.

The Commission will present the outcomes of this assessment in the follow up report of the measures of the Communication to be adopted by the end of 2008. Initial results will be presented at the meeting of a Stakeholder Forum planned for early September 2008 in Zaragoza.

Regarding developing countries affected by droughts, desertification and land degradation, the Commission is actively involved in supporting the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Programs to address this problem obviously include sustainable water resources management schemes. The Commission also supports specific programs related to water management and rainwater harvesting and use as part of its development programs. Finally, the EU Water Initiative is also a privileged tool to progress towards the achievement of the objectives of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Millennium Development Goals.

The Third European Road Safety Action Programme (EC 2003) specifically outlined a key proposal to ensure the proper enforcement of the most important safety rules in the areas of speed, drink driving and seat belt use. This resulted in a Recommendation on Enforcement in the field of road traffic law (European Commission 2003). The European Commission had a cost-benefit analysis carried out on the basis of proposals similar to the Recommendation. It assessed that increased enforcement would result in a total annual reduction of 14 000 road deaths and 680 000 injuries in the EU (ICF Consulting 2003). The Recommendation stated that the European Commission would by autumn 2007 evaluate if enforcement policies had improved sufficiently across the Member States and consider proposing more binding legislation, such as a Directive.

What have been the findings of this assessment and how will the European Commission ensure the improvement of traffic law enforcement in the Member States and cooperation across their borders?

The Commission has indeed carried out an assessment of whether enforcement policies have improved sufficiently across the Member States since the Commission Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road traffic law was adopted.

Unfortunately the findings of this assessment are not positive, since the trend over the past years in road safety has not improved. True, the reduction of the number of fatalities was 6% in 2004, but in 2006 it was 5% and last year there was no reduction at all. Over the period from 2001 to 2007, the number of fatalities has decreased by 20%, while a 37% reduction would have been necessary if we want to reach the European objective of halving the number of road fatalities by 2010.

Enforcement has proven to be a very effective instrument for reducing the number of road accidents over a short time. Given the wide variety of traffic and road conditions found across the European Union, it is not appropriate to consider harmonising domestic traffic laws and penalties. But domestic laws and penalties must be respected by all drivers if road safety is to improve and at present we cannot be sure that drivers and car owners who commit a serious offence in a Member State other than that of their residence will be effectively pursued and sanctioned after they have returned home. Mechanisms for the exchange of data between national authorities remain limited and bilateral agreements have not delivered an effective EU-wide system. This is a serious loophole in enforcement which reduces the overall effectiveness of enforcement and the credibility of controls in the minds of domestic drivers. Here there is a clear European dimension and an issue to which Europe can bring a solution: a system of exchange of information on vehicle data is needed which would enable the Member State where an offence has been committed to find the person responsible regardless where in the European Union that person resides and to allow the responsible authorities to impose the corresponding sanction. This will encourage universal respect of road safety related traffic rules and ensure equal treatment of all European citizens under the law.

Under Article 7(1) of the European Union Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC⁽¹⁾) the species listed in Annex II of the directive may be hunted under national legislation throughout the European Community. Article 7(3) of the directive lays down, further, that the species referred to in Annex II/2 may be hunted only in the Member States in respect of which they are indicated. At present, corvidae may not be hunted in Austria. Partly because of this, numbers of corvidae have increased since Austria's accession to the European Union, particularly in eastern Austria, which has been to the detriment of both people and fauna.

Does the Commission see any possibility of retrospectively expanding the list contained in Annex II/2 of the Birds Directive and including corvidae in Austria in this list?

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission sees an opportunity to adapt Annex II.2 of the Birds Directive in a way that the corvids would be huntable for Austria.

It has been stressed to the Austrian authorities as well as to other interested parties who have contacted the Commission about this matter in the past years that the revision of Annex II of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC⁽²⁾) is a very complex and lengthy procedure as it requires a full legislative process by co-decision, involving the Council and the Parliament.

In light of this the Commission has already made it clear that any adaptation of such kind must be done in a strategic way together with all Member States and must be based on comprehensive information on the conservation status of the species in Annex II. Such an approach may lead not only to the inclusion but also to the exclusion of certain species from Annex II.

At this moment the Commission does not envisage an adaptation of Annex II.2 of the Birds Directive. However, work is currently being undertaken in relation to some management plans for Annex II species.

In relation to the specific problem of Austria which seems mainly related to the hunting of crows, the Commission has on many occasions suggested to the Austrian regions to overcome their difficulties by making full use of the derogation procedure (Article 9 of the Directive). Derogations are permissible under Article 9 of the Directive for the purpose of preventing “serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water” and a range of other reasons. Some Länder have already taken this advice. The Commission can only continue to give that advice.

On 24 January 2008 the television channel Euronews once more provoked controversy by showing a map depicting Skopje (FYROM) as 'Macedonia'. It is no secret that this channel is funded by the EU and hence by Greek and other European taxpayers.

For what mysterious reason does this television channel persistently see fit to use or display the name 'Macedonia' instead of the official nomenclature (which is also recognised by the EU) despite repeated public protests by prominent former MEPs (for example Nikitas Kaklamanis, Stavros Xarchakos, Georgios Karatzaferis, etc) at its frequent and mistaken use of the designation favoured by nationalists in Skopje (FYROM)?

The honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the name used by the EuroNews channel on 24 January 2008 for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. EuroNews used the name ‘Macedonia’, which is not recognised by the European Union.

The Commission can but reiterate the answer it gave to similar questions raised by previous Members, as highlighted in the question by the honourable Member⁽¹⁾.

Although the Commission provides funding for EuroNews, it cannot intervene in any way in its journalistic content. These provisions are an integral part of the editorial charter⁽²⁾, which is attached to the contract concluded between the Commission and EuroNews and which guarantees the latter full editorial freedom, an essential condition if it is to remain credible.

Nonetheless, any citizen may ask EuroNews, directly or through the Commission (in the case of cofinanced programmes), for an explanation concerning a possible failure to provide fair and balanced information.

As in the other cases, however, the Commission will transmit to the EuroNews managers at the next regular joint meeting the question and comments of the honourable Member and ask them to provide an explanation.

Owing to legal difficulties regarding enforcement of the newly adopted reform of the fruit and vegetable COM, there is a definite risk that producers’ organisations will not be able to distribute any fruit and vegetables free of charge in 2008. This situation has arisen because we are in a transitional year as regards the implementation of certain measures, due to enter into force in 2009, whereby product withdrawals will be financed by the Community if the products in question are intended for free distribution. The upshot is that the sections of society being hit harder by economic difficulties might be deprived of fruit and vegetables and their benefits to health.

Will the Commission act to avert the discontinuance of such invaluable help for citizens, as well as for the sector concerned?

If so, what steps will it take and when?

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of free distribution both for the citizens and for the fruit and vegetables sector.

In fact, the Commission has already taken steps in order to avoid any unnecessary interruption of market withdrawal measures in 2008. To allow for a smooth transition to the reformed fruit and vegetables Common Market Organisation (CMO), a proposal with the appropriate modifications of the implementing rules is envisaged to be presented at the Management Committee of 20 February.

The transitional measures will authorise Member States to allow for withdrawals, including free distribution to become eligible expenditure from 1 January 2008, before the national strategy is established. Several conditions will have to be fulfilled in that respect.

First of all, the Member State will have to ensure that its national strategy adopted in 2008 covers withdrawals. Secondly, the producer organisations will have to modify their operational programmes to meet the requirements of the reformed fruit and vegetables CMO as soon as the national strategy is established and before an application for the related payment is made. Furthermore, the market withdrawal operations should otherwise respect the requirements of the new regime, including those concerning controls.

EU policy aims, inter alia, to close down permanently and redevelop uncontrolled waste tips, to introduce compulsory processing for all solid waste before it is buried in landfill sites, to use waste as a source of energy and to recycle packaging waste (Directives 75/442/EEC⁽¹⁾, 1999/31/EC⁽²⁾, 2004/12/EC⁽³⁾ and 2006/12/EC⁽⁴⁾). The decomposition of solid waste produces biogas whose basic components are methane and carbon dioxide, gases which are responsible for climate change. Despite this, Greece is, according to the newspaper 'Kathimerini', lagging behind in the management of solid waste, in particular hazardous solid waste.

Will the Commission outline the most recent progress report it has received from Greece as regards permanently closing down uncontrolled waste tips? How does Greece rank compared to other Member States as regards the objective of the recycling of packaging? What is being done as regards the processing and disposal of hazardous industrial waste, given that some 60% of total annual production is currently being stored in temporary storage sites?

The Commission has received a considerable number of complaints concerning the operation in Greece of illegal or uncontrolled sites, where the waste disposal endangers human health and harms the environment. In order to stop this practice, the Commission initiated a horizontal infringement procedure which concerns the operation of all illegal or uncontrolled waste disposal sites in Greece. In its judgment of 6 October 2005 (case C-502/03), the European Court of Justice declared that Greece had failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste⁽⁵⁾ as amended (now Directive 2006/12/EC⁽⁶⁾ - Waste Framework Directive). The judgment established that at least 1 125 illegal or uncontrolled landfills are operational in Greece. Greece must now comply with this ruling, in accordance with Article 228 of the EC Treaty. In this regard, the Greek authorities adopted a new national waste management plan and updated their regional waste management plans. Those new plans aim at the closure and rehabilitation of all illegal or uncontrolled waste dumping sites by the end of 2008 and their replacement by appropriate waste management infrastructure.

According to information received from the Greek authorities in October 2007, the Greek authorities have adopted decisions for the closure and rehabilitation of 1 038 illegal or uncontrolled waste dumping sites, while for 774 dumping sites the necessary rehabilitation works are underway. The Commission services are assessing this information and will take all necessary measures in order to ensure that Greece complies with the ECJ ruling.

The Commission collects information about recycling levels in Member States as an element of verifying the proper implementation of Community legislation. In 2005 Greece has achieved a recycling level of 41.8% which is well above the previous target of 25% recycling (set for 2001) but is still below the target of 55% recycling of packaging set for Greece for 2011. The detailed data for Greece as well as other Member States are available at the website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/data.htm"

It should be noted that the information given at this page may be subject to change when countries send updates or corrections of data provided.

The management of hazardous waste in Greece is under scrutiny of the Commission. Greece has not adopted an adequate management plan for hazardous waste and tolerates the uncontrolled disposal of the majority of the hazardous waste produced, violating several key requirements of the Waste Framework Directive which is the central pillar of EU legislation designed to ensure environmentally sound waste management in Member States.

After being sent a final warning in December 2005, Greece modified its legal framework for the management of hazardous waste and adopted a new management plan that was sent to the Commission in March 2007. Despite that adoption, Greece is still not complying with its obligations.

The Commission considers that the plan is too general and does not provide a coherent waste management strategy. The Commission takes the view that the management plan adopted is not sufficiently precise, in particular as regards the identification of suitable disposal sites, and that the inventory of hazardous waste is not yet definitive for all categories. Thousands of tons are stocked "temporarily", pending disposal or recovery. Greece has admitted that 600 000 tons of hazardous waste are stocked at sites considered by the Greek authorities as "polluted in principle".

While the Greek authorities have recognised the problem and are committed to solving it, the adopted management plan will not ensure the resolution of the problem. Therefore, in January 2008 the Commission decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Can the Commission confirm that the use by the British immigration service of gamma-ray equipment to scan goods vehicles at ports of entry to the UK in order to locate possible illegal immigrants in no way contravenes Euratom regulations designed to protect the public from radiation?

Would the Commission encourage all Member States to consider the wider introduction and use of such equipment since its effectiveness in reducing the number of illegal immigrants on the Calais-Dover route in particular is well established?

Council Directive 96/29 Euratom⁽¹⁾, the Basic Safety Standards Directive, requires that Member States ensure that all types of practices resulting in exposure to ionizing radiation are justified in advance of their introduction. This implies that an analysis is made of the societal benefit generated by the practice, and it is demonstrated that the net benefit, is positive. The decision on whether a practice is justified however lies with national governments.

There is a potential exposure of hidden persons in the case of X-ray screening of vehicles to counter illegal immigration. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom⁽²⁾ includes specific provisions on exposures of individuals as part of so-called "medico-legal procedures", i.e. procedures performed for legal purposes without a medical indication, such as security screening. In particular, Article 4.2 (c) of this Directive requires that Member States ensure that special attention be given to keep the doses arising from medico-legal exposure as low as reasonably achievable.

The issue of justification in this category of practices, which is very complex, was discussed among radiation protection experts and stakeholders at a conference organised by the Commission (Dublin, 2002)⁽³⁾. A second conference of this type is in preparation for this year.

Furthermore, the X-ray screening of vehicles must be conducted in full respect of other provisions of the Basic Safety Standards Directive, e.g. for the protection of those operating the equipment, where appropriate truck drivers, bystanders etc.

Concerning the question whether the Commission encourages other Member States to consider the wider use of the equipment described, it should be noted that there is no Community competence. The Schengen Borders Code⁽⁴⁾ only determines the general rules how border checks shall be carried out. Besides the rules laid down in Annex VI of the Code, the details of the procedures for the checks are to be decided by Member States according to national law. This includes also decisions concerning the adequate equipment. The latter does not exclude the possibility of co-financing national equipment with means of the External Borders Fund.⁽⁵⁾

Written Declaration No 0038/2006 on banning seal products in the European Union was supported by a record number of MEPs. Unfortunately, no positive action has so far been taken on it. Yet baby seals are still being hunted commercially, in defiance of the most basic principles, with the pups being skinned alive and their bodies thrown back into the water. Furs obtained in this way are being legally sold, even within EU territory.

What measures will the Commission take to ban trade in seal products?

The Commission, in its response of 16 January 2007 to the Parliament's Written Declaration No 0038/2006, recognised the high level of public concern regarding the animal welfare aspects of seal hunting and undertook to make a full objective assessment of the animal welfare aspects of seal hunting and, based on the results, to report back to the Parliament with possible legislative proposals if warranted by the situation.

In the framework of this assessment process, the Commission requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to issue an independent scientific opinion on the animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals. On 6 December 2007, EFSA adopted its scientific opinion stating that "there are only a limited number of quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals to be used as the basis for the efficacy of various killing methods with an adequately high degree of certainty." EFSA also concluded that "it is possible to kill seals rapidly and effectively without causing them avoidable pain or distress. However, the Panel also reported evidence that, in practice, effective and humane killing does not always happen."

The management, monitoring and enforcement issues related to seal hunting are currently being examined through a Commission-funded assessment study, which will be completed end of February. This study assesses the potential impacts of a possible ban of products derived from seal species, focussing in particular on trade, legal and socio-economic aspects. The Commission has also launched a public consultation through internet to gather a wide variety of views on trade in seal products and their links with concerns on seal hunting in general or welfare aspects in particular.

The Commission will take a decision on the policy response on the basis of its own impact assessment by taking into consideration the results of the above-mentioned actions.

The implementation of Directive 2006/24/EC⁽¹⁾ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks has been the subject of much debate and the source of considerable confusion in Lithuania. The question was raised about who should finance the acquisition and maintenance of the equipment necessary to implement the directive - the retention of telephone conversations, SMS messages, unanswered calls and other data for a period of twelve months. Under the Lithuanian Constitution, the State has no right to delegate to private individuals its task of ensuring the security of society and preserving public order by asking them to perform these duties without public funds.

In view of the above, will the Commission say who is footing the bill for the acquisition of the equipment by communications enterprises in the EU Member States? How is the Data Processing Directive being implemented in the EU Member States? How are citizens protected against the fraudulent use of information concerning them?

The Data Retention Directive obliges Member States to require providers of public electronic communications services and networks to retain traffic and location data for a minimum period of six months and a maximum of 24 months and to ensure that these data are available for the investigation, detection or prosecution of serious crime. As such the Directive essentially imposes obligations on communications providers and networks to retain specified data for an appropriate period of time under certain conditions.

These obligations may generate significant additional costs for communications providers and networks. However, the Directive does not oblige Member States to reimburse providers for any costs which they incur in connection with these obligations.

To the extent that Member States wish to grant aid to undertakings with respect to the costs of data retention, they must notify this to the Commission in accordance with Article 88 (3) EC. Moreover, such aid could be approved only if one of the exemptions of Article 87 (2) or (3) EC was applicable. This would require in particular that the aid must have an incentive effect, i.e. that such aid helps to achieve an objective which goes beyond the mere implementation of obligations which already result from European Community law.

In November of last year the Commission invited all Member States to a meeting on transposition of the Data Retention Directive. This included a Roundtable discussion of Member States' approach to reimbursement of costs incurred as a consequence of the Directive and indicated a wide range of practices.

Member States' approaches vary considerably. For example, one Member State is introducing systems which will reimburse additional costs incurred by providers and which will involve pre and post auditing of providers' costs to ensure a cost neutral approach. Some others provide for a system which allows payments to be made to providers based on a pre-established set of tariffs without assessing the specific cost base of individual providers. Many Member States do not intend to reimburse any additional costs incurred by electronic communications providers as a result of the Directive. Finally, a number of other Member States are still assessing the full implications of a cost reimbursement system and have not yet arrived at a final position. A report of the November 2007 meeting can be found on the Commission's Europa web site⁽²⁾.

As for transposition into national law, Member States should have transposed the Directive into national law by no later then 15 September 2007. To date 12 Member States have notified their transposition measures to the Commission. In November of last year the Commission began infringement proceedings against those Member States which had not notified the Commission of their transposition measures. An overview of how Member States are transposing the Directive can be found in the report of the November 2007 meeting.

The Data Retention Directive also provides important guarantees against misuse of data retained under the Directive. The strict purpose limitation of the Directive implies that retained data cannot be used by private enterprises or individuals. Moreover, the Member States are anyway under the obligation to ensure that provisions in national law relating to access to retained data comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and ensure full respect for the principles of proportionality and necessity. The general data protection regime provided for by Directive 95/46 remains applicable to the retention of data by the operators.

These provisions are further complemented by strict data security requirements designed to guard against accidental loss or unauthorised access to these data. By way of example, the Directive requires that communications providers and network operators shall ensure that only "specially authorised personnel" may access the data. The Directive further requires national measures to provide that intentional access to or transfer of retained data which is not in accordance with national law, shall be punishable by appropriate sanctions, including the possibility of administrative or criminal penalties.

On 22 November 2007, in Official Journal C 279A, the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) published information on open competition EPSO/AD/113/07 (Heads of unit in the field of translation) and other competitions (including. EPSO/AD/108-110-112/07 and EPSO/AD/114/07) in only three of the official languages, namely English, French and German. The notice was not published in Polish or any of the eight other languages directly covered by the competition. Under Council Regulation No 1⁽¹⁾, all languages have the same status (Article 1) and documents of general application – which is what competition notices are – must be published in all official languages (Article 4).

How does the Commission intend to solve the problem of missing language versions of EPSO competition notices?

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that all language versions of the Official Journal (including Polish) contain a summary of every competition notice in the appropriate language, with an indication of how to find the full notice. All candidates, whatever language version of the Official Journal they consult, thus have an equal opportunity of being informed of the competition. The linguistic regime applied for the languages to be used in the selection tests for open competitions results from the decision adopted by the EPSO Management Board on 8 May 2007 (in which every EU Institution is represented). Currently, selection tests are conducted in French, English or German.

The phenomenon of corruption has assumed alarming proportions in Greece. According to Transparency International, one in five Greek citizens admits that he or she has given bribes in order to expedite some business in the public or private sector. The phenomenon of corruption is concentrated chiefly in services such as public hospitals, urban planning, tax authorities, banks and municipal and prefectural authorities. Over the last few years corruption has even spread to the justice system. It is calculated that the total value of illegal bribes exceeded € 600 million in 2007.

Is the Commission aware of the increase in corruption in Greece, and what does it believe are the principal reasons for this? What data does it have available and how is it addressing the phenomenon of corruption in respect of the use of Community funds by Greece? How can it contribute to stamping out corruption? To what extent does it consider that the increased levels of corruption affect the economic and social convergence of Greece with other EU Member States?

The Commission is aware of the data published by Transparency International.

The Commission does not possess complete data concerning the methods used by the Member States to combat corruption, in particular in the public sector. Therefore the Commission cannot assess to what extent increased levels of corruption in Greece may affect the economic and social convergence with other European countries.

Against this background, the EU has been very active in the field of the fight against corruption and has adopted a comprehensive group of instruments to tackle this phenomenon.

Following the introduction of the EU Convention on the protection of the Communities' financial interests in 1995, a Protocol drawn up in 1996 addresses the issue of corruption in relation to the Communities' financial interests.

In 1997 the EU Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Union or officials of Member States of the European Union was drawn up. The Convention criminalises corruption involving public officials, requiring Member States to be able to investigate and prosecute cases, even when they involve an official of another Member State of the European Union. The Convention is in force since September 2005.

Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector was adopted in July 2003. It requires Member States to provide for offences of corruption in the private sector, whether involving a profit or non-profit organisation. In June 2007 the Commission adopted an implementation report which found that transposition of this Framework Decision into Member States' legislation was still at an early stage.

The Commission prevents and combats corruption inter alia by continuing promoting legislation criminalising active and passive corruption of officials, by deepening the analysis of the phenomenon via studies and survey tools like the Eurobarometer, by funding public as well as non-governmental initiatives against corruption and by assisting the national authorities in their fight against corruption by prevention, deterrence and strengthening of legislation.

Does the Commission have any plans to bring forward regulations on the undergrounding of electric wires?

In particular, does the Commission have any guidelines on best practice regarding the installation of high-voltage wires in residential areas?

The Commission does not plan to bring forward regulations on the undergrounding of electric lines.

It does not belong to the Commission to select the route of an electricity link nor the technology to be used. This is left to the project promoter who has to respect the conditions imposed by the authorities of the country(ies) concerned.

As indicated in the Commission's reply to oral question H-0895/07⁽¹⁾ concerning an Irish power line project, the authorities designated by the Member States are responsible for the planning and authorisation procedures under the respect of environmental law.

The Commission does not make guidelines on best practice regarding the installation of high-voltage lines in residential areas. The Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) establishes a framework of minimum restrictions and reference levels but the Member States remain responsible for the implementation of measures.

Is the European Commission aware that European City Guide and their subsidiaries are still operating and that they continue to mislead businesses across the EU?

Why are 'business-to-business' (B2B) commercial practices not covered by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC⁽¹⁾, and does the European Commission intend to incorporate B2B practices into this Directive?

The Commission is aware of the continued existence of "European City Guide" and similar directory companies and continues to reply to numerous letters from Members of Parliament and businesses.

As the Commission has stated in the past since this problem concerns business-to-business (B2B) relationships much of the EU consumer protection legislation does not apply. An exception is Directive 2006/114/EC of the Parliament and of the Council concerning misleading and comparative advertising.

The competent law courts and/or public enforcement authorities of the Member State from which such schemes operate are competent for deciding on a case-by-case basis whether a commercial communication is misleading and to take appropriate enforcement action.

Several competent authorities and courts, for example in Spain and Belgium, have already taken enforcement action against these practices.

The Unfair Commercial Practice (UCP) Directive does not cover B2B commercial practices since there was no case for maximum harmonisation of the national laws on acts of unfair commercial practice (for example B2B misleading advertising, slavish imitation, denigration).

A full harmonisation Directive on unfair B2C commercial practices was already a very ambitious proposal, which would have failed if its scope had been extended to B2B unfair competition practices.

It resulted from the consultation and the works in Council that there was no consensus on extending of the scope of the directive to cover B2B unfair commercial practices.

It must also be stressed that not all the Member States have a system to address unfair commercial practice.

Some Member States (for example Germany, Austria and Sweden) were in favour of extending the scope of the directive to acts of unfair commercial practice. Others (for example the United Kingdom, France and Ireland) supported consumer protection but opposed the introduction at EU level of a fully harmonised system to address unfair commercial practice.

Although the Commission cannot intervene against companies involved in such practices it has attempted to increase awareness of the problem by presenting the issue to European business organisations. Furthermore, the Commission has written to the competent authorities in the relevant Member States, including Spain, to highlight that the situation is on-going and to request further information on this issue. The Commission is awaiting replies to some of these letters.

The EU and the governments of Member States are promoting the replacement of incandescent light bulbs by compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) in order to save energy. These bulbs, which are markedly more expensive for consumers, contain 5 milligrams of mercury, the use of which has been banned owing to its high toxicity and the direct danger it poses for public health.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure the safe disposal of used CFL bulbs so that they do not end up in urban waste, releasing the mercury they contain into the environment? Furthermore, what measures has it taken to inform users about the hazards posed by these bulbs and the necessary measures to be taken in the event of damage to or destruction of a bulb, and the shedding of the toxic substance they contain?

Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment⁽¹⁾ foresees the necessary measures to ensure the take-back of energy saving lamps at the end of life phase. Producers are held responsible for the organisation and financing of the collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of such waste. They can set up and operate these take-back systems either in an individual and/or collective way.

Member States have to ensure that the users of electrical and electronic equipment are given the necessary information about the requirement not to dispose of the lamps as unsorted municipal waste and to collect such waste separately, as well as about the return and collection systems available to them.

Member States have furthermore to ensure that the necessary information is given to the users about the potential effects on the environment and human health as a result of the presence of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. This should include also the measures to be taken in the event of damage to or destruction of a bulb and the shedding of the toxic substance it contains. Member States may require that this information is provided by producers and/or distributors, e.g. in the instructions for use or at the point of sale.

In a bid to get to grips with the chronic problem of refugees and immigrants in Patras, who seeking to reach other European countries for the purpose of rejoining their families or in the hope of a better life, the Greek Government and local authorities have sent in the police to demolish their makeshift camps and carry out wholesale round-ups and arrests. The foreign workers being targeted, mainly from Afghanistan and Iraq, are understandably fleeing the precarious and dangerous conditions prevailing in those countries following operations by the NATO forces now occupying the territory.

Does the Commission accept the EU’s responsibility towards these people? What measures will it take to legalise their residence and movement within the EU, recognising their right to protection or additional protection as refugees, so as to prevent them from being denied entry, detained and harassed? How does the Commission assess the results of the common asylum and borders policy in the light of the inhuman manner in which refugees and migrants are being treated?

The question of the Honourable Member addresses issues, which fall within the scope of two separate sets of Member State's obligations, notably obligations under the EU asylum acquis and obligations to respect fundamental rights when carrying out immigration or border controls.

The Commission does not dispose sufficient information which would enable it to drive a concrete conclusion regarding the actions of the Greek authorities referred to in the question of the Honourable Member.

As far as the implementation of the asylum acquis in Greece is concerned, the Commission has undertaken a number of procedural actions concerning the failure of this Member State to implement its obligations under Community Legislation.

Thus, the Commission inter alia has opened infringement procedures against Greece for non-communication of transposition measures under Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted⁽¹⁾ (Qualification Directive) and Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status⁽²⁾.

If needed, the Commission will proceed with further procedural steps in accordance with the power conferred to it by Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in order to ensure that the Member State comply with its obligations under the EU asylum acquis.

The Commission would also like to highlight that the EU financial support to ensure inter alia proper reception conditions for asylum seekers as well as the identification and integration of refugees and persons granted subsidiary protection has been available for Greece. On the basis of the numbers of officially registered asylum applications, € 1 283 253, 07 have been allocated to Greece under the European Refugee Fund II in 2007 and € 1 571 280, 36 will be available under the European Refugee Fund III in 2008.

As concerns the movement of persons in need of international protection within the European Union, the Commission would like to refer to its proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection.⁽³⁾ If adopted, the Directive would enable third country nationals granted refugee status or subsidiary protection to acquire long-term resident status in a Member State as well as to reside in other Member States for various reasons, including employment and self-employment activities, subject to the provisions of the Directive.

Finally, the Commission wishes to reiterate its firm position that Greece must comply with fundamental rights when it exercises border controls or takes measures against irregular stay of third country nationals on its territory.

The importation of Brazilian meat into Europe is an issue with high priority, partly because there is currently a shortage of beef in the EU. To introduce barriers to trade, therefore, is contrary to our fundamental principles relating to free trade and openness. Agricultural policy is already being severely criticised, and measures of this kind - debarring for unclear reasons a product which citizens want to have - do not benefit support for European farmers. In Sweden it is estimated that the price of beef could rise by 30% if the ban remains in force for long. However, I share the Commission's concern to assign priority to safeguarding human and animal health. It is important to remember in this connection that the strong upturn in sales of Brazilian meat in Europe was largely due to the outbreak of mad cow disease in the late 1990s.

I would ask the Commission, therefore, how it intends to help solve this problem, and how can the Commission guarantee that these temporary measures genuinely remain temporary and proportional, so that they do not damage the interests of consumers, to the advantage of the European farmers' lobby?

It is important for Europe's consumers that this issue should be resolved without delay!

To protect EU public and animal health, the European Union has put in place a comprehensive set of requirements for imports of meat. The fulfilment of these requirements is verified by the Commission, in particular through on-the-spot inspections carried out by the Commission inspection services (Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) located in Ireland). Recent inspections in Brazil have identified serious instances of non-compliance with Community import requirements for bovine meat.

The Commission has therefore adopted measures to strengthen the control and surveillance of animal holdings, from which bovine meat could be sourced for import into the EU. The definite list of holdings together with their audit reports is expected to be received from the Brazilian authorities before the end of February 2008. In addition, the Commission is prepared to organise a further FVO inspection to Brazil late February 2008.

The Commission is aware that these measures have consequences on trade. They are the result of Brazil's repeated failure to address the deficiencies identified.

Nevertheless, the measures are designed to be temporary. Trade could recover as these measures permit additional holdings to be listed provided they fully meet EU requirements.

The protection of the Community's public and animal health must prevail over trade related concerns.

Officials are entitled to an annual flat-rate payment of travel expenses for themselves and, if they are eligible for the household allowance, for their spouse and dependents from their place of work to their place of origin (according to Article 8 (under Section 3(C)) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities of 1 May 2004).

How much did the Commission spend in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively on these payments provided for under the Staff Regulations?

How many Commission officials were entitled in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively to benefit from this provision?

How many Commission officials did, in fact, benefit from this provision in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively?

According to the Staff Regulations, officials, temporary agents and contract staff (and their spouse and dependents, if they are eligible for the household allowance) have the right to an annual flat-rate payment of travel expenses from their place of employment to their place of origin.

For staff employed within the European Union, this payment is made automatically, thus the number of actual beneficiaries corresponds to the number of officials eligible for the payment. The figures are as follows:

Total annual travel expenses

Number of beneficiaries

2005

22 958 780

17 352

2006

25 867 437

17 814

2007

28 209 707

18 389

For officials who work outside the European Union, Article 8(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations provides for the reimbursement of travel expenses in the form of a flat-rate payment corresponding to the cost of return air travel for the staff member, their spouse and dependents from their place of employment to their place of origin (or to another destination for those entitled to the payment who do not live at the place of employment).

As regards reimbursement, the Commission pays this flat-rate fee each year in July subject to prior presentation of boarding passes as proof of travel. Therefore, only those who provide proof that they have taken the journey will be eligible for this reimbursement.

For these staff members, the budget spent and the number of files processed are shown in the following table (elements collected from different data bases since data were not processed under the same IT system during 2005/2006 and 2007). These figures include beneficiaries (and their dependents) posted to Commission Delegations at least part of the year during the said exercises. Some of the beneficiaries have also received flat-rate payments for the time spent when posted inside the territory of the European Union.

These are not the final data, since regularisations for 2006 and 2007 exercises are still ongoing.

Number of files

processed

Budget

2005

968

8 754 729

2006

1 723

12 581 629

2007

1 941

14 334 408

In 2006 and 2007 the increase in the number of beneficiaries is due to the application of the new Staff Regulations of 2004. Former staff employed in different status (local agents of technical assistance – ALAT – and individual experts) were converted into contractual agent positions, which resulted in new recruitments under the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities.

As part of the review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) an optional mechanism has been introduced under which Member States may retain up to 10% of the aid they receive within the framework of the First Pillar in order use it as additional payments for specific types of farming which are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment or for improving the quality and marketing of agricultural products (Article 69, Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003⁽¹⁾). Recently the Commission’s Communication COM(2007)0722, published in preparation for the ‘health check’ of the CAP reform, provided for a review of this Article so as to enable it to be implemented beyond the sector level.

Will the Commission say whether it has carried out an impact study regarding the orientations of its Communication on preparing for the ‘health check’ of the CAP reform and on the implementation to date of Article 69, or at least whether it has any data which would justify broadening its scope?

The Commission Communication "Preparing the Health Check of the CAP reform", adopted on 20 November 2007 states that a revised Article 69 would require a relaxation of the present rule that those measures under such provision can only apply at a sector level.

The Commission is currently finalising an impact assessment report on the Health Check of the CAP. The aim of this report is to examine the different options that can be proposed by the Commission from an economic, environmental, social and administrative point of view. As part of this analysis, the revision of Article 69 is also being examined.

The impact assessment report will accompany the legal proposals on the Health Check. The Commission has planned to adopt this package on 20 May 2007. As part of this impact assessment, the Commission will also take into account other external studies, the contributions from other European Institutions and the stakeholders involved in this process.

In 1995, the EU was the world's second-biggest exporter of high-technology products. In 2005, it became the biggest exporter of such products, accounting for 17.2% of world exports in the field, but also the biggest importer, with 19.1% of world imports. In 2005, the total value of the Union's exports and imports in the field rose to EUR 230 bn and EUR 198 bn respectively. Over the period 2000-2005, the EU's exports of high-technology products registered an average annual growth of 1.7%, while imports fell by an average of 1.3% per annum. The category 'electronics and telecommunications' accounted for the largest share of European imports and exports of high-technology products (in 17 Member States and Norway).

Can the Commission provide information on its strategy for increasing all Member States' capacity to produce and export high-technology products?

The Commission notes with satisfaction the increased European Competitiveness in high technology products.

The capacity of enterprises in the EU to produce and export high-technology products depends on a wide range of framework conditions, some of which can be set at EU level, and others which lie within the powers of the Member States. In 2005 the Commission set out its industrial policy⁽¹⁾ for the coming years, based on a combination of horizontal and sectoral initiatives, followed by a mid-term review⁽²⁾ in July 2007. The Commission plans in the future to strengthen its work with Member States on industrial policy in the framework of the relaunched Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs.

A particularly important factor in the competitiveness of high-technology products is the level of investment in Research and Development. The Commission’s policy in the field of research and technological development, particularly the seventh framework programme for research and technological development, is a vital contribution to the international competitiveness of the high-technology sector of European industry.