European Parliament resolution on the progress made in 2001 towards the establishment of the area of freedom, security and justice provided for in Article 2, fourth indent, of the TEU

P5_TA(2002)0048 B5-0099/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the treaties, their protocols and declarations, and in particular Article 39 of the TEU and the other provisions relating to the implementation of Community law,

The priority objective of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)

1.  Reaffirms, following the mid-term review of the implementation of the Tampere programme carried out at the Laeken European Council, that the establishment of the AFSJ is now one of the top priorities of European integration;

2.  Stresses also that striking a balance between the objectives of freedom, security and justice must be the key consideration in this AFSJ, in relation to fundamental rights and civil liberties;

3.  Considers also that European citizenship, as a complement to and encompassing citizenship of a Member State, must be made the focal point for developing the feeling of belonging to the shared project of European integration;

4.  Points out that, with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity, the establishment of an AFSJ, as defined in the Treaty, must guarantee respect for values common to the EU and protection against human rights violations;

5.  Stresses that the results in 2001 in the area of police and judicial cooperation have been patchy, but notes that there is a clear political will to give fresh impetus to and step up the programme established at Tampere;

Respect for the common and founding values of a European area of freedom
Respect for fundamental rights

6.  Points out that the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in December 2000 opens the way to its taking full legal effect; notes, in this respect, that the Commission has taken due account of this principle and reaffirms Parliament's intention to do everything it can to ensure that the Charter is respected;

7.  Recalls that Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU, especially since the signing of the Treaty of Nice, require the institutions - Council, Commission and Parliament - to take action to prevent and sanction any clear violation of fundamental rights in the EU;

8.  Stresses that the obligation to guarantee a high level of protection for EU residents must be subject to full respect for fundamental rights and in this context, reiterates its request that any special and emergency legislation introduced to fight terrorism include, in each case, a temporary applicability and revision clause, with due involvement of Parliament;

9.  Recalls that, without prejudice to the powers formally assigned to it by the EU Treaty, the European Parliament is the representative of Union citizens and, consequently, must be fully involved in the process of adopting any measure under the third pillar;

10.  Urges the Commission to continue its action implementing Article 13 of the EC Treaty to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; expresses its unreserved support for all campaigns to raise public awareness in this area;

11.  Stresses in particular the need to combat all forms of racism and xenophobia as pointed out in the latest report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and urges the Commission to follow up the conclusions of the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, in particular by submitting new proposals in this field;

12.  Emphasises the need to provide access to justice for all persons as regards judicial assistance, interpretation facilities and simplification of procedures, with special attention to victims as well as guarantees for due legal safeguards for defendants, among examples of essential improvements to be made in this area;

Establishment of a common asylum and immigration policy

13.  Notes that the decision taken at Amsterdam to transfer immigration and asylum policy from the third to the first pillar did not offer any guarantee of greater effectiveness, especially since it perpetuated the rule of unanimity and the absence of codecision;

14.  Congratulates the Commission on the legislative proposals which it has submitted for the implementation of the first stage of a common asylum and immigration policy;

15.  Deplores the large number of obstacles still present within the Council, especially with regard to family reunification, the status of third-country nationals legally resident for long periods, minimum procedural guarantees, reception of refugees and revision of the Dublin Convention, and admission for employment purposes;

16.  Regrets in particular that, in the face of its inability to reach an agreement on asylum and family reunification procedures, the Council asked the Commission to submit modified proposals on these matters, and is concerned at the risk posed by such a procedure that the content of these instruments might be watered down;

17.  Urges the Council to adopt these instruments without delay, taking due account, as regards asylum policy, of the need to fully comply with the Geneva Convention and, as regards the status of third-country nationals, including refugees legally resident for long periods, of the need to tackle discrimination in economic, social and cultural life and provide a set of uniform rights that are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens;

18.  Deplores the fact that, apart from the directive on temporary protection which was adopted in 2001, all the instruments adopted by the Council relate solely to punitive measures: action against aid provided in gaining illegal entry and residence and mutual recognition of expulsion decisions;

19.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has submitted a proposal for a directive to recast legislation on freedom of movement and residence; on the basis of the principle of non-discrimination, calls for full implementation of the principle of freedom of movement and residence for all citizens and long-term residents;

Building an area of justice and security

20.  Welcomes the impetus given by both the Commission and the Council over the last few months to the planning and introduction of measures required for the proper functioning of judicial and police cooperation, including:

21.  Calls on the Commission, in this connection, to launch the debate as quickly as possible and submit legislative proposals on minimum guarantees in the field of procedural rights, based on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and on the case-law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;

22.  Considers it necessary to integrate Europol into the Union's institutional framework by carrying through the revision of its legal basis so as to ensure greater effectiveness and guarantee scrutiny by the European Parliament and Court of Justice; awaits with interest the communication which the Commission is to publish on this subject;

23.  Stresses that action to fight all forms of organised crime, including trafficking in human beings, drugs trafficking and money laundering, must be stepped up; calls on the Member States which have not yet done so to ratify the many international conventions, especially on preventing and combating organised crime;

Institutional aspects of cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs: the need for effectiveness and greater democracy

24.  Deplores, once again, the consequences of the separation of policy areas relating to the establishment of the AFSJ between the first and third pillars, which have resulted in:

25.  Calls on the Council to schedule consultation of Parliament in such a way that:

26.  Stresses also the shortcomings in the EU's external strategy in the JHA area, in which nothing is done to involve Parliament and, more particularly, the fact that the annual report on progress made towards the AFSJ is not even forwarded to Parliament;

27.  Regrets, with regard to the Council's adoption on 27 December 2001, using the written procedure, of two instruments falling under the first pillar and two further instruments falling under the third pillar concerning combating terrorism and the definition of lists of terrorist organisations, that Parliament was consulted only on the regulation on the freezing of assets; deplores the choice of a legal basis falling under the third pillar for the definition of the list of terrorist organisations, thereby excluding all consultation and scrutiny both by national parliaments and the European Parliament, and likewise evading the competence of the Court of Justice;

28.  Notes that, with a view to enlargement, the adoption of all parts of the Community acquis relating to the AFSJ is a major requirement, to which Parliament attaches the utmost importance and about which it wishes to be kept informed;

29.  Calls on the Member States to act rapidly to transpose the instruments adopted and calls on the Commission to include the assessment of the Member States' transposition of the instruments adopted in the scoreboard;

30.  Calls on the Convention on the Future of Europe to take into account, with a view to the holding of the next Intergovernmental Conference, the considerations set out in this resolution and to put forward proposals for the reform of the Treaties with a view to improving the Union's institutional structure in the field of cooperation on matters relating to justice and home affairs;

o
o   o

31.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments and governments of the Member States and the Council of Europe.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community (COM(2001) 318 – C5&nbhy;0267/2001 – 2001/0135(COD))

P5_TA(2002)0049 A5-0012/2002

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2001) 318(1)),

–  having regard to Article 251(2) and 71 (1) of the EC Treaty , pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5&nbhy;0267/2001),

–  having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5&nbhy;0012/2002),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Asks to be consulted again should the Commission intend to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 7 February 2002 with a view to the adoption of European Parliament and Council Directive .../…./EC amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 71 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(3),

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(4),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(5),

Whereas:

(1)  Transport safety and environmental issues connected with transport are vital in ensuring sustainable mobility.

(2)  Speed limitation devices for heavy motor vehicle categories have proven to have a positive effect both on transport safety and environmental protection.

(3)  Research results show that further improvement in these areas will be achieved if the installation and use of speed limitation devices is made mandatory as well for categories of lighter commercial motor vehicles.

(4)  In Council Directive 92/6/EEC(6) it was foreseen that depending on technical possibilities and experiences in Member States, the requirements on installation and use of speed limitation devices could be extended to categories of lighter commercial motor vehicles.

(5)  In the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on priorities in EU road safety(7) the extension of the scope of Directive 92/6/EEC towards categories of lighter commercial motor vehicles was stated as one of the priorities.

(6)  The present state of technology permits a technical tolerance of less than 5 km/h for speed limitation devices. In setting speed limitation devices, the margins of technical accuracy which are currently attainable should be taken into account, allowance being made for a degree of measuring error.

(7)  In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, the objectives of this Directive, namely the introduction of modifications to the Community-wide arrangements for the installation and use of speed limitation devices on certain heavy vehicle categories cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale of the action, be better achieved by the Community. This Directive confines itself to the minimum required in order to achieve those objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.

(8)  Directive 92/6/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 92/6/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1.  Article 1 is replaced by the following:

"Article 1

For the purpose of this Directive, "motor vehicle" means any power-driven vehicle falling within category M2, M3, N2 or N3, intended for use on the road and having at least four wheels and a maximum design speed exceeding 25 km/h.

Categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 shall be understood to be those defined in Annex II to Council Directive 70/156/EEC(8)."

2.  In Article 2 the words "category M3" are replaced by "categories M2 and M3".

3.  Paragraph 1 of Article 3 is replaced by the following:

"1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that motor vehicles of categories N2 and N3 shall be used on the road only if equipped with a device set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 90 km/h. The maximum speed on this device shall be set at 85 km/h when the technical tolerance is of the permitted maximum of 5 km/h; if the technical tolerance is less than 5 km/h, the maximum speed on this device shall be set at such value as shall ensure that the actual speed does not exceed 90 km/h."

4.  Paragraph 2 of Article 3 is replaced by the following:

"2. The Member States may require that the speed limitation device fitted in motor vehicles registered on their territory and used exclusively for the transport of hazardous goods shall be set in such a way that these motor vehicles cannot exceed a maximum speed which may even be below 90 km/h."

5.  Article 4 is replaced by the following:

"Article 4

1.  As regards motor vehicles of category M3 having a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric tonnes and motor vehicles of category N3, Articles 2 and 3 shall apply to:

motor vehicles registered as from 1 January 1994:

2.  As regards motor vehicles of category M2, motor vehicles of category M3 having a maximum weight exceeding 5 metric tonnes but less than or equal to 10 metric tonnes and motor vehicles of category N2, Articles 2 and 3 shall apply to:

vehicles registered as from 1 January 2004:

3.  During a period of five years from the date of entry into force of the Directive Member States may exempt vehicles of categories M2 and N2 with a permissible maximum weight exceeding 3.5 metric tonnes but less than or equal to 7.5 metric tonnes which are registered on their territory from the application of Article 2 and Article 3."

6.  Paragraph 1 of Article 5 is replaced by the following:

"1. The speed limitation devices referred to in Articles 2 and 3 must meet the technical specifications set out in the Annex of Council Directive 92/24/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to speed limitation devices or similar speed limitation on-board systems of certain categories of motor vehicles(*). However, all the vehicles covered by this Directive which are registered before 1 January 2004 may continue to be equipped with speed limitation devices meeting the technical specifications set by the competent national authorities.

_____________________

* OJ L 129, 14.5.1992, p. 154."

7.  After Article 6 the following articles are added:

"Article 6a

To enhance road security further, the Commission shall review the desirability, as well as the technical feasibility, of revising Directive 92/24/EEC in order to allow the maximum speed to be exceeded on a strictly time-limited basis in situations of overtaking slow vehicles.

Article 6b

18 months after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall publish a study on the possibilities of introducing intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) as a way to allow situation-specific optimal speeds on European roads. The maximum speeds would change in accordance with the circumstances and permit speed limitation on urban roads.

Compatibility with other safety concepts such as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) shall also be considered in the study in order to ensure compatibility.

On the basis of the study, the Commission shall judge whether and when incorporating intelligent speed adaptation devices into new vehicles should be compulsory."

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2004 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001, p.77. (2) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001, p.77. (3) OJ C (4) OJ C (5) Position of the European Parliament of 7 February 2002 (6) OJ L 57, 2.3.1992, p.27. (7) COM(2000) 125. (8) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1, Annex II as laid down in Council Directive 92/53/EEC, OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 1.

Proposal for a Council decision authorising France to extend the application of a reduced rate of excise duty on 'traditional' rum produced in its overseas departments (COM(2001) 347 – C5&nbhy;0401/2001 – 2001/0142(CNS))

P5_TA(2002)0050 A5-0001/2002

The proposal was approved.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision authorising France to extend the application of a reduced rate of excise duty on 'traditional' rum produced in its overseas departments (COM(2001) 347 – C5&nbhy;0401/2001 – 2001/0142(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2001) 347(1)),

–  having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 299 (2) of the EC Treaty (C5&nbhy;0401/2001),

–  having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A5&nbhy;0001/2002),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Asks to be consulted again if the Council intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001, p. 148.

Proposal for a Council decision authorising Portugal to apply a reduced rate of excise duty in the autonomous region of Madeira on locally produced and consumed rum and liqueurs and in the autonomous region of the Azores on locally produced and consumed liqueurs and eaux-de-vie (COM(2001) 442 – C5&nbhy;0422/2001 – 2001/0169(CNS))

P5_TA(2002)0051 A5-0001/2002

The proposal was approved.

Legislative resolution>MERGEFORMATEuropean Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision authorising Portugal to apply a reduced rate of excise duty in the autonomous region of Madeira on locally produced and consumed rum and liqueurs and in the autonomous region of the Azores on locally produced and consumed liqueurs and eaux-de-vie (COM(2001) 442 – C5&nbhy;0422/2001 – 2001/0169(CNS)).

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2001) 442(1)),

–  having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 299 (2) of the EC Treaty (C5&nbhy;0422/2001),

–  having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A5&nbhy;0001/2002),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Asks to be consulted again if the Council intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001, p. 210.

Proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the Galileo Joint Undertaking (COM(2001) 336 – C5&nbhy;0329/2001 – 2001/0136(CNS))

P5_TA(2002)0052 A5-0005/2002

The proposal was amended as follows:

Text proposed by the Commission(1)   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 Recital 6 a (new) (6a) On 3 October 2001 the European Parliament adopted its resolution on the Commission communication on Galileo. Amendment 2 Recital 7 a (new) (7a) The inception study to support the development of a business plan for the Galileo programme commissioned by the European Community should be taken into account. Amendment 3 Recital 11 (11)  Taking into account the number of players who will need to be involved in this process, and the financial resources and technical expertise needed, it is vital to set up a legal entity capable of ensuring the coordinated management of the funds assigned to the Galileo programme during its development phase. (11)  Taking into account the number of players who will need to be involved in this process, and the financial resources and technical expertise needed, it is vital to set up a legal entity capable of ensuring the coordinated management of the funds assigned to the Galileo programme, coordinated project management and stringent financial management during its development phase. This legal entity should ensure transparency in the financial management and awarding of contracts while avoiding conflicts of interest. Amendment 4 Recital 13 (13)  That it why it is necessary to set up a Joint Undertaking under Article 171 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, since the Galileo involves a major research and development component which justifies and will continue to justify the use of funds assigned to the research and development framework programmes. In addition, this programme will make it possible to make considerable progress in the development of satellite navigation technologies. (13)  In order to create a simple (unbureaucratic), single management structure, it is necessary to set up a Joint Undertaking under Article 171 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, since the Galileo involves a major research and development component which justifies and will continue to justify the use of funds assigned to the research and development framework programmes. In addition, this programme will make it possible to make considerable progress in the development of satellite navigation technologies. Amendment 5 Recital 14 (14)  The Joint Undertaking's main task will be to successfully complete the development of the Galileo programme during its development phase by combining public and private sector funding; in addition, it will make it possible to ensure the management of major demonstration projects. (14)  The Joint Undertaking's main task will be to speedily and successfully complete the development of the Galileo programme during its development phase by combining the expertise, information and funding of the EU, ESA and industry, ensuring the involvement of the public and private sectors and recognising the importance of the private sector's input into this stage; in addition, it will make it possible to ensure the management of major demonstration projects. A key task of the Joint Undertaking is also to prepare and implement the invitation to tender which is necessary for carrying out the deployment and operational phases. Amendment 6 Recital 14 a (new) (14a) In view of the importance of a dynamic and innovative satellite navigation and transport telematics industry and for the whole refinancing of the system, the Galileo Joint Undertaking should have, even at the development phase, the task of drawing up the basic (open) concepts for this area and acting as an interface with the relevant industries. Amendment 7 Recital 14 b (new) (14b) To ensure that the future Joint Undertaking can fulfil its tasks effectively, the Member States should adopt consistent positions in the Council and ESA. Amendment 8 Recital 14 c (new) (14c) Over the past years, the budgetary authority has looked to improve transparency and control over the management of Community funding, in particular concerning financial control, power of discharge, contribution to the pension scheme and internal budgetary procedure (code of conduct). Amendment 45 Recital 14 d (new) (14d) The Joint Undertaking should not exclude the possibility of using the Galileo system for military applications for peace-keeping missions. Amendment 9 Article 1, paragraph 2 Its aim shall be to ensure a single management structure for the research, development and demonstration phase of the Galileo programme, and to this end mobilise the funds assigned to this programme. Its aim shall be to ensure a single management structure for the research, development and demonstration phase of the Galileo programme, and to this end mobilise the funds assigned to this programme. A key task of the Joint Undertaking is also to prepare and implement the invitation to tender which is necessary for carrying out the deployment and operational phases. Amendment 10 Article 1, paragraph 3 Its seat shall be located in Brussels. The seat of the Joint Undertaking shall be subject to existing tax regimes and negotiations with the potential country of location. Amendment 11 Article 2, paragaphs 1a and 1b (new) The Joint Undertaking, being largely financed from the general budget of the Union, shall respect in its internal procedures the principles applicable to the European Institutions. Candidate countries shall be entitled to participate in the activities of the Joint Undertaking through the appropriate instruments foreseen in the budget. Amendment 12 Article 2 a (new) Article 2a The founding members of the Joint Undertaking are the European Community represented by the Commission and the European Space Agency. The European Investment Bank may become a further member of the Joint Undertaking. In order to integrate the private sector in the Joint Undertaking a promotion company shall be set up. The purpose of this promotion company shall be to guarantee regular and institutionalised exchanges between the private sector and the Joint Undertaking, to generate publicity for the Galileo programme among users and the general public and, possibly, to carry out tasks specified by the Joint Undertaking. The general relationship between the promotion company and the Joint Undertaking shall be set out in the Statutes. The implementation and details of this relationship shall be governed by an agreement concluded by both parties by mutual consent. The agreement is intended both to bind the two bodies together and to guarantee their independence in terms of their organisation and personnel. Amendment 13 Article 2 b (new) Article 2b A monitoring committee shall be set up in which each Member State is represented. Relations between the monitoring committee and the Joint Undertaking shall be governed by the Statutes. Amendment 14 Article 2c (new) Article 2c The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council every year a progress report on the Galileo programme together with a programme development plan and shall keep them regularly informed of any new members that join the Joint Undertaking. Amendment 15 Article 3, paragraph 1a (new) The Commission shall inform the budgetary authority on a regular basis on the implementation of the development phase of Galileo, as well as on the prospects to attract new investments for the consecutive phases. The annual report of the Joint Undertaking shall be made available to all parties concerned. Amendment 16 Annex, Article 1, point 2 2.  Its seat shall be located in Brussels. 2.  The seat of the Joint Undertaking shall be subject to existing tax regimes and negotiations with the potential country of location. Amendment 17 Annex, Article 1, point 3, point (b) (b)  The following may become members of the Joint Undertaking - the European Investment Bank; - any undertaking which subscribes a minimum of EUR 20 million to the Joint Undertaking. That amount shall be reduced to EUR 1 million for undertakings subscribing individually or collectively which may be regarded as small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of the Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises.1 ______________________ 1 OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4. (b)  The European Investment Bank may become a member of the Joint Undertaking. Amendment 18 Annex, Article 1, point 4, paragraph 3 Immediately after they have subscribed their shares, the founding members shall invite the other members mentioned in paragraph 3.b to subscribe their shares within a period of 30 days. Private undertakings need subscribe only EUR 5 million and EUR 250 000 respectively if the balance is subscribed before 31 December 2002. Immediately after they have subscribed their shares, the founding members shall invite the other member mentioned in point 3 (b) to subscribe its shares within a period of 30 days. Amendment 19 Annex, Article 1, point 4 a, introduction and point a (new) 4a. The Galileo promotion company shall be established at the same time and for the same duration as the Joint Undertaking. (a)  Members and contributions: The following shall be members of the promotion company: all undertakings which have subscribed a contribution, whose form has yet to be determined, to its capital. Small and medium-sized undertakings must be given a fair chance of membership. Assets in kind may be brought in. They shall be the subject of an evaluation of their material value and their utility in carrying out the activities of the Joint Undertaking. Amendment 20 Annex, Article 1, point 4a, point b (new) (b)  Role and tasks: - preparing and implementing the public private partnership desired by both the public and private sectors; - advising the Joint Undertaking on substantive, commercial and technical issues; - possibly taking over contracts issued by the Administrative Board; - actively contributing to the information, communication and promotion campaign for the Galileo system directed at future users and the general public alike until the operational phase; Amendment 21 Annex, Article 1, point 4a, point c (new) (c)  Provisions: - the promotion company must determine its own procedures; - the Commission shall submit a progress report every year on the Galileo programme together with a programme development plan. Amendment 22 Annex, Article 1, point 4b, introduction and point (a) (new) 4b. A monitoring committee shall be established at the same time and for the same duration as the Joint Undertaking. (a)  Members The members of this monitoring committee shall be: the representatives of each Member State and a representative of the Commission from the Administrative Board of the Joint Undertaking. The monitoring committee shall be chaired by the representative of the Member State which holds the Presidency of the Council. Amendment 23 Annex, Article 1, point 4b, point (b) (new) (b)  Role and tasks: - monitoring the implementation of the development phase; - transmitting important guidelines concerning content to the Administrative Board of the Joint Undertaking to prepare for the invitation to tender which is necessary for the deployment and operational phases; - preparing the future security of the Galileo system: protection of privacy and the security and protection of citizens. Amendment 24 Annex, Article 1, point 4b, point c (new) (c)  Provisions: - the Administrative Board shall forward to the monitoring committee all documents concerning substantive matters featuring on the agenda of the next meeting of the Administrative Board; - the monitoring committee shall be convened in good time before the meeting of the Administrative Board and take decisions on all substantive matters on the agenda. These decisions must be forwarded to the Administrative Board in good time so that they can be taken into account; - the monitoring committee must determine its own procedures; - the Commission shall submit to the monitoring committee a progress report every year on the programme together with a programme development plan. Amendment 47 Annex, Article 2, point 1 a (new) 1a. It will determine the uses and provision of services for the Galileo system and put in place a competitiveness plan with a competition framework relevant to the specific operator, such as a system architect, service provider, constellation operator, etc. Amendment 27 Annex, Article 2, point 3, paragraph 1, indent 1 -  It will draw up a business plan covering all the phases of the programme on the basis of data to be supplied by the European Commission concerning the services that can be offered by Galileo, the revenue that they may generate and the necessary accompanying measures; it shall ensure that private undertakings which have participated in the Joint Undertaking enjoy preferential treatment in becoming members of the entity which will be responsible for the deployment and operation of the navigation system. -  It will draw up a business plan covering all the phases of the programme on the basis of data to be supplied by the Commission and the European Space Agency concerning the services that can be offered by Galileo, the revenue that they may generate and the necessary accompanying measures; it shall ensure that private undertakings which have participated in the Joint Undertaking enjoy preferential treatment in becoming members of the entity which will be responsible for the deployment and operation of the navigation system. Amendment 28 Annex, Article 2, point 3, paragraph 1, indent 2 -  On that basis, it will contact the private sector, in the way that it considers to be the most appropriate, in order to draw up before the end of 2002 an overall plan for the financing of the programme including in particular the arrangements for financial participation by the private sector during the deployment phase. -  On that basis, it will contact the private sector, in the way that it considers to be the most appropriate, in order to draw up before the end of 2002 an overall plan for the financing of the programme including in particular the arrangements for financial participation by the private sector during the deployment phase. The Joint Undertaking shall then publish and organise an invitation to tender in 2002-2003 for the next phases of the Galileo programme. Amendment 29 Annex, Article 2, point 3, paragraph 1, indent 2a (new) -  The Joint Undertaking shall exchange information with the promotion company on technical, substantive and commercial issues. It may commission the promotion company to carry out specific studies and analyses on the technical and commercial feasibility of the Galileo programme. Amendment 30 Annex, Article 4, paragraph 1 Without prejudice to Article 3, the Joint Undertaking may, following an invitation to tender, conclude a contract for the provision of services with private undertakings or a consortium of private undertakings, in particular to carry out the activities provided for in Article 2(3). Without prejudice to Article 1(3)(a), members of the Joint Undertaking may, following an invitation to tender, conclude a contract for the provision of services with private undertakings or a consortium of private undertakings; the Joint Undertaking must allow the Galileo system to be used for military applications for peacekeeping operations. Amendments 50 and 31 Annex, Article 7, paragraph 2 2.  The Administrative Board may seek the advice of an Advisory Committee. 2.  The Administrative Board may seek the advice of the monitoring committee and of an Advisory panel of expert business developers to be established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 9 in order to offer impartial advice to prepare the ground for the Galileo Joint Undertaking. Amendment 32 Annex, Article 8, point 1, point (b) (b)  Unless otherwise provided in these Statutes, decisions of the Administrative Board shall be adopted by a simple majority of a the votes cast. The Commission and the European Space Agency shall each have 30 votes. The other Members of the Joint Undertaking shall have a number of votes in proportion to the share of the capital subscribed by them. (b)  Unless otherwise provided in these Statutes, decisions of the Administrative Board shall be adopted by a simple majority of a the votes cast. The Commission and the European Space Agency shall each have the same number of votes and in any case at least 30% of the total number of votes. Another Member of the Joint Undertaking shall have a number of votes in proportion to the share of the capital subscribed by it. Amendment 33 Annex, Article 8, point 2, point (aa) (new) (aa)  The Administrative Board must take into account the remarks of the monitoring committee, providing they have been submitted in good time, before taking decisions and adopting resolutions on the substantive and financial implementation of the Galileo programme. Amendment 34 Annex, Article 8, point 2, point (b), indent 6 - approve, by a majority of 75% of the votes, any proposal involving a significant change in the implementation of the Galileo programme; - undertake to inform the European Parliament and the Council if a proposal involves significant changes in the implementation of the Galileo programme; after the European Parliament and the Council have been informed such a decision may be approved by a majority of 75% of the votes; Amendment 35 Annex, Article 8, point 2, point (b), indent 9a (new) - brief the monitoring committee on a regular basis on progress in implementing the programme of the Joint Undertaking and the entire Galileo programme. Amendment 36 Annex, Article 8, point 2, point (b) indent 9b (new) - brief the promotion company on a regular basis concerning progress in implementing the programme of the Joint Undertaking and the entire Galileo programme, in so far as the information does not concern preparations for and the implementation of the invitation to tender necessary for the deployment and development phases. Amendment 51 Annex, Article 9, point 2, paragraph 2, indent 1 - advise the Administrative Board and the Director on the status of the programme on the basis of regular reports; - advise the Administrative Board and the Director on the status of the programme on the basis of regular reports and regular business reports provided by the Advisory panel of expert business developers foreseen under Article 7(2); Amendment 37 Annex, Article 12 All the revenue of the Joint Undertaking shall be applied to promoting the objective defined in Article 2. Subject to Article 20(2), no payment by way of division of any excess revenue over expenditure shall be paid to the members of the Joint Undertaking. All the revenue of the Joint Undertaking shall be applied to promoting the objective defined in Article 2. Subject to Article 20, no payment by way of division of any excess revenue over expenditure shall be paid to the members of the Joint Undertaking but shall continue to be made available to the Undertaking. Amendment 38 Annex, Article 13, paragraph 2 2.  Before 31 March of each year, the Director shall transmit to the members the programme cost estimates as approved by the Administrative Board. The programme cost estimates shall include a forecast of annual expenditure for the following two years. Within this forecast, the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the first of those two financial years (preliminary draft budget) shall be drawn up in such detail as is necessary for the internal budgetary procedure of each member regarding its financial contributions to the Joint Undertaking. The Director shall supply the members with all supplementary information needed for this purpose. 2.  Before 31 March of each year, the Director shall transmit to the members and the monitoring committee the programme cost estimates as approved by the Administrative Board. The programme cost estimates shall include a forecast of annual expenditure for the following two years. Within this forecast, the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the first of those two financial years (preliminary draft budget) shall be drawn up in such detail as is necessary for the internal budgetary procedure of each member regarding its financial contributions to the Joint Undertaking. The Director shall supply the members with all supplementary information needed for this purpose. Amendment 39 Annex, Article 13, paragraph 3 3.  The members shall forthwith communicate to the Director their comments on the programme cost estimates, and in particular on the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following year. 3.  The members and the monitoring committee shall forthwith communicate to the Director their comments on the programme cost estimates, and in particular on the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following year. Amendment 40 Annex, Article 13, paragraph 4 4.  Based on the approved programme cost estimates, and taking into account the comments received from members, the Director shall prepare the draft budget for the following year and shall submit it to the Administrative Board for adoption, by a majority of 75 % of the votes, before 30 September. 4.  Based on the approved programme cost estimates, and taking into account the comments received from members and the comments transmitted in good time by the monitoring committee, the Director shall prepare the draft budget for the following year and shall submit it to the Administrative Board for adoption, by a majority of 75 % of the votes, before 30 September. Amendment 41 Annex, Article 15 Within two months of the end of each financial year, the Director shall submit the annual accounts and balance-sheets for the preceding year to the Court of Auditors of the European Communities. The audit executed by the Court of Auditors shall be based on records and performed on the spot. The Director shall present the annual accounts and balance-sheet, together with the report of the Court of Auditors, to the Administrative Board for approval by a majority of 75% of the votes. The Director is entitled and, if requested by the Administrative Board, obliged to comment on the report. The Court of Auditors shall send its report to the members of the Joint Undertaking. Within two months of the end of each financial year, the Director shall submit the annual accounts and balance-sheets for the preceding year to the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, to the European Parliament and to the Council. The audit executed by the Court of Auditors shall be based on records and performed on the spot. The Director shall present the annual accounts and balance-sheet, together with the report of the Court of Auditors, of the European Parliament and of the Council, to the Administrative Board for approval by a majority of 75% of the votes. The Director is entitled and, if requested by the Administrative Board, obliged to comment on the report. The Court of Auditors, the European Parliament and the Council shall send their report to the members of the Joint Undertaking and the monitoring committee. The monitoring committee may forward its remarks on the report to the Administrative Board. They shall be taken into account when the report is adopted by the Administrative Board. Amendment 42 Annex, Article 17a (new) Article 17a The Joint Undertaking shall ensure the protection of sensitive information, whose unauthorised divulgation might prejudice the interests of the contracting parties. The Joint Undertaking shall introduce security principles and minimal standards in this connection. Amendment 43 Annex, Article 18, paragraph 2 2.  Any request for accession shall be addressed to the Director, who shall transmit it to the Administrative Board. The Administrative Board shall decide whether the Joint Undertaking shall start negotiations with the applicant on the conditions of accession. In the case of a positive decision, the Joint Undertaking shall negotiate the conditions of accession and submit them to the Administrative Board which shall act by a majority of 75% of the votes expressed. 2.  Any request for accession shall be addressed to the Director, who shall transmit it to the Administrative Board. The Administrative Board shall decide, after consulting the monitoring committee, whether the Joint Undertaking shall start negotiations with the applicant on the conditions of accession. In the case of a positive decision, the Joint Undertaking shall negotiate the conditions of accession and submit them to the Administrative Board which shall act by a majority of 75% of the votes expressed.

Legislative resolution>MERGEFORMATEuropean Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the Galileo Joint Undertaking (COM(2001) 336 – C5&nbhy;0329/2001 – 2001/0136(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2001) 336(2)),

–  having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 171 of the EC Treaty (C5&nbhy;0329/2001),

–  having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5&nbhy;0005/2002),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Calls for the conciliation procedure to be initiated should the Council intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

5.  Asks to be consulted again if the Council intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

6.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001, p. 119. (2) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001, p. 119.

European Parliament resolution on the situation of lorry drivers stranded in Luxembourg

P5_TA(2002)0053 RC-B5-0046/2002

The European Parliament,

A.  whereas this case of modern exploitation in road transport in Luxembourg concerning an Austrian transport company is unfortunately not an isolated national case but should be viewed at European level,

B.  whereas this case distorts competition in road transport, while law-abiding companies which respect existing legislation are highly disadvantaged; whereas the lack of internalisation of external costs in the road transport sector is also a main cause of distortion of competition affecting other modes of transport,

C.   whereas a sustainable transport policy should tackle the rising volume of traffic and levels of congestion, noise and pollution and encourage the use of environment-friendly modes of transport,

D.   whereas efforts have to be made for the existing control and sanction mechanisms to be applied strictly,

E.   whereas the problem of 'false' independents shows the urgent need to take into account their situation at the level of national and European social legislation,

F.   whereas the principles of road safety and occupational safety should be maintained,

G.  whereas there are different ways in which non-EU drivers can appear on the EU transport market, e.g. by the CEMT permit system,

1.  Deplores the treatment of those drivers employed illegally by the Kralowetz haulage company, in terms of their appalling pay and working conditions;

2.  Considers that the claims made by these drivers for payment of outstanding salary must be given due consideration;

3.  Calls on the Member States, especially those concerned, to undertake all possible action to investigate and carry out sufficient random checks on the companies located on their territories and along their roads in order to combat the social exploitation and inhumane treatment of transport workers, and where these occur, to apply severe sanctions such as confiscation of lorries;

4.  Urgently calls on the Member States to apply the relevant existing legislation to guarantee that distortion is eradicated between law-abiding companies and those exploiting the situation; considers that in order for the relevant legislation to be effective, a system of strict checks and penalties must be operated by all Member States;

5.  Welcomes the fact that the Council has taken on board the European Parliament's amendments on the driver's attestation, asking for the inclusion of the driver's licence and social security numbers in the driver's personal details;

6.  Calls on the Council to adopt and put into urgent effect, at the earliest possible date, the regulation to establish a uniform driver's attestation for non-EU drivers, adopted by Parliament on 17 January 2002(1);

7.  Calls on the Member States to pay more attention to the road safety and occupational safety aspects, which have been severely compromised by tolerating appalling conditions in this sector;

8.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to harmonise the regulation of the transport market, for instance concerning work permits, driver's attestations and training, transport licences and legal contracting; urges the Commission and the Member States to establish and coordinate effective control mechanisms in respect of employers' obligations;

9.  Calls on the Member States, in close collaboration with the Commission services, to initiate a qualitative and quantitative revision of the CEMT permit system in order to preclude the possibility of illegal use of non-EU drivers within the EU through this system;

10.  Calls on the Commission and other relevant authorities to cooperate closely in investigating the Kralowetz case with a view to identifying the lessons to be learned and, in particular, any specific further action to be taken at EU level to combat the illegal employment of drivers;

11.  Expects that the Member States will take joint action against black market labour and illegal working;

12.  Urges the Commission to strengthen the social dialogue in the transport sector between the Member States and the central and eastern European countries in order to prevent social dumping and exploitation;

13.  Stresses that the enlargement process has to be accompanied by additional social safeguard measures and a socially controlled labour market for central and eastern European workers, especially within the transport sector;

14.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries and the social partners.

(1) P5_TA(2002)0009.

European Parliament resolution on the situation in the Middle East

P5_TA(2002)0054 RC-B5-0101/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 28 January 2002 on the Middle East,

A.  expressing its profound sadness and consternation at the continued human tragedy experienced by the Israeli and Palestinian peoples,

B.  alarmed by the current spiral of violence and the extreme deterioration in the situation in the Middle East which is causing many civilian lives to be lost every day on both sides,

C.  reaffirming its firm conviction that peace can only be achieved through the renouncing the use of force and all forms of violence and through the launching of dialogue leading to the resumption of negotiations,

D.  reaffirming the principles and proposals set out in its recommendation to the Council of 13 December 2001(1),

E.  reaffirming the need for the strict application of all clauses of the Association Agreement with Israel, including Article 2,

F.  noting with concern the Commission's evaluations of the damage caused by Israeli bombardment to infrastructure and buildings of the Palestinian National Authority financed by the EU, its Member States and other donors,

G.  shocked by the interview given by Prime Minister Sharon to the Israeli newspaper "Maariv' in which he openly regrets "not having killed Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, in Lebanon twenty years ago',

1.  Calls urgently on all parties concerned to put an immediate end to all forms of violence, particularly the terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, the extrajudicial executions by the Israeli defence forces and the massive destruction of basic Palestinian infrastructure, causing major disruption to the viability of a future Palestinian State;

2.  Expresses its support for the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 28 January 2002 and invites the Council, the Commission, the CFSP High Representative and the EU Special Representative to the Middle East to renew their initiatives in the region and strengthen diplomatic contacts with the United States, Russia and the Arab countries concerned; stresses the need to send international observers as a matter of urgency;

3.  Considers that only the immediate and unconditional application of the Tenet Plan and of the recommendations of the Mitchell Report can lead to a reduction of tensions;

4.  Fully supports the Council and the Commission in adopting new initiatives to help bring an end to the violence, in view of the intolerable situation of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and of the Israeli victims of terrorism;

5.  Strongly believes that Israel needs the Palestinian National Authority and its elected President, Yasser Arafat, as a negotiating partner in order both to eradicate terrorism and to work towards peace; deeply regrets the attempt by the Israeli government to isolate President Arafat;

6.  Calls on the two sides to comply with international conventions, notably those against torture and on the rights of the child, with regard to the treatment of Palestinian children arrested and imprisoned by Israel;

7.  Welcomes the Speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg's intention of visiting the Palestinian Legislative Council; considers this to be a first step aimed at defusing tension, and urges the Israeli authorities not to stop this initiative;

8.  Fully supports the General Affairs Council statement reserving the right to claim reparation from the Israeli government for damage caused to Palestinian infrastructure which was financed by the EU and its Member States;

9.  Reaffirms its view that a viable Palestinian State is an important step towards a solution to the conflict and the best way of ensuring Israel's right to security;

10.  Reiterates, as the first step in an EU initiative, its decision to send a very high-level European Parliament delegation to the area to meet the Israeli and Palestinian authorities and deliver a message of peace to their people, and asks its President to invite the Noble Peace Prize winners, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, to address the European Parliament;

11.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the CFSP High Representative, the government and parliament of Israel, the President of the Palestinian National Authority, the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(1) Texts Adopted, Item 7.

European Parliament resolution on the Council's decision of 27 December 2001 on measures to combat terrorism

P5_TA(2002)0055 B5-0100/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the measures that the Council adopted by written procedure: Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism(1); Council Decision 2001/927/EC of 27 December 2001 establishing the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism(2); Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on combating terrorism(3); Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism(4),

–  having regard to Article 39(2) of the EU Treaty, which requires the Presidency of Council and the Commission to regularly inform the European Parliament of discussions concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters,

–  having regard to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights,

A.  whereas the Council adopted the abovementioned measures as "common positions' under Articles 15 and 34(2) A of the EU Treaty and thereby avoided consulting the European Parliament,

B.  whereas the texts, notwithstanding their formal status as common positions, should, on the basis of their nature and effects, have been adopted as decisions or framework decisions for which consultation of Parliament would have been necessary, and whereas these texts are closely linked and it is not possible to understand one text without knowledge of the others, and whereas these texts are also closely related to the framework decision on terrorism, which has not yet been formally adopted,

C.  whereas, in the fight against terrorism, the need for public support, secured through democratic legitimacy, is vital, and the rights of defence and of privacy should be safeguarded,

D.  whereas Parliament was only consulted on Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and not on the Decision establishing the list or on the Common Positions adopted on the basis of the EU Treaty,

E.  concerned about the choice of two different legal bases, under both the second and the third pillar, for the Council's common position on the implementation of specific measures to combat terrorism, since such a choice makes it unclear as to which obligations the Member States have subscribed to,

F.  whereas the Council has not followed Parliament's suggestion of holding confidential, rapid consultations before drawing up the list of terrorist organisations,

G.  whereas the methods employed by the Council for the transposition of interim measures emanating from the UN Security Council are not necessarily appropriate for autonomous measures of the EU intended as a basis also for longer-term policy and action,

1.  Reminds the Council of the full support expressed by the Parliament in the fight against terrorism and of its demonstrated capacity to be fully involved in the legislative process aimed at strengthening the Union's ability to fight terrorism;

2.  Regrets that the measures adopted by the Council on 27 December 2001 by "written procedure' constitute a legally complex construction, which appears designed to circumvent the democratic scrutiny of the European Parliament;

3.  Notes that the Council accepted Parliament's proposal for a first-pillar legal basis for the Regulation, but regrets that the Council did not consult Parliament on the list of terrorist organisations and that no provision was made for consulting Parliament on further regular updating of the list, which risks perpetuating and aggravating the lack of democratic oversight in this area;

4.  Deplores the choice of a legal basis which falls under the third pillar for the definition of the list of terrorist organisations, thereby excluding all consultation and effective scrutiny both by the national parliaments and by the European Parliament, and also evading the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice;

5.  Regrets that this common position, which defines the list of European and non-European terrorist organisations, can be updated at any moment by the Council without any consultation of Parliament;

6.  Asks that the implementation of these four measures, in particular the common position on specific measures on combating terrorism, be subject to the interpretation of the definition provided for in the framework decision on the definition of terrorism as agreed by the Council on 6 December 2001, in particular with regard to the safeguards as described in the recitals and in the related Council statements;

7.  Requests the Council to confirm that once the framework decision on terrorism enters into force and provides the framework for EU measures to combat terrorism, the "interim' measures, which were adopted to implement the United Nations resolutions, will as a consequence be revised or repealed;

8.  Calls on the Council, despite the fact that the EU Treaty in its present form does not oblige it to consult Parliament before adopting common positions, to undertake to accept the European Parliament's participation, as the institution which represents all the citizens of the EU, before agreeing such common positions and any subsequent implementing measures, and, more generally, by using in future those legislative procedures which call for the involvement of Parliament in the process of adoption of third-pillar measures;

9.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70. (2) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 83. (3) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 90. (4) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93.

European Parliament resolution on the financing of development aid

P5_TA(2002)0056 RC-B5-0034/2002

The European Parliament,

–  considering that for the first time in history the UN is organising a world summit on Financing for Development,

–  having regard to the fact that the EU is the biggest donor of aid, a major shareholder in the international financial institutions, and the most important trading partner for the developing countries,

–  having regard to the Göteborg European Council commitment to reach the UN target of official development assistance (ODA) of 0.7% of GNP, as recommended in the 1974 resolution on the New International Economic Order, as soon as possible and to achieve concrete progress in this area before the World Summit on Sustainable Development,

–  having regard to the Development Council Declaration of 8 November 2001 on the Preparation for the UN Conference on Financing for Development (FfD), confirming "the great importance which the European Union attaches to the success of the FfD and the World Summit for Sustainable Development' in Johannesburg in September 2002,

–  having regard to its resolution of 1 March 2001 on the European Community's Development Policy(1) as well as its previous resolutions on debt reduction for developing countries and the coherence of EU policies,

–  having regard to the OECD documents on the role of development cooperation on the threshold of the 21st century, the UN Millennium Declaration, the G8 report on poverty reduction and economic development, and the motions adopted at the politicians' and governors' jubilee assembly,

–  having regard to the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, adopted at the UN Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995, and to the results of the follow-up UN conference on Social Development in Geneva in 2000,

–  having regard to the 1992 Rio Conference on the Environment and Development, the 1993 Vienna Convention on Human Rights, the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and the Beijing Conference on Women and Development,

–  having regard to the Brussels Programme of Action for LDCs and the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing Countries,

A.  whereas, after the events of 11 September 2001, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the World Bank, the President of the IMF and several heads of state are demanding an enhanced effort for increased and improved development aid,

B.  whereas the need for adequate development assistance is more urgent than ever since, according to the Commission, World Bank and UN estimates:

C.  noting that during the preparations for Monterrey a draft resolution was agreed upon without any brackets, but regretting that the draft Monterrey Consensus does not reach firm commitments with a compulsory timetable, so that the participants in the Monterrey meeting should focus all their attention on strengthening commitments in the various areas,

D.  noting that the World Bank has estimated that if current trends continue the number of absolute poor in the world will more than double in the next thirty years, and unless more efforts are made to address problems such as poverty, marginalisation, environmental degradation, conflicts, epidemics and migration, the destabilising effects at both local and international level will be severe,

E.  regretting the fact that, since 1992, the 21 richest countries have cut their aid to the developing world by 24% and public development aid from the industrialised countries has fallen to an all-time low of 0.22 % of their GDP, far below the target of 0.7% recommended in the 1974 UN Resolution on the New International Economic Order,

F.  noting that, as far as aid volume is concerned, the World Bank has estimated that at least a doubling of resources is required if the Millennium Development Goals are to be met,

G.   having regard to the great importance which the European Union attaches to the success of the International Conference on Financing for Development (March 2002, Monterrey, Mexico) and the World Summit for Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, September 2002), and stressing in particular the need to underscore the important relationship between the two conferences and the need to align more clearly the six focal areas of the Financing for Development Conference with sustainable development objectives,

H.  recalling that solidarity with the less developed countries constitutes one of the primary objectives of EU development cooperation policy,

I.  whereas good governance, sound economic policies, gender equality, respect for the environment and solid democratic institutions are important conditions for sustained economic growth,

J.  whereas the European Union, in its role as a major donor and in view of its recognised awareness of the aspirations of developing countries, is well placed to make an important contribution to the success of the Conference on Financing for Development through the positive initiatives which it can take both in connection with preparations of the Conference and at the Conference itself,

K.  whereas ODA and debt reduction are complementary resources, and reinforced debt relief or additional financial support for the highly indebted poor countries and other poor indebted countries is urgently needed, building on the existing HIPC initiative,

L.  whereas poverty eradication can only be successful if it is made a priority not only for the donor community through increased aid, but also for the internal policies of the developing countries concerned, and whereas involvement of civil society as well as of the private sector in the programming and implementation as equal and essential players in development processes is a key factor for the success of development strategies,

M.  realising that aligning the trade, investment, finance and sustainable development agendas is imperative in order to secure an equitable, sustainable future,

N.  whereas EU development policy is currently funded through two separate instruments - the European Development Fund and the EU budget - an arrangement which, in combination with the poor reporting system for EU development cooperation activities and the lack of coordination between EU development policies and those of the Member States, makes it very difficult to establish a clear picture of overall EU development efforts and to exercise democratic control,

1.  Reaffirms its commitment to poverty eradication, sustainable development, and the achievement of the development goals set out at the Millennium Summit and at major UN conferences;

2.  Calls on the Council to establish as a matter of urgency, in agreement with the Member States and during the Spanish EU presidency, a firm timetable for increasing each Member State's public contribution to development policy to 0.7% of its GNP until 2007 according to the Irish example; welcomes the fact that the Council is encouraging the Commission to focus development cooperation more on action to combat poverty; wishes to see rigorous checks subsequently introduced to verify compliance with such a timetable;

3.  Reiterates its commitment to the UN Millennium Declaration to reduce poverty by half, to provide full coverage of basic education for all children and to reduce the infant mortality rate by two-thirds by 2015;

4.  Welcomes the Council's request to the Commission to submit an interim report as a contribution to the forthcoming orientation debate at the General Affairs Council on the European Union's external action and in the context of preparation for the Monterrey Conference and the Johannesburg meeting, which should be linked to an overall strategy towards coherence in the global efforts for development; asks to be closely associated in these preparations;

5.  Notes the issues for consideration presented by the Commission in connection with the exchange of ideas which took place in New York in October within the framework of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference on Financing for Development, in particular with regard to the following points:

6.  Takes note of the analysis requested by the Secretary-General, which parallels the mandate of the Ecofin Council to the Commission to seek out alternative sources for development financing, and expects the EU to present the conclusions of its analysis for the Monterrey Conference;

7.  Reaffirms that development policy is an essential component of the EU's external action, alongside trade policy and the political dimension;

8.  Reiterates its opinion that the new WTO round should focus its attention on the need for development;

9.  Emphasises that trade liberalisation aimed at economic growth must be carried out within a framework that promotes equity among and within countries and sustainable use of the environment and the natural resources;

10.  Considers that in principle EU development assistance should be open to all developing countries, but that particular attention must be given to the poorest and least developed countries by ensuring that 70 % of the EU development cooperation budget is aimed at supporting the poorest and the least developed countries;

11.  Calls on the industrialised countries to explore new and innovative ways to promote technology cooperation and technology transfer with developing countries, notably LDCs, to bridge the digital divide and facilitate "technological leapfrogging" in areas such as energy, transportation, waste management and water management, trade, agriculture and sanitary standards;

12.  Believes that countries need to continue their efforts to achieve a transparent, stable and predictable investment climate, with proper contract enforcement and respect for property rights, in order to encourage inflows of productive capital;

13.  Believes that trade is the single most important external source of development financing, and that trade barriers, subsidies and other trade-distorting measures, particularly in sectors of special export interest to developing countries, including agriculture, must be eliminated; notes in this context a series of problems of special export interest for developing countries, such as lack of recognition of intellectual property rights for the protection of traditional knowledge;

14.  Considers micro-finance and credit for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, including in rural areas, and particularly for women, to be important for enhancing the social and economic impact of the financial sector;

15.  Urges business to take into account not only the economic and financial, but also the social, gender equity, educational, health and environmental implications of their undertakings;

16.  Stresses the limitations of the initiative taken at the Cologne Summit in 1999 designed to cancel the debt of the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries), which represents a first step, but is being implemented too slowly and concerns only a minority of countries; calls on the Commission to frame a proposal for the conversion of debt involving contractual arrangements to promote useful and verifiable investments that will benefit the population in order to provide a frame for real debt reduction;

17.  Calls on the EU to support approaches to debt relief which take into account each country's capacity to raise the finance needed to achieve the Millennium development goals, and to make the eligibility criteria more flexible;

18.  Welcomes the proposal for an international debt workout mechanism as a first step in the direction of a much-needed fair and transparent arbitration procedure for indebted countries and calls on the EU to come forward with a concrete initiative for the Monterrey Summit;

19.  Welcomes the Monterrey appeal to donor countries to ensure that resources provided for debt relief are additional to existing ODA resources (§45), and calls on the EU to reaffirm its commitment to this principle through a Council decision;

20.  Calls on the Council to support wider participation and democratic scrutiny in the decision-making organs of international finance institutions, as well as in forums which manage the global governability of the economy and in the FAO;

21.  Draws particular attention to the need to address food security problems in poor regions of the world, implying special assistance to small farmers in the form of credits, appropriate technology, improved extension services, etc;

22.  Deplores the fact that no clear reference is made in the draft resolution to the importance of mobilising additional resources in support of the provision of global public goods, for example the fight against poverty-related diseases - notably HIV/Aids, malaria and TB, environment and climate protection, prevention of international crime, etc.; urges the EU, therefore, to make every effort at Monterrey to put this issue high on the agenda;

23.  Recognises the important role of export agencies in financing for development but insists that they should be guided by social and environmental criteria for their lending and be consistent with mainstreaming countries' debt sustainability;

24.  Welcomes the Conference on Financing for Development's support for the untying of aid and calls on the Council to initiate an EU regulation for the untying of EU and Member States' aid to LDCs following the OECD/DAC recommendations of May 2001;

25.  Insists that developing countries should give priority to agreed development objectives as well as measures aiming at good governance, respect for human rights, democracy and transparency; reaffirms the EU commitment to the benchmark that 35 % of the 2002 EU development budget should be spent on education and health, as fundamental elements in poverty eradication;

26.  Calls on the Council to agree to the integration of the European Development Fund into the EU Budget, in order to establish a transparent overall financial framework for EU development assistance;

27.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and candidate countries, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank.

(1) OJ C 277, 1.10.2001, p. 130.

European Parliament resolution on the EU's rights, priorities and recommendations for the 58th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva

P5_TA(2002)0057 RC-B5-0035/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the EU Treaty and its provisions on human rights,

–  having regard to Regulations (EC) Nos 975/1999 and 976/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms under Articles 179 and 308 of the EC Treaty, which provide a legal basis for all human rights and democratisation activities of the EU under Chapter B7-70 of the Budget,

–  having regard to the 58th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which will take place in Geneva from 18 March to 26 April 2002,

–  having regard to its earlier resolutions on the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted on 27 March 1996(1), 20 February 1997(2), 23 October 1997(3), 19 February 1998(4), 11 March 1999(5), 16 March 2000(6), 18 January 2001(7) and 5 April 2001(8),

A.  whereas the promotion and defence of human rights is a high priority for the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy and one of the fundamental principles of the Union,

B.  whereas all 15 EU Member States subscribed to the obligation to "respect and ensure respect for' international humanitarian law when they ratified the four Geneva Conventions, as complemented by the additional Protocols of 1977,

C.  whereas the European Parliament seeks to exert a strong influence on the human rights strategy and priorities of the EU with regard both to thematic issues and specific regions and countries,

D.  whereas the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has shown an impartial and consistent commitment to safeguarding and promoting respect for the human rights of all individuals and groups worldwide,

E.  whereas the UN Commission on Human Rights is the main forum for debate on human rights within the UN system, and whereas human rights violations in specific countries are a legitimate matter of concern for it,

F.  whereas an unsatisfactory human rights situation is often caused and/or exacerbated by an absence of democracy and by inefficient and corrupt government structures,

G.  whereas in the case of a considerable number of States the gap is widening between the human rights instruments they have signed and ratified and the treatment they inflict upon their citizens,

H.  welcoming the growing number of demands for freedom and democracy throughout the world, but deploring the persistence of flagrant violations of human rights in many countries,

I.  whereas a permanent and constructive dialogue with the representatives of civil society, NGOs and grass-roots organisations, in particular human rights organisations, is fundamental to effective action in favour of the promotion and defence of human rights around the world,

J.  whereas the EU should play a well-prepared leadership role at this session in its capacity as the most important player in the "Western Group', with a special responsibility to ensure the integrity and credibility of the work of the Commission on Human Rights as the world's primary human rights body,

K.  whereas the Council of the EU stated in its "European Union guidelines on human rights dialogues', adopted on 3 December 2001, that "the fact that there is a human rights dialogue between the EU and a third country will not prevent the EU from either submitting a resolution on the human rights situation in that country or from providing support for an initiative by the third country',

L.  whereas the fight against terrorism should in no way endanger the protection of fundamental human rights,

1.  Reaffirms that respecting, promoting and safeguarding human rights is part of the European Union's ethical acquis and one of the cornerstones of European integration;

2.  Welcomes the fact that more and more countries are signing and ratifying human rights conventions, but regrets the growing failure by some countries to transpose their obligations effectively into domestic law and practice; stresses the need for full implementation of such conventions as well as effective inspection and control mechanisms;

3.  Calls on the Council and the Member States to work for the universal ratification of the main human rights instruments available to countries, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and calls on all governments, as a matter of urgency, to ratify these conventions without reservation, and to implement them;

4.  Condemns the use of stoning and all forms of degrading and cruel punishment, notably in Iran, and urges other nations such as Nigeria and Saudi Arabia to prevent similar breaches of international human rights, and is deeply concerned by the State of Sokoto's Islamic court ruling that sentenced Ms Safiya Husaini Tungar&nbhy;Tudu to death by stoning after finding her guilty of adultery, a punishable offence under Sharia law;

5.  Calls on the Member States to appeal to all UN members to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court;

6.  Calls on the Council to ensure that UNCHR resolutions are incorporated into EU human rights policy, in particular by making regular monitoring and evaluation of their implementation part of the political dialogue between the EU and the countries concerned, and to publicise this fact;

7.  Calls on the EU Presidency to sponsor resolutions on China, in particular addressing the situations in Tibet and Mongolia, and Russia, in particular addressing the situation in Chechnya;

8.  Calls on the EU Presidency to sponsor or co-sponsor resolutions on the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, the Great Lakes region (including Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo) and Indonesia, as well as on Colombia, Burma and North Korea;

9.  Calls on the EU Presidency to sponsor or co-sponsor resolutions on fundamental rights and freedoms versus anti-terrorist legislation and practices; asylum and refugee protection; human rights clauses; human rights defenders; the death penalty; torture; disappearances; freedom of religion and speech; children's rights; workers' rights; conscientious objection; racism; homosexuals; minorities and indigenous peoples;

10.  Calls on the Council to report to the European Parliament in plenary immediately after the General Affairs Council in March 2002 on its progress in preparing for the session, and to the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee on a regular basis before, during and after the session;

11.  Proposes the establishment of a delegation of MEPs to participate in the forthcoming session; calls on the Council and the Commission to establish full cooperation with this delegation;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, the UNCHR, and the governments of the other countries named in this resolution.

(1) OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, p. 13. (2) OJ C 85, 17.3.1997, p. 143. (3) OJ C 339, 10.11.1997, p. 154. (4) OJ C 80, 16.3.1998, p. 237. (5) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999, p. 254. (6) OJ C 377, 29.12.2000, p. 335. (7) OJ C 262, 18.9.2001, p. 233. (8) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 348.

European Parliament resolution on relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments in European integration (2001/2023(INI))

P5_TA(2002)0058 A5-0023/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the meetings arranged by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs with the European affairs committees of the national parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries on 20 and 21 March 2001 and 10 and 11 July 2001,

–  having regard to the recent statements by a number of Heads of State or Government on Europe's future,

–  having regard to the contribution by the XXIVth COSAC in Stockholm on 22 May 2001,

–  having regard to the French Senate's report of 13 June 2001 on a second European chamber,

–  having regard to the resolution adopted by the Committee of the Regions on 14 November 2001 on the preparations for the Laeken European Council and the further development of the European Union within the framework of the next Intergovernmental Conference,

–  having regard to the contribution by the XXVth COSAC in Brussels on 5 October 2001,

–  having regard to the text adopted by the Follow-up conference on the parliamentary dimension of the European security and defence policy on 7 November 2001 in Brussels,

–  having regard to the Conference of the Presidents of the parliaments of the European Union and the candidate countries on 16 and 17 November 2001 in Stockholm,

–  having regard to the extraordinary meeting of COSAC in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December 2001,

–  having regard to the Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5&nbhy;0023/2002),

A.  whereas the Declaration on the future of the Union annexed to the Treaty of Nice cites the role of the national parliaments as one of four issues to be addressed and stresses its importance and topicality,

B.  whereas the democratic deficit is likely to become more acute in the Union because of lack of progress on democratic scrutiny of the integration process and recent developments in a number of areas,

C.  concerned at the serious imbalance that has arisen between the powers conferred on executive institutions and technical bodies and the scope afforded to parliaments as a whole to participate in and scrutinise the legislative decisions and political choices of the Union,

D.  whereas it is necessary to strengthen the parliamentary component of the European institutional system in order to remedy the democratic deficit and ensure greater democracy in the Union,

E.  whereas the Member States' power of ratification (either by their national parliaments or by referendum) is not affected by the Convention established by the Laeken European Council,

1.  Is convinced that the concerns of the national parliaments with regard to the European Union make it necessary to define better and more clearly their power vis-à-vis their respective governments and the European Union, in particular regarding:

2.  Points out that the European Parliament does not see itself as the exclusive representative of the citizens and guarantor of democracy and that the role of the national parliaments is very important;

3.  Points out that the peoples of the Union are represented to the full by the European Parliament and the national parliaments, each in its own realm; consequently the necessary parliamentarisation of the Union must rely on two fundamental approaches involving the broadening of the European Parliament's powers vis-à-vis all the Union's decisions and the strengthening of the powers of the national parliaments vis-à-vis their respective governments;

4.  Points out that the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Amsterdam have paved the way for this parliamentarisation;

5.  Stresses once more that in order for the necessary democratisation and parliamentarisation to take place, codecision by the European Parliament is essential in all legislative areas;

6.  Considers it particularly important for national parliaments to use fully their power of scrutiny in all cases where there is no codecision;

7.  Notes with concern that the parliaments elected by the people at national and European elections must jointly ensure that the governments do not create new intergovernmental rights and instruments from which the parliaments are excluded, e.g. "open coordination' or "co-regulation';

8.  Calls for membership of the European Parliament to be incompatible with the holding of a seat simultaneously in a national or regional parliament;

Strengthening the powers of the national parliaments vis-à-vis their governments

9.  Hopes that the protocol on the role of the national parliaments annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam will be amended, as requested by the COSAC meeting in Versailles, as far as advance information for the national parliaments and the possibility of their intervening during the preparation of European legislation via their national governments in the Council are concerned;

10.  Proposes that information on best practices used in the national parliaments should be adequately disseminated and optimal conditions established for information-exchanging, for mutual understanding of each others competences and activities and recourse to new technologies;

11.  Affirms its willingness to contribute to an in-depth dialogue with the national parliaments at the time of the adoption of the Commission's programme with a view to ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is adhered to in the Community legislative process;

Securing closer coooperation between the national parliaments and the European Parliament

12.  Points out that COSAC is an important vehicle for exchanges and convergence between the national parliaments and the European Parliament, the full potential of which has not yet been exploited; is convinced, however, of the need to guarantee representation on the European Parliament's delegation to COSAC which takes greater account of political pluralism;

13.  Proposes that cooperation between the parliamentary committees of the national parliaments and the European Parliament in all European integration-related sectors should be developed and placed on systematic footing, not least in the areas of the common foreign and security policy, economic and monetary Union, the area of freedom, security and justice and constitutional affairs;

14.  Emphasises that it would be desirable to step up and improve the exchange of information between the European Parliament and the national parliaments in relation to questions concerning the CFSP or the European Security and Defence Policy, in order to make more extensive dialogue between them possible;

15.  Proposes that an interparliamentary agreement be drawn up between the national parliaments and the European Parliament as a means of introducing formal cooperation arrangements, which might include:

16.  Notes that within the framework of meetings of European political groups and political parties more frequent and more regular contacts are being established within European groupings of all political persuasions and welcomes the fact that these meetings are being placed on a more systematic footing and can thus strengthen and enrich democratic life at both national and European level; stresses the importance of a statute for European political parties, since these have a central role to play in the European Union's movement towards greater democracy;

The decision-making process must not become more cumbersome

17.  Considers that the creation of a chamber composed of representatives of the national parliaments would not solve the problems experienced by some parliaments in scrutinising the European policy of their governments in particular, but would only serve to prolong the Community legislative procedure, to the detriment of democracy and transparency;

18.  Points out, furthermore, that dual legitimacy – a Union of States and peoples - already finds expression at European level in the legislative sphere through the participation of the Council and the European Parliament, that is not advisable to make the decision-making process more cumbersome or more complicated and that is necessary to avoid a confusing superposition in the respective roles of European and national institutions;

19.  Highlights the importance of the agreed participation of representatives of the European Parliament and national parliaments in the future Convention on a constitution for the European Union; hopes that vigorous debate will lead to their agreeing on a common approach at the Convention, so as to speak as far as possible with one voice in conveying the views of the peoples of Europe with regard to Europe's political future

Preparation of the future of the European Union by the Convention

20.  Welcomes the institutionalised participation of the national parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission and representatives of the heads of state and government in the Convention, a development which makes it possible to be optimistic about effective preparations for reform of the treaties;

21.  Is in favour of the emergence - even at this stage through the Convention established by the Laeken European Council - of a constituent power exercised jointly by the national parliaments, the Commission, the European Parliament and the governments of the Member States, which would not only allow effective preparation of reform of the treaties but would also give European integration efforts greater legitimacy and would thus mark a new chapter in the role of parliaments in European integration by introducing a major institutional innovation;

o
o   o

22.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution and to the Council and Commission, the Heads of State or Government, and the parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries.

European Parliament resolution on the management of regional policy and structural funds (2001/2066(INI))

P5_TA(2002)0059 A5-0006/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having particular regard to Article 158 of the EC Treaty,

–  having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5&nbhy;0006/2002),

A.  whereas the objective of the EU's structural fund measures is to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion and to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and to promote their sustainable development, particularly in the less favoured regions, extremely remote and island areas and rural areas,

B.  whereas national economic policies and the EU's various common policy areas along with their objectives and measures should be coordinated so that they are mutually supportive and help strengthen social, economic and territorial cohesion,

C.  whereas the forthcoming enlargement is a major challenge to cohesion policy and will prompt pressure for reform in regional policy,

D.  whereas problems are also discernible with the practical implementation of the structural funds during the programming period that has just commenced and now is therefore the right time to assess the situation on the basis of experience of the previous and current programming periods and to consider remedies,

E.  mindful that the central aim of the Agenda 2000 reform of the structural funds was simplification, which was also achieved in terms of the number of objective programmes and Community initiatives,

F.  whereas, following the improvements brought about by the Agenda 2000 reform of the structural funds, their implementation needs to be further improved and whereas such improvement is also possible under existing legislation,

1.  Considers that, in the practical implementation of the structural funds, effective and result-oriented use of appropriations, execution of projects according to timetable, optimum project quality and appropriate monitoring of the proper utilisation of funds by the Commission and national authorities should be guaranteed;

2.  Emphasises that funding should be channelled as directly and efficiently as possible to the regions and local communities via national governments; considers that regions ought to be allowed to differentiate themselves from one another in order to be able to make effective use of the structural funds; considers that measures should be focused on the regions and local communities that have a great need of aid, are experiencing special problems and can make effective use of aid;

3.  Regrets that there is little information available about best practice and urges the Commission to develop its knowledge in this area; points out that, in the opinion of players at regional and local levels, training opportunities and meetings should be used as a means of disseminating best practice in addition to publications and the Internet;

Programme negotiations

4.  Criticises the fact that the negotiations on the programme documents ended up taking an average of 8-12 months instead of the scheduled five months; is surprised that, almost two years after the programming period began, all the programmes have still not been approved; notes, however, also that this has occurred due to delayed action by some Member States;

5.  Notes that the Commission approved the general programme guidelines at such a late date that preparation of the programmes was already far advanced in the Member States and regions;

6.  Regrets the fact that the Commission approved the guideline documents for Community initiatives and innovative activities at a very late date; points out that this delay resulted in the loss of some of the appropriations for innovative activities;

7.  Considers that the Member States should discharge their responsibilities and create the conditions to enable compliance with the time limits and rules laid down for the programme negotiations; emphasises that there ought to be a deadline for the reply to be provided by the Commission;

8.  Asks the Commission to consider whether the programming periods for objective programmes and Community initiatives can be kept separate so that gaps do not occur between programming periods and so that the preparation time and negotiations for all programmes do not take place at the same time, as has happened de facto as a result of the delays;

9.  Considers that the instructions for programme preparation could be further standardised and simplified; notes the wish in some Member States for more direct liaison and contacts with the Commission; points out that it is not possible to involve companies in programmes if procedures are lengthy and cumbersome;

10.  Urges the Commission and Member States to consider whether the programme complement is consistent with the original objective of increasing the flexibility of programme implementation and improving programme quality;

Management and implementation

11.  Urges Member States to develop adequate systems of management and monitoring and to link programme evaluation to decision-making; emphasises that Member States, regional and local authorities, especially in the candidate countries, should allocate sufficient well-qualified human resources to the management of structural fund programmes;

12.  Regrets the fact that, in some Member States, the policy of control by central government is hampering the implementation of structural fund programmes in the regions; considers that the role of the central administration in Member States should not be one of domination but of coordination, support and assistance and of providing a legality audit;

13.  Emphasises that programmes and projects should not be too fragmented; believes that management and management expenditure along with monitoring and follow-up should be flexible and proportionate to the size of the programme or project; urges Member States and the Commission to consider the level of management and follow-up appropriate for small-scale projects;

14.  Considers that assessment should move from being solely a final monitoring mechanism almost exclusively related to funding and incorporate from the outset the programming and drawing-up of projects in order to help simplify management, supervision and monitoring; as a matter of priority such assessment should include not only financial indicators but also indicators of the quality of programmes and projects and their effectiveness in social terms and in terms of cohesion;

15.  Urges the Commission to submit firm proposals (as regards good practice for example) for more flexible and streamlined management and to make it easier to adjust to changes produced by rapid developments in economic, social and environmental conditions which affect the implementation and continuity of programmes and projects; in this connection, urges the Commission to develop an adequate rapid response mechanism to cope with events such as natural or environmental disasters, industrial restructuring, migratory movements, etc.;

16.  Considers that project evaluation and the criteria to be employed should be further developed; notes that the regions can use as an aid when assessing the quality of programmes and projects the efficiency indicators which it is mandatory to apply during the budgetary procedure; considers that the rules should be more standardised than at present for the various funds, or even that a single regional development Fund should be achieved in 2007;

17.  Notes that partnership is felt to be beneficial in the Member States and regions and has been implemented satisfactorily, although in different ways in different Member States; regrets that the partnership has been unequally implemented in the various Member States, with some sectors (NGOs, local communities etc.) being consulted only at the final stage;

18.  Calls for the principle of additionality to be applied and for its application to be monitored strictly; considers that monitoring of the principle of additionality should be intensified and the provisions clarified; calls for the Commission to revise and clarify the rules implementing additionality; believes that additionality should also be monitored at programme and regional level; lastly, calls for appropriate penalties to be introduced for failure to comply with this principle;

19.  Believes that, although the performance reserve represents a marginal amount, it is in principle an important incentive for the regions, particularly as it is implemented within the Member State; believes that the performance reserve should be focused on those areas where most benefit can be achieved with the aid of additional funding;

20.  Regrets the fact that cross-border and transnational cooperation and cofinancing programmes are felt by the regions to be difficult to implement; points out that genuine added value can be derived from cross-border and transnational projects; calls for the concept of 'cross-border area' to be defined, taking account also of the enlargement process under way and the programmes intended in particular for cross-border regions and areas;

21.  Urges the Commission to consider whether the needs of urban and rural areas are sufficiently taken into account in the new Objective 2 programme and whether the URBAN and LEADER Community initiatives and Objective 2 programmes have been successfully coordinated;

Financing

22.  Regrets the fact that the regions still feel the financing provisions to be complicated, in part unclear and open to various interpretations; believes that the instructions should be simple and clear and that the regions should receive adequate advice and guidance when implementing these provisions;

23.  Believes that the n+2 rule for financing is necessary and should be complied with;

24.  Urges those Member States with the largest payment backlogs from previous programming periods for the structural funds to clear this payment backlog and avoid delays during the current programming period;

25.  Considers that, in the course of the programming period a certain flexibility should exist to alter the allocation of financing between different activities, priorities, programmes and even funds with the express approval of the Member State concerned and the Commission;

26.  Urges the Commission to find a quick and efficient solution to the problem of co-financing of projects payed out of sectorial funds in Member States, where these problems exist, in dialogue with national governments and social partners;

Follow-up and control

27.  Is of the opinion that the significance of projects and the scope for implementing them should be clarified in a realistic fashion at the stage of approval both in terms of whether the proclaimed objectives and content of programmes match the real needs of the regions and of whether the rules are sufficiently flexible; notes that, according to the Commission, the quality of the ex ante appraisal for the programming period that has just begun has fluctuated considerably between Member States and regions;

28.  Considers that overlapping control should be avoided and that the various financial control bodies should coordinate their checks; points out that excessive control diminishes innovation;

29.  Considers that Parliament should monitor the quality and performance of structural fund programmes more efficiently than at present and further develop budgetary control; emphasises that Parliament should have clear and transparent channels for obtaining information and arranging follow-up; believes the Commission should provide regular reports and updates on the financial performance and quality of structural fund programmes to assist the European Parliament in the more rigorous monitoring of the programmes;

30.  Considers that Parliament's function of supervising, monitoring and assessing structural policy offers citizens a guarantee regarding the effectiveness of Community regional policies and that it is therefore essential for this role to be an important and high-profile one; proposes that, in order to provide background information on the management of EU regional policy and that they are the competent committee, an informal working group be set up, which monitors the implementation and assesses the results of the structural fund programmes and their budgetary execution;

31.  Takes the view that the annual reports of the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund are published too late to be of effective use as evaluation tools and that they are adequate instruments for effective monitoring of structural fund implementation;

32.  Urges the Commission to continue its work on strategic annual reviews of the Structural Fund programmes and thus develop further the evaluation and reporting of structural fund implementation; believes that existing monitoring concentrates too much on the rate of budget take-up and that a more central role should be played by quality control, including the contribution made towards realising the Union's strategies for sustainable development and employment;

33.  Believes that programme and project implementation in the regions and Member States should aim at self-verification and at improving through own initiatives the management of structural fund activities and project quality and effectiveness;

34.  Believes that programme and project implementation should be further strengthened through the use of value-for-money studies, clearly expressed exit strategies and the greater use of the de-commitment measure for those projects not activated within two years of approval;

o
o   o

35.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

The European Parliament,

P5_TA(2002)0060 A5-0007/2002

– having regard to the Commission's second report (COM(2001) 24 – C5&nbhy;0527/2001),

–  having regard to Article 2 of the EU Treaty and Articles 158 to 162 and 299(2) of the EC Treaty,

–  having regard to the rules governing the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the pre-accession structural fund,

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 November 1997(1) on the Commission's first triennial report on economic and social cohesion,

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2000 on the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and on the development of the regions of the European Union(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 31 May 2001 on environment policy and sustainable development: preparing for the Gothenburg European Council(3);

–  having regard to its resolutions on the Commission documents concerning implementation of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and on Agenda 2000,

–  having regard to the opinions of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,

–  having regard to both the Lisbon and Stockholm Summit conclusions on growth, competitiveness and jobs,

–  having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (A5-0007/2002),

A.  whereas the European Union has resolved to progress towards an ever closer political Union among its peoples and to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment,

B.  whereas one of the European Union's objectives is to promote the overall harmonious development of the Community and to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions, in particular by strengthening its economic, social and territorial cohesion,

C.  whereas excessive regional disparities constitute both an economic and a political threat to the European Union,

D.  whereas cohesion policy is one of the fundamental policies of the Union and of the European integration process; whereas both the European Community and the Member States have a role to play in attaining social and economic cohesion,

E.  whereas cohesion policy, which benefits not only the less-developed regions but the Union as a whole, must be focused on sustainable development as the principal means of tackling the needs of the applicant countries while at the same time, ensuring, on the basis of uniform standards, that actions are focused on the regions of the current Member States which are less developed or undergoing restructuring and, lastly, ensuring improved quality, streamlining and subsidiarity,

F.  whereas cohesion policy is a tool for solidarity, cooperation and redistribution, and in this sense it is a European internal policy response to economic globalisation,

G.  whereas disparities between the various countries have been reduced in recent years thanks to the cohesion policy, yet at the same time the disparities between the regions in certain Member States have increased so that major economic and social imbalances remain among the European Union's different regions, reflected in unemployment and poverty rates much higher than the Community average, low levels of education and training, inadequate infrastructures, backwardness in research and innovation, and levels of competitiveness lower than in the more advanced regions,

H.  whereas regional policy in the individual Member States has in part had very mixed results,

I.  whereas the current cohesion policy absorbs scarcely 30% of resources and covers over 30% of the population,

J.  whereas the success of the cohesion policy depends to a large extent on sufficient financial resources being made available to fund it and whereas the current rate of 0.45% of Community GDP earmarked for the Structural Funds for the current programming period represents an inadequate level below which it is not possible to go without seriously jeopardising the success of cohesion objectives in the run-up to enlargement; whereas administrative problems still remain in taking up this rate,

K.  whereas the EIB has increased its commitment to economic and social cohesion policy, by contributing more resources to structural and regional policy actions; whereas closer coordination between the EIB's investments in objective regions and EU structural assistance schemes is required so as to foster coherent sustainable development strategies,

L.  whereas it is essential to reject from the outset any attempt to 'renationalise' the EU's cohesion policy, because this implies that responsibility for overcoming regional disparities is unjustifiably being withdrawn from the EU,

M.  whereas the purpose of regional policy is not to establish a number of permanent recipients of aid, but rather to make itself redundant in the long term,

N.  whereas, furthermore, the concept of 'territorial cohesion' is an important element of the cohesion process and whereas the European spatial development perspective (ESDP) can make a substantial contribution to the balanced and harmonious development of the Union's territory,

O.  whereas, to respond effectively to various imbalances, a regional policy cannot have a reference to the threshold of 75% of average Community GNP as its sole eligibility criterion for regions whose development is lagging,

P.  whereas the forthcoming process of enlargement is an essential stage in the construction of Europe, because it is in line with the very purpose of the European enterprise, namely to ensure peace and economic prosperity on the continent of Europe,

Q.  whereas, as the Commission's second report points out, enlargement of the European Union will lead to an increase in disparities between rich and poor regions and areas, since the population and the territory of Europe will increase by 30%, while Community GDP will grow by only 5%,

R.  whereas following enlargement many Objective 1 regions will, under the existing criteria, for purely statistical reasons exceed the threshold of 75% of per capita GDP in the Union, without this entailing any equivalent improvement in their level of real development,

S.  whereas the development of the policy of economic and social cohesion ahead of the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union will require bold political choices to be made, both on the budget and within the framework of improved coordination between the various existing Community policies, and in particular the Common Agricultural Policy, with a view to pursuing the objectives of European integration as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty,

T.  whereas the geographical and natural handicaps suffered by the outermost regions, island regions, rural and mountain areas and areas of low population density affect their socio-economic and structural development and require specific treatment,

U.  whereas acute problems are faced by regions undergoing industrial change and whereas industrial restructuring continues to be a problem in the existing Member States,

V.  whereas the current Common Agricultural Policy often, in fact, works counter to cohesion, as mentioned in the Second Cohesion Report, in that it absorbs approximately 50% of the EU budget and covers scarcely 6% of the population,

W.  whereas, pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty, the Community has the task of promoting the equality of women and men and this objective must also be achieved in the context of the policy of strengthening economic and social cohesion,

1.  Current economic and social cohesion policy

Welcomes the results achieved in recent years as regards cohesion and the favourable impact it has had on the European Union's regional policy regarding the reinforcement of economic and social cohesion in the Community as a whole; points out that the principle of cohesion, and thus solidarity, is sanctioned by the Treaties and constitutes one of the foundation stones for integration of the Union's peoples and territories;

2.  Emphasises, however, that the progress made has been uneven and that, specifically, although there has been a recovery in terms of per capita income among the Member States, unacceptable regional disparities remain, and these gulfs are widening instead of narrowing, leading to grave concerns about possible further marginalisation of the most underdeveloped regions; notes that with enlargement differences and disparities between the regions will substantially increase;

3.  Considers also that an increase in the effectiveness of regional policy is absolutely essential for the development of the disadvantaged regions and this would be the case even without enlargement; takes the view that all those concerned must contribute to attain this objective;

4.  Is convinced that a proper regional development policy must create conditions in underdeveloped areas that will promote new economic initiatives, stimulate the optimal use of regional resources and remove the structural factors responsible for delays, instead of restricting itself to merely reducing their effects through the compensatory transfer of resources;

5.  Considers also that the development of these regions should be encouraged by improving regional cooperation and socio-economic partnerships, economic competitiveness, strengthening communication and transport infrastructures, supplying better services to businesses and the population, specifically promoting SMEs, making optimum use of human resources, investing heavily in research and innovation, protecting and improving the environment, improving the interaction between companies, particularly small businesses, and research centres, universities and public bodies and ensuring that there is sufficient administrative capacity to make effective use of Community funds and instruments;

6.  Stresses the need to promote the overall harmonious development of the Community and points out that the European spatial development perspective (ESDP) can make a positive contribution to the development of a polycentric model, with the potential capacity to correct the imbalances deriving from the central-peripheral model;

7.  Believes that it is important in this context to underline the significance of cooperation between urban centres, rural areas and peripheral areas; towns, particularly small and medium-sized ones, should be seen as an important prerequisite for socio-economic and territorial cohesion;

8.  Points out that, under Article 159, all Community policies and actions must take into account the objectives of economic and social cohesion. Calls on the Commission, with this in mind, to pursue a trade policy that will ensure the opening of markets in conditions of reciprocity;

9.  Affirms that actively promoting an equal treatment and equal opportunities policy for men and women is an indispensable condition for achieving genuine economic and social cohesion;

10.  The prospect of cohesion: the principal problems

Expresses its concern at the sharp disparities in unemployment which persist in many regions of the European Union, together with inadequate levels of vocational training, and firmly believes that a proper regional development policy with flexible instruments can create fresh investment prospects and job opportunities in the less-favoured areas, as well as helping to make optimum use of existing regional resources;

11.  Deplores that partnership has only been partially applied; in fact, some sectors (NGOs, local authorities) have only been consulted at a late stage or have been given limited time to contribute to 2000-06 programming; asks the competent national and regional authorities to apply the "bottom-up" principle at all programming, implementation and evaluation stages, so that local and regional actors are fully involved both in current EU regions and in the applicant countries;

12.  Regrets the fact that no penalty can be imposed when Member States infringe the additionality principle; agrees, furthermore, with the recommendation of the Court of Auditors that, for the new programming period, procedures for verifying additionality should be drawn up that are more workable, that are integrated into the programming, monitoring and evaluation frameworks and that are suitable for use with the budgetary and statistical information available; calls on the Commission to supply Parliament as soon as possible with a list of the measures it intends to apply to ensure compliance with this principle;

13.  Stresses the need to tackle as soon as possible the frequently raised problem of the contribution made to cohesion policy by other Community policies, particularly those policies which have a strong territorial impact such as the common agricultural policy and the transport policy; calls therefore on the Commission to take vigorous action to re-target these policies, with cohesion as a priority, and a central focus on continued reform of the common agricultural policy;

14.  Suggests that in future the policy of increasing economic and social cohesion should, because of its fundamental role in the integration of the Union's peoples and territories, play a leading part, if not become the primary policy of the new Union; believes that it is important to begin thinking immediately, within the context of the next programming period, about the possibility of creating a single regional development Fund;

15.  Requests in this respect that the Commission present at the earliest opportunity a more detailed analysis of the impact of the principal Community policies on economic and social cohesion on the basis of the socio-economic indicators being drawn up; and considers therefore that it is vitally important to implement a system to monitor variations in the impact of the various Community policies on European cohesion;

16.  Calls specifically on the Commission to continue its re-targeting of the common agricultural policy by making further reforms, in view of the particularly high funding which it receives from the budget and the need to ensure greater convergence and consistency with cohesion policies; reforms should consolidate the "second pillar" of the CAP, encouraging the redirection of subsidies in favour of integrated rural development;

17.  Considers that due consideration should be given to the specific problems facing geographically disadvantaged areas, such as the outermost areas, island regions, mountainous areas, sparsely populated areas and areas with a cold climate and long journey times alongside lagging regions and those undergoing industrial change and that they should be included among the priorities of regional policy, notably through the implementation of Article 158 of the Treaty;

18.  Insists that the outermost regions must continue to be accorded priority in regional and cohesion policy through fresh progress to be made in implementing Article 299(2) of the Treaty;

19.  Bears in mind the fact that fishing activity is a strategic sector for many outlying and Objective 1 regions, upon which the main and sometimes the only industrial and job-creating fabric has been built; points out, therefore, that the instruments introduced to share out access to resources within the EU, such as the relative stability mechanism, must not lead to an increase in inter-regional inequality and that, on the contrary, their aim must be to bring about cohesion; consequently, and given that relative stability must be closely linked to current dependency on fishing in coastal areas, stresses the need to study whether the mechanism needs to be updated;

20.  Greater cohesion: actions and methods

Believes, moreover, that it is essential to ensure an extremely high degree of consistency between action taken at a European level under the cohesion policy and Member States' domestic policies in support of development; calls on the Member States, therefore, in accordance with the principles of additionality and subsidiarity, to support the drive for regional economic convergence which has been undertaken at the European level, by means, for example, of a shrewd investment policy that can act as a basis for European intervention and attract new resources to the most underdeveloped areas;

21.  Considers it particularly important, in this regard, when this is possible and desirable, to promote the development of public/private partnerships to finance infrastructures contributing to economic development;

22.  Stresses the need to adapt competition policy (in particular as regards State aids for regional objectives) and fiscal policy (particularly tax exemption schemes) to regional and cohesion policy; since these policies are essential for the future of regions where development is lagging behind, they should be reformulated to promote growth in these regions, given that a regional policy based solely on the Structural Funds is not sufficient to enable them to recover lost ground;

23.  Believes that an important prerequisite for improving management of regional policy is to strengthen partnership, particularly through greater involvement of all the economic and social players;

24.  Welcomes the decision to review the operation of State aids policy and regeneration initiatives involving private finance as a result of the informal Council conclusions of 8 October 2001 and stresses the need for the Commission to prioritise this review, to allow competition policy to support and enhance regional cohesion policies;

25.  Calls on the Commission fully to respect the rules governing the content of the reports on economic and social cohesion, given that the second report does not include an analysis of the effects of national policies on economic and social cohesion;

26.  Asks the Commission to establish an internal Cohesion Working Group, to evaluate and improve the role of the other Community policies' contribution to cohesion policy;

27.  Calls for the SME sector to be given better access to risk capital and start-up capital so that innovations can be promoted;

28.  Draws the Commission's attention to the under-utilisation of funds in certain eligible Objective 2 zones and calls on it to take the situation into account in considering the next Structural Fund programming period;

29.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to allocate more investments to evaluation and monitoring activities in the 2000-06 regional programmes as a step towards the promotion of governance at local and regional level;

30.  Cohesion policy after 2006

Welcomes the Commission's second report on economic and social cohesion, and considers it to be a useful and necessary basis for embarking on a broader debate on post-2006 cohesion policy; regrets, however, that insufficient attention is being paid to the challenge posed by the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, particularly the impact that this challenge will have on the Union as a globally competitive and cohesive community; calls on the Commission, therefore, to continue analysing both the economic and social consequences of enlargement and the social solidarity necessary to meet this challenge; and looks forward to receiving the results of the evaluations of the 1994-1999 programmes and mid-term evaluations for the 2000-2006 programmes as key factors in determining the achievements in cohesion policies and for future priorities; asks the Commission in particular to address the disparities in progress where some regions continue to lag behind and some regions have achieved rapid improvements;

31.  Stresses that in the future as well it will only be possible to achieve the objectives of the cohesion policy if there is closer correlation between measures adapted to the needs and potential of the regions concerned, and the requisite financial resources;

32.  Proposes that reform of cohesion policy should be directed at achieving, simultaneously, the objectives of giving due consideration to applicant countries' needs and ensuring continued efforts in the current regions in which development is lagging and those in the process of economic reconversion;

33.  Considers that the importance of borders in Europe is to be decreased and the process of integration is to be strengthened and that therefore interregional cooperation is of major importance;

34.  Considers that new regional policy must pay more attention – and thus devote more resources – to the quality of investments (particularly human resources, permanent training and innovative capability), devising new regional aid instruments designed for this purpose or making better use of existing horizontal instruments;

35.  Stresses, nevertheless, the need to promote territorial cohesion in Europe so as to prevent the population, economic activities, employment and investments from being concentrated in the wealthier central zones of the European Union;

36.  Calls on the Commission to complete a study on how cohesion policy benefits the whole of the Community, in addition to the regions which receive aid directly, by opening up opportunities for European firms from other regions, by contributing to turning the single market into a reality, by increasing trade and by making the Union more homogenous;

37.  Believes that the Cohesion Fund should be maintained, but that it should become an instrument of structural policy subject to the rules of Structural Funds (programming, partnership, etc.);

38.  A larger and more complex Union

Reiterates its belief that cohesion policy will play an even more important role in the Union that takes shape after enlargement, since it will be one of the key strategies combating the pronounced imbalances that ensue and pursuing the growth and integration of less developed areas;

39.  Looks positively on enlargement which will expand the EU's internal market resulting in an overall increase in output which, in step with a rising level of consumption in the new Member States, will help develop new products and services capable of competing on the world market;

40.  Emphasises that enlargement should not be at the expense of the poorer regions of the EU's existing Member States;

41.  Considers that major efforts will be needed in an enlarged Union to ensure political, economic and financial solidarity with the new Member States, while it will also be essential to continue giving appropriate support to regions where development is lagging behind at present or where restructuring is under way;

42.  Believes that enlargement will widen the development disparities between central and outlying regions, as stressed by the Commission;

43.  Notes that the forthcoming enlargement will result in a Union with new and more marked imbalances between central and outer regions; with this in mind, believes that a strategic approach to cohesion policy capable of holding together a larger but also less uniform Union and allowing it to progress must be identified immediately; considers, therefore, that current cohesion policy must be reviewed, improved and adjusted to the needs of an enlarged Union;

44.  Commends the Union for its timely introduction of new programmes (ISPA, SAPARD) and review of existing ones (PHARE, INTERREG) in order to prepare the new Member States for taking on board Community policies, acquiring meaningful experience and putting in place the political and administrative structures that will need to be fully operational after accession;

45.  Considers that the operational mechanisms to promote coordination between the Structural Funds on the one hand and the EDF, PHARE and MEDA Programmes on the other must be made available as a matter of urgency;

46.  Adaptation of instruments to the challenge

Considers that the demands from local and regional levels for broad involvement in the programme work of the Structural Funds and their implementation should be given strong backing;

47.  Deplores the repeated delays with programme commencement due partly to the Member States and partly to the Commission; asks the Commission to clarify whether in future the programming periods for objective programmes and Community initiatives could be kept separate so that gaps do not occur between programming periods and the preparation phase and negotiations for all programmes do not take place at the same time;

48.  Believes that the goals and objectives of Community initiatives should be incorporated into the Structural Funds, since they are a vital instrument in curbing the problems connected with urban renewal and with the transnational, cross-border (it crosses both land and sea borders) and interregional character of the Union and considers that the appropriate measures must be taken to address weaknesses that occur;

49.  Considers that new and better rules and procedures should be drawn up to ensure that the principle of value for money is effectively applied;

50.  Considers also that regions undergoing restructuring should be able to benefit from a revised and more specifically targeted Objective 2 based on a small number of precise territorial criteria and applicable only outside Objective 1; stresses the importance of furthering the objectives agreed at Lisbon and Stockholm, namely knowledge economy, competitiveness and innovation, investing in people, combating social exclusion and promoting sustainable economic growth;

51.  Believes that greater account should be taken of specific regional and local circumstances in the administration of Objective 3;

52.  Believes that better coordination is needed between the urban and rural dimensions of regional development policy;

53.  Believes that a reformed agricultural policy must be coordinated with regional policy and promote rural development;

54.  Calls on the Commission to bring forward the publication of its third cohesion report to enable Parliament to draft its own opinion before the end of its term and the Commission's;

55.  Funding the future cohesion policy

Reiterates that future cohesion policy must be based on the principles of solidarity, partnership and additionality;

56.  Wishes to highlight the problem of financial resources, which must be commensurate with the challenge facing an enlarged Europe; stresses the importance of an increase in the efficiency of the cohesion policies;

57.  Believes therefore that is not possible to fall below the level of 0.45% of Community GDP earmarked for cohesion policy without jeopardising the success of cohesion policy objectives and also believes that an evaluation of the needs of cohesion policy is necessary in the immediate future in the context of the financial perspectives with a view to enlargement;

58.  Reiterates the importance of the principle of additionality, as the only way of ensuring sufficient resources and operational synergies with Member States' governments; with this in view, believes that the ceiling for Community funds should remain at 4% of national GDP for all Member States;

59.  Considers that the "statistical convergence' that will occur with the accession of new countries should not be mistaken for "genuine convergence' by existing beneficiaries, since the latter will not automatically become rich merely because poorer regions are joining the Union;

60.  Believes, with regard to the eligibility of the Union's least developed regions as beneficiaries of Community cohesion policy, while not wishing to adopt a final position at this stage on the four options put forward by the Commission, which are not the only ones, that regions which will no longer be eligible in future under Objective 1 should continue to enjoy Community support on the basis of criteria yet to be determined; also believes that options 1 and 4 set out by the Commission are not acceptable;

61.  Considers in this regard that, in order to prevent the so-called "statistical effect' in future cohesion policy, the per capita GDP criterion should be accompanied by other alternative indicators, first and foremost the rate of unemployment; other criteria should also be taken into account to measure the extent of regional problems and development difficulties, such as remoteness indicators, the state of infrastructures and transport, the extent of research and innovation activities, an indicator measuring the quality of human resources (education and training) and an indicator measuring the diversification of regional productive structures;

62.  Calls therefore on the Commission, in cooperation with Eurostat, to put forward without delay new statistical indicators for the regions, which take into account in particular their competitiveness in terms of accessibility, infrastructures, environmental quality, research and innovation, education and training, diversification of production activities and rate of unemployment;

63.  o

o
o   o

63.  

(1) OJ C 371, 8.12.1997, p. 89. (2) OJ C 304, 24.10.2000, p. 62. (3) Texts Adopted, Item 11.

European Parliament resolution on EU policy towards Mediterranean partner countries in relation to the promotion of women's rights and equal opportunities in these countries (2001/2129(INI)

P5_TA(2002)0061 A5-0022/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2 and 3(2) of the EC Treaty,

–  having regard to Articles 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27 and 28 of the Treaty on European Union,

–  having regard to the common strategy of the European Union on the Mediterranean region agreed by the European Council meeting in Feira on 19 June 2000(1),

–  having regard to the EU presidency conclusions agreed during the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs held on 5 and 6 November 2001,

–  having regard to the final declaration of the 1st Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum, held in Brussels on 27-28 October 1998,

–  having regard to the final declaration of the 2nd Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum, held in Brussels on 8-9 February 2001,

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 October 1995 on the Mediterranean policy of the European Union with a view to the Barcelona Conference(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 December 1995 on the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 March 1997 on the joint report by the Presidency of the Council and the Commission on Mediterranean policy - follow-up to the Barcelona Conference (7987/96 - C4-0414/96)(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 May 1998 on Euro-Mediterranean agreements(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 March 1999 on the Commission communication: ' the role of the European Union in the peace process and its future assistance to the Middle East' (COM(97) 715 - C4-0114/98),(6) and its recommendation to the Council on the European Union's - Mediterranean policy(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 30 March 2000 on the Mediterranean policy(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2000 on EU Mediterranean policy in the run-up to the fourth meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Marseilles(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 1 February 2001 on the Common Strategy of the European Union on the Mediterranean region, as laid down by the Feira European Council of 19 June 2000 (C5-0510/2000 - 2000/2247(COS))(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 1 February 2001 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council to prepare the fourth meeting of Euro-Mediterranean foreign ministers 'reinvigorating the Barcelona Process' (COM(2000) 497 - C5-0630/2000 - 2000/2294(COS))(11),

–  having regard to the Barcelona Declaration and the work programme of 28 November 1995 adopted at the Barcelona Conference,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conference held in Malta on 15 and 16 April 1997,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conference held in Palermo on 3 and 4 June 1998,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conference held in Valencia on 28 and 29 January 1999,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conference held in Stuttgart on 15 and 16 April 1999,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conference held in Marseilles on 16 and 17 November 2000,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conferences held in Ericeira on 16 and 17 November 1998 and in Brussels on 24 and 25 March 2000 on the promotion of the role of women in economic development,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the citizens' fora held in Malta, Naples, Stuttgart and Marseilles,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the 1st Euro-Mediterranean Women's Parliamentary Forum, held in Rome on 27 November 2000,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the 2nd Euro-Mediterranean Women's Parliamentary Forum, held in Malta on 1 and 2 March 2001,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Regional Forum on the role of women in economic development, held in Brussels on 14 July 2001,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to accompany (MEDA) the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership(12),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2698/2000 of 27 November 2000 amending the abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1488/96(13),

–  having regard to the Declaration and Action Programme of the United Nations Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 13 September 1994) and the conclusions of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the Conference on Population and Development five years on (Cairo + 5, New York, 1999),

–  having regard to the conclusions and the Draft Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing on 4-5 September 1995 on a new international initiative to promote the objectives of equality, development and peace for all women,

–  having regard to the outcome of the special session of the UN General Assembly on: 'Women 2000': Gender equality, development and peace for the 21st century' held in New York on 5-9 June 2000,

–  having regard to the public hearing on the promotion of women's rights and equal opportunities in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, held at the European Parliament in Brussels on 20 November 2001,

–  having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

I.  having regard to the report of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (A5-0022/2002),

The role of women in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership

A.  noting with satisfaction that the conclusions of the ministerial meetings and resolutions of the interparliamentary meetings held under the Barcelona process contain specific provisions on the promotion of the role of women in economic and social life,

B.  whereas, under the same policy, women's ministerial and interparliamentary conferences are organised on the situation of women; whereas, furthermore, provision is made for funding in the Community budget for the organisation of those conferences,

C.  whereas the fresh impetus given to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership takes greater account of women (Joint Strategy on the Mediterranean, Feira-2000, Regional Forum for Women, Brussels 2001, the first regional Mediterranean programme -–Women and Development),

D.  stressing that, although there is express provision for the promotion of the role of women in economic and social life in the MEDA I and II Regulations, this provision remains to be put into practice,

E.  regretting the absence of express and separate provisions on respect for women's rights, (as an essential condition) in the current association agreements with partner countries, even though a general clause on respect for human rights is always included,

II.  noting that, in the case of the two candidate partner countries concerned (Malta and Cyprus), the situation of women's rights is monitored under the chapter on social policy and the implementation of the Community's acquis on gender issues,

Situation of women in the countries of the southern Mediterranean

G.  concerned at the high and rising rate of illiteracy among women in certain countries, the educational neglect suffered by girls in rural areas, the high drop-out rate from secondary education and the low number of women in secondary and higher education, particularly outside the major urban areas,

H.  noting that, although the presence of women on the labour market is increasing, the numbers remain substantially lower than the number of men, and whereas, inter alia, unemployment in urban areas and occupations requiring university education mainly affects women, and particularly young women,

I.  whereas women on the labour market face discrimination owing to horizontal and vertical segregation on the basis of gender, as they are being restricted to traditional occupations and the lower levels of the hierarchy,

J.  stressing that despite all the differences between countries and within them, poverty and marginalisation particularly affect women, especially in rural areas,

K.  stressing that women's participation in European investment programmes is low owing to a lack of appropriate information, funding, technology and human resources,

L.  whereas the participation of women in politics and decision-making (government, public administration, political parties, trade unions) is minimal to non-existent,

M.  whereas, although the individual and collective rights of women are officially protected in international law, many southern Mediterranean states have lodged various reservations to that legislation so that their application is to a large extent legally impossible; whereas, on the other hand, where basic international treaties have been signed and ratified without reservations, their implementation is difficult because of inadequate mechanisms and traditional or religious stereotypes; whereas positive measure are rarely taken to safeguard women's' rights and integrate them into economic and social life,

N.  noting that action to combat violence against women is paralysed because of the lack of an information strategy, a lack of prevention and intervention mechanisms to combat this crime, as well as a lack of systems to protect, help and provide refuge for victims, and owing to the inadequacy of reception systems and access to them for victims of violence,

O.  stressing that women's health frequently lacks protection because significant gender discrimination and the scant degree of modernisation of health services hinder women's access to health services,

III.  whereas, in the light of the international conference on population and development held in Cairo on 5-13 September 1994, the concept of reproductive health covers not only family planning but also sexual health and care during pregnancy and during and after childbirth, and also includes taking account of vital needs such as maternity and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, as part of an integral approach based on human rights and social justice whose central elements are access to reproductive health services and freedom of decision in sexual and reproductive matters in order to promote the sound development of responsible sexual behaviour; pointing out that the lack of public policies on reproductive health and the failure to recognise women's reproductive rights pose serious problems,

Policies to promote women in the context of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation

Q.  whereas women have not had the opportunity, either in the context of public administration or in the context of civil society, of contributing substantially and systematically to the shaping and implementation of the 'Barcelona vision',

R.  stressing that no regional programme exclusively on behalf of women has yet been funded under the MEDA I or II programmes; whereas the very few national indicative programmes for women are a partial and piecemeal response at national level,

S.  noting the great difference between the partner countries' participation in and implementation of regional and national indicative programmes directly or indirectly concerned with the situation and rights of women; whereas some of the Maghreb countries are significantly ahead of the Mashreq countries in this respect, while in the societies involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict the situation is extremely difficult,

T.  noting that the Commission's periodic assessments of the progress made by partner countries do not provide data about women at regional or national level,

U.  stressing that no provision was made for funding for women's projects in the loan agreements between partner countries and the European Investment Bank (1996-2000),

1.  Calls for the effective implementation of what has already been laid down in the Barcelona Declaration regarding progress towards democracy and respect for human rights and calls for the gender dimension, and accordingly respect for and promotion of women's rights, to be explicitly incorporated horizontally in the Barcelona process and in the three pillars of the partnership; consequently, calls on the European Institutions, the Member States and the governments of the partner countries to recognise, respect and protect women's fundamental rights and the principle of political, social and economic equality between the sexes;

2.  Calls on the Commission to incorporate the democratic clause regarding respect for fundamental rights and the gender dimension in the negotiations on association agreements by including an explicit provision in those agreements on protection of women's rights and also to provide for a policy for monitoring such protection similar to that applied to the candidate countries; this provision and the monitoring mechanism should be used not only for enforcement but as a means of taking positive measures to secure respect for women's rights;

3.  Calls on the Commission to stipulate the participation of women in association agreement negotiations as essential for the balanced development of the future free trade area;

4.  Calls on the Commission to report on the fulfilment and effective application of the financial commitments laid down in the MEDA programme to support women's active participation in economic and social life and fund preparatory measures and pilot projects geared to information and training in the field of gender equality; likewise calls on the Commission to look into the possibility of creating a specific action for women within the MEDA programme;

5.  Calls on the Commission to promote action plans in the first regional programme to further the participation of women in economic and social life and development with the following objectives:

6.  Urges the Commission and the partner countries to take the necessary measures to improve the image of women in the media by making use of the opportunities provided by the MEDA audiovisual programme;

7.  Calls on the Member States, the Commission and the Council to fulfil the financial commitments adopted in the action programme of the Cairo Conference with regard to population and sexual and reproductive health with a view to their development cooperation policies;

8.  Stresses that unjustified barriers to legal immigration encourage trafficking in human beings, particularly in women; calls, therefore, on the Member States, the Commission and the Council to apply the European Parliament's recommendations on trafficking in human beings and to cooperate closely with the partner countries in the fields of immigration and asylum, taking into account the respective needs of the economies of the Euro-Mediterranean area, with full and due regard for the rights of immigrants deriving from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Community policies and taking into account the EU presidency conclusions and guidelines agreed during the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, held on 5 and 6 November 2001, with regard to management of the problem of illegal immigration and movements of migrants;

9.  Calls on the Commission to include the gender dimension in a separate chapter of its annual review of the Euro- Mediterranean partnership and MEDA funding (statistics, research and progress indicators relating to women);

10.  Calls for the systematic collection and publication of comparable statistics by gender to clarify the representation of men and women in decision-making processes;

11.  Calls on the Commission and the partner countries to promote the rights of women by setting up an observatory and databank to monitor and evaluate the situation of women's rights in all areas, at the same time as setting up local centres for each partner country to produce an annual report on women's rights on the basis of fixed indicators;

12.  Urges the Commission and the partner countries to coordinate their actions to improve communication and the exchange of views so as to take account of specific cultural features when drawing up and implementing Euro-Mediterranean cooperation policies so that efforts are made to develop a new way of viewing the situation and rights of women which is not conditioned by gender or religious stereotypes, by analysing and studying the presence and role of women in today's world;

13.  Takes the view that the European Investment Bank should create a financial assistance line earmarked for projects or loans which are designed, organised and/or managed by women;

14.  Suggests that the possibility of creating a Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank within the framework of the Barcelona Process be studied, debated and assessed;

15.  Appeals to the governments of the partner countries to demonstrate the necessary political will and press ahead with the legislative, administrative and other reforms necessary to establish legal equality between men and women and incorporate gender equality in all their policies, promoting women's participation and inclusion in decision-making processes, drawing up public policies on combating violence against women, promoting specific training programmes for the police and judiciary, promoting equal opportunities in education (in particular by preventing absenteeism and dropping-out among girls) and consolidating health and reproductive health programmes;

16.  Invites the governments of the partner countries to support the initiatives and actions taken by women's organisations in the above fields;

17.  Considers that the governments of the partner countries must coordinate their efforts by establishing regional dialogue on the basis not only of geographical proximity but also with reference to progress achieved, the exchange of best practices and the common challenges to be faced on the road to democratisation and social cohesion;

18.  Calls on the EU to draw up an active and committed policy aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to establish a just and lasting peace in the region and to create the conditions which will make it possible to achieve political, economic, social and cultural development, which will without doubt bring benefits in terms of the rights and progress of women on both sides;

19.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and the partner countries, to launch a wide-ranging information campaign on the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, the role of women and the opportunities for cooperation and development for women's organisations under the MEDA programmes;

20.  Calls on the Commission to take appropriate initiatives to bring the countries in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership closer to the candidate countries and the Balkan countries by establishing regional dialogue, with women taking part in the discussions, which should also include women's rights;

21.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the partner countries to take initiatives to promote women's activities in fields other than those with which women are traditionally associated; welcomes, therefore, the Commission initiative, announced by Commissioner Reding at the informal meeting of sport ministers on 12 November 2001, of holding a conference in the second half of 2002 on sport and women in the Mediterranean countries.

o
o   o

22.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments of the Member States and the governments of the partner countries in the Barcelona Process and of the candidate countries.

(1) OJ L 183, 22.7.2000, p. 5. (2) OJ C 287, 30.10.1995, p. 121. (3) OJ C 17, 22.1.1996, p. 178. (4) OJ C 115, 14.4.1997, p. 159. (5) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 196. (6) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999, p. 282. (7) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999, p. 286. (8) OJ C 378, 29.12.2001, p. 71. (9) OJ C 223, 8.8.2001, p. 147. (10) OJ C 267, 21.9.2001, p. 60. (11) OJ C 267, 21.9.2001, p. 68. (12) OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 1. (13) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution on illiteracy and social exclusion (2001/2340(INI))

P5_TA(2002)0062 A5-0009/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and, in particular, Articles 2, 3, 136 and 137 thereof,

–  having regard to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Article 14(1): "Everyone has the right to education…',

–  having regard to the decisions of the European Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000,

–  having regard to the decisions of the European Council in Nice of 7 to 10 December 2000,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2000 on the social policy agenda(1),

–  having regard to the Commission's Communication 'Building an inclusive Europe' (COM(2000) 79),

–  having regard to the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 June 2000 establishing a Community action programme to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion(2) and its position of 17 May 2001 on the action programme to combat social exclusion(3),

–  having regard to the Commission's White Paper 'Education and training - teaching and learning - towards the learning society' (COM(1995) 590) and its resolutions of 12 March 1997(4) and 15 May 2001(5) on teaching and learning,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2001/63/EC of 19 January 2001 on guidelines for Member States' employment policies in 2001(6) and its resolution of 24 October 2000 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for Member States' employment policies in 2001(7),

–  having regard to Council Recommendation 2001/64/EC of 19 January 2001 on the implementation of the Member States' employment policies(8),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working paper on lifelong learning (SEC(2000)1832 - C5-0192/2001),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 April 1993 on the eradication of illiteracy in the Member States of the European Community(9),

–  having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (A5&nbhy;0009/2002),

A.  whereas knowing how to read and write is a fundamental right,

B.  whereas the opportunity to learn how to read and write should be accessible to all as a fundamental right, and teachers and parents should recognise their obligation to ensure that this opportunity is grasped by all,

C.  whereas combating illiteracy is essential because it secures and strengthens the freedom of the individual and allows equal access for all to fundamental rights,

D.  whereas combating illiteracy is not only a job for teachers and educators but must be undertaken by society as a whole and by all public authorities in particular, and whereas the Member States must fulfil their obligations under the Treaties as regards the content and organisation of education systems,

E.  whereas the Union must support cooperation between the Member States, promote exchanges of best practice and innovatory approaches and assess the results with the individuals and other parties concerned,

F.  whereas the Lisbon European Council decided that an 'open method of coordination' should be applied in relation to action to combat poverty and social exclusion,

G.  whereas the data available indicate that between 10 and 20% of the population of the Union and up to 30% of the population of the candidate countries are unable to understand and use the printed and written matter necessary to function in society, achieve their objectives, improve their knowledge and skills and develop their potential, and whereas this problem would become even more serious if the flow of migrants from third countries were taken into account as well,

H.  whereas statistics and detailed data concerning illiteracy at European level are not yet available, particularly as regards the definition of the phenomenon, indicators, and current initiatives and best practice in the Member States,

I.  whereas there has been no consistent and continuous commitment at European level up to now to combating illiteracy and that commitment has been unable to adapt to the changes within, and the new requirements of, society, and whereas the requirements of people with poor basic skills or with inadequate knowledge of technology must be taken into account when formulating Community programmes,

J.  whereas, in the interests of human dignity and the fight against social marginalisation, action must also be taken to combat the "returning' illiteracy which particularly affects elderly people who, as they lose their self-sufficiency, are obliged to enter sheltered accommodation, leaving their family and socio-cultural environment behind them for good,

K.  whereas participation in the knowledge-based society and social inclusion are primarily based on the ability to read and write, and whereas illiteracy restricts access to the labour market, employment prospects and the ability to adapt to a changing society and economy,

L.  whereas the effect of the illiteracy and the low level of basic skills displayed by many workers is to increase the risk of accidents at work and to make it more difficult for those workers to be reskilled or retrained,

M.  whereas, if the goal set out at Lisbon of making Europe "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion' and, in addition, the promotion of increased awareness in respect of political participation and greater knowledge on the part of citizens of their rights and ability to assert them is to be attained, European literacy skills must be enhanced,

N.  whereas it is necessary to take into account the guidelines approved by the Nice European Council with regard to the common objectives in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and to promote the participation in working life and access for all to resources, rights, and goods and services, by forestalling the risks of marginalisation so as to act for the benefit of the categories which are most at risk,

1.  Calls on the Commission, in connection with the employment guidelines and the open methods of cooperation used in the fight against poverty and exclusion, and also in relation to education and training, to propose specific indicators and benchmarks relating to illiteracy and to do this in close cooperation with all the social players, particularly

2.  Calls on the Commission to note that illiteracy and innumeracy should not in future be considered separately in line with the initiative taken by the Lisbon European Council of working towards a 'knowledge-based' economy;

3.  Calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament and the Council, as soon as possible, a Green Paper on illiteracy, innumeracy and social exclusion, together with a timetable for tangible objectives along the lines of the social agenda, precisely defining the measures to be taken at European level;

4.  Calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament a Green Paper and an action plan based on Articles 137 and 150 of the Treaty, comprising the following elements at least:

5.  Calls on the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and the Council, as soon as possible, a proposal for a recommendation to the Member States including, inter alia, the following points:

6.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to set up a European illiteracy monitoring centre at the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) in Thessaloniki with a brief to establish training courses and diplomas at European level;

7.  Calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament, each year, a written report, incorporating statistical data, of progress towards the objectives of combating illiteracy and social exclusion, in close cooperation with persons with poor literacy skills who have participated in training programmes;

8.  Welcomes the Council report to the Stockholm summit on 'The concrete future objectives of education systems'; believes that the Community institutions have a useful role to play in helping the Member States to implement a long-term work programme 'raising the standard of learning in Europe, by improving the quality of training for teachers and trainers, and by making a specific effort on literacy and numeracy';

9.  Calls on the Commission to support the development and maintenance of literacy skills through programmes such as SOCRATES, LEONARDO and YOUTH, as well as through projects supported by the Structural Funds;

10.  Calls on the Commission to include literacy projects in any European Year of books or reading;

11.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and to the European associations of non-governmental organisations working with disadvantaged people.

(1) OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 180. (2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000, p 130. (3) Texts Adopted, Item 1. (4) OJ C 115, 14.4.1997, p. 85. (5) Texts Adopted, Item 17. (6) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, p. 18. (7) OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 68. (8) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, p. 27. (9) OJ C 150, 31.5.1993, p. 99.

European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda (COM(2001) 104 - C5-0536/2001 - 2001/2215(COS))

P5_TA(2002)0063 A5-0004/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2001) 104 – C5&nbhy;0536/2001),

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Nice European Council of 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, and in particular Annex I thereto on the social policy agenda,

–  having regard to the Commission communication on the social policy agenda (COM(2000) 379),

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 20001(1) on the new social policy agenda,

–  having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A5&nbhy;0004/2002),

A.  whereas the social policy agenda is a key component of European Union economic and social modernisation, and its full implementation without delay will be decisive in achieving the strategic objectives laid down by the Lisbon European Council,

B.  whereas the scoreboard will be instrumental in monitoring progress with implementing the agenda,

C.  whereas this monitoring tool should be further developed by defining more precisely its objectives, content and presentation,

D.  whereas the social policy agenda must be considered as an evolving programme open to subsequent adjustments,

1.  Regrets that the first scoreboard was, owing to the very tight deadlines, submitted to the Stockholm European Council before Parliament had had the opportunity to consider it; calls on the Commission to forward to Parliament the annual scoreboard in good time for it to deliver an opinion in advance of the spring European Council;

2.  Considers that the scoreboard should, on the model of Annex 1 to the abovementioned communication on the new social agenda, include all activities scheduled for the period 2001 to 2006 to enable the current stage reached in implementing the objectives to be verified; warns against any attempt to convert the scoreboard into a mere summary record of Commission activities;

3.  Considers that the scoreboard should make operational the policy initiatives announced in the social policy agenda by specifying in respect of each component the relevant policy instrument (legislation, open coordination, negotiations by the social partners, etc), individual or body responsible, and the deadlines fixed; asks the Commission to adhere systematically to that structure when drawing up its next scoreboard;

4.  Considers that the social policy agenda should be based on a dynamic approach aimed at making continuous adjustments between objectives laid down and progress achieved;

5.  Considers that the scoreboard should provide the basis for such a continuous adjustment process, and draws attention to the importance of the progressive development of qualitative and quantitative indicators for monitoring and assessing operations carried out under the agenda; calls for the European Parliament to be closely involved in the taking of decisions on such indicators and to have the opportunity to play a role in the new coordination processes (including the open method of coordination in the areas of employment, social inclusion, education and training, and pensions); calls for an interinstitutional agreement to be concluded in this connection;

6.  Suggests that the scoreboard should also include measurement of specific progress by Member States on how they have lowered the costs of doing business and removed unnecessary red tape in order to promote employment, both highlighted in Article 14 of the Lisbon European Council conclusions as areas which required further efforts;

7.  Stresses the importance of involving all the social partners in implementing the social policy agenda; calls for the scoreboard to bring out more clearly the different responsibilities of the parties involved;

8.  Points out in that connection that heads of state and government have committed themselves to implementing the social policy agenda in full; considers that it cannot be for the Council to call into question the individual components of the overall project;

9.  Expresses its concern at the lack of progress achieved through the European social dialogue, and hopes that the social partners, and especially employers, will participate more actively in achieving the objectives laid down, including, in particular, in the areas of training and lifelong learning, organisation of work and adjustment to new forms of work and the reconciling of work and private life; takes the view that the Commission should come forward with legislative instruments whenever negotiations are not concluded within a reasonable period of time;

10.  Calls for Parliament to be fully involved in implementing adjustments to the social policy agenda and instructs its committee responsible periodically to monitor progress; also calls on this committee to examine the possibility of holding annual discussions with the Commission, the Council and the social partners on implementation of the social policy agenda;

11.  Calls on the Commission also to associate the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions as closely as possible with implementing the agenda;

12.  Regrets that the scoreboard stops short of suggesting new approaches to improving the involvement of civil society in implementing the social policy agenda;

13.  Considers that the concentration of political activities constituted by the social policy agenda should also be reflected in the budget of the European Union; notes with regret that, on the contrary, the areas of employment and social affairs are among the hardest hit by cuts in funding;

14.  Regrets, moreover, that the Commission has failed to take into consideration any of Parliament's additional requirements, as set out in its abovementioned resolution of 25 October 2000; calls on the Commission to supply information on how it proposes to act on those requirements, in particular:

15.  Expresses its concern at the rate of progress with implementing the agenda, which is already giving rise to fears that it may not be possible to meet the full package of agenda commitments by the year 2005;

16.  Calls, consequently, on the Commission to speed up its operations, in particular as regards legislative proposals and preparatory work; calls in particular on the Commission:

17.  Calls for efforts to address the social dimension of enlargement to be stepped up; urges that action be taken with regard to the proposed integration of the candidate countries into the open methods of coordination being adopted in the areas of employment, education and training, social inclusion and pensions, and calls on the Commission to submit a report to the Council and Parliament shortly on this matter;

18.  Calls on the Commission actively to support negotiations by the social partners by making its expertise available to them, and to provide guidelines for their negotiations, in all cases swiftly submitting a legislative initiative in the event of breakdown in negotiations; regrets the fact that the Commission has still not submitted a legislative proposal relating to temporary work based on the principle of equal treatment of temporary employees and employees with normal employment relationships with the business using the services of the relevant agency;

19.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

(1) 1 OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p.180. (2) 1 OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1. (3) 2 OJ C 121, 24.4.2001, p.473. (4) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p.64.

European Parliament resolution on terrorist attacks in India

P5_TA(2002)0064 RC-B5-0053/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the EU-India Joint Declaration of 23 November 2001 and the European Presidency's statement condemning the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament,

–  having regard to the declaration which was unanimously adopted by the Eleventh SAARC Summit on 6 January 2002 in Kathmandu, and in particular paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 thereof, which condemn terrorism "in all its forms',

–  having regard to UN Resolution 1373 (2001), in which the Security Council decided that all states should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the wilful provision or collection of funds for such acts, and established a Committee of the Security Council to monitor the implementation of the resolution,

A.  expressing its deep concern at the growing phenomenon of fundamentalist terrorism the world over,

B.  reiterating that there can be no religious, ideological or any other justification for acts of terrorism,

C.  reiterating its support for all UN conventions against international terrorism,

D.  reaffirming that acts of terrorism anywhere are a threat to peace and stability everywhere,

E.  whereas there is a threat that further incidents in the region could lead to the conflict escalating with as yet unforeseeable consequences, resulting in a further destabilisation of security in South Asia, and whereas both countries possess nuclear weapons,

F.  mindful of the events in Pakistan, where up until 15 January 2002 there have been over 1400 arrests, including the closure of 390 offices of Islamic extremist organisations, following the Pakistani President's announcement that tough and decisive measures would be taken against these forces inside his country,

G.  concerned for the welfare of the large sections of the population in both countries suffering deprivation, whose basic supplies would be severely jeopardised by a violent conflict,

H.  supporting India's demands for Pakistan to contribute to a full investigation into the attacks on the Kashmiri State Assembly and Indian Parliament,

I.  welcoming the signs of détente from India, which can be seen as a response to the announcement by Pakistani President Musharraf that the planning of terrorist attacks and the training of radical Islamic groups on Pakistani soil would no longer be tolerated, an announcement which was regarded by the international community as a landmark; supporting the efforts of both states to bring about a calming of the situation on the subcontinent,

1.  Vehemently condemns the actions of the assassins who attacked the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001 as an act of terrorism and also an attack on the institutions and the democratically elected representatives of the Indian Union, a parliamentary democracy which has been in uninterrupted existence since independence, and expresses its solidarity with the people of India;

2.  Condemns the attack on the US cultural centre in Calcutta on 22 January 2002, which left five dead and 21 wounded, and calls for an independent investigation of this incident;

3.  Calls for a de-escalation of tensions and the redeployment of forces to peacetime locations, and urges India and Pakistan to resume dialogue to prevent a military conflict and to start negotiations;

4.  Supports President Musharraf in his efforts to implement the announced anti-terrorism measures and thereby to establish internal and external stability, and to make the environment inhospitable for terrorism, and calls upon him to make every possible effort to ensure the safety and early liberation of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl;

5.  Understands that the measures announced by President Musharraf to combat all forms of terrorism will take time, as will the intended closures of radical Islamic schools, or madrassas, and mosques which have in the past propagated a violent fundamentalist philosophy, and takes note of the efforts of the Government of Pakistan to encourage a modern peace-loving and tolerant form of education;

6.  Points out that, when taking the necessary measures to implement these goals, human rights, religious freedom for minorities, freedom of the press and freedom of opinion must be protected at all costs, and takes note of the recent massacre of Christians attending a church service in Pakistan by Islamic terrorists who are yet to be apprehended and the repeated allegations of discrimination against the Christian community in Pakistan by the authorities;

7.  Urgently appeals to the concerned parties to make all necessary efforts, calmly and without delay, to avoid a further worsening of the situation and to renew their dialogue in the spirit of the Simla Agreement (1972), the Lahore Declaration (1999) and the relevant UN resolutions, and repeats its call for the EU to offer its services to this process as a facilitator to both India and Pakistan;

8.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the governments of India and Pakistan, the parliament of India and the SAARC secretariat.

European Parliament resolution on the consequences of the eruption of the Nyiragongo volcano

P5_TA(2002)0065 RC-B5-0058/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 February 2002 on assessing the linking of relief, rehabilitation and development(1),

–  having regard to the resumption of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue, scheduled for 25 February 2002 in Sun City, South Africa,

A.  whereas the monitoring of the most active volcanoes is still inadequate for ensuring that people living near them are protected,

B.  whereas 30% of the population of Goma has been left homeless by the eruption of Mount Nyiragongo in the Democratic Republic of Congo and some 300 000 people are estimated to need assistance,

C.  whereas no insurance system exists locally to compensate the victims, including for the destruction of more than 12 000 homes,

D.  whereas the quantity of water available to residents in certain areas of Goma is insufficient,

E.  whereas there is an urgent need for emergency education measures to ensure that displaced children from Goma can continue their studies,

F.  whereas Goma and the eastern part of the DRC has experienced a series of catastrophic crises with tragic consequences, including civil wars which have led to the deaths of over three million people in the DRC,

G.  whereas the refusal of Congolese refugees to take refuge in camps in Rwanda, in spite of their precarious situation and all the dangers they face, demonstrates the extreme distrust of the Rwandan army on the part of the Congolese of Kivu,

H.  whereas there is a heavy presence of international humanitarian groups in Goma due to the many refugees from the region who have been affected by war, but their provisions and supplies were overrun by lava, rendering them helpless,

I.  whereas the international community reacted swiftly to the plight of Goma, as the EU's Humanitarian Office ECHO released EUR 5 million in emergency aid and technical assistance and mobilised ECHO-Flight, UNICEF airlifted 60 tonnes of emergency aid, the Canadian government decided to give USD 1.05 million and the UK government donated UKP 2 million, and the UN World Food Programme has earmarked USD 14.6 million over the next three months,

J.  welcoming the recent joint peace mission by both Britain and France in the Great Lakes region and this joint resolve to seek solutions to the complicated conflicts in the Great Lakes region,

K.  welcoming the UN Security Council's debate on 31 January 2002 and its commitment to remain fully engaged in Africa until a lasting settlement to the continent's conflicts is found,

L.  welcoming the Commission's adoption of a Global Plan for 2002 – to be managed by ECHO – worth a further EUR 32 million in humanitarian aid for the people of the DRC, plus the decision on 21 January 2002 to unblock additional 7th and 8th European Development Funds by signing a National Indicative Program (NIP) worth EUR 120 million that will ease the continuing hardships,

1.  Is concerned by the eruption of the volcano, which has resulted in hundreds of casualties and has aggravated the humanitarian situation of the DRC, which has already suffered from several years of conflict;

2.  Expresses its solidarity with the families of the victims and those affected by this disaster;

3.  Recalls its resolution of 13 December 2001(2) and the need to restore Goma's local economy and secure access for the civilian population to food and medical and healthcare centres;

4.  Welcomes the international community's rapid response in providing assistance to this region and calls, in particular, on the Commission to examine every possibility for extending special emergency aid to the victims; welcomes the fact that it has been entrusted to the international humanitarian organisations and coordinated by UN agencies;

5.  Deplores the looting of the headquarters of the WHO, the HCR and the FAO and of the World Food Programme's stores;

6.  Calls for Bukavu and the area south of Lake Kivu also to be made eligible for receiving the humanitarian aid for the victims of Goma;

7.  Considers that a team of technical experts is urgently needed to assess the damage and identify what reconstruction measures are urgently required;

8.  Considers it important to assess the environmental damage caused by the volcano's eruption so as to identify needs and provide appropriate assistance, and calls for a substantial increase in resources for monitoring the Nyiragongo volcano;

9.  Calls on ECHO to speed up implementation of the Global Plan for 2002, which is worth EUR 32 million and is targeted at assisting displaced people in the DRC, including those affected by the eruption of the Nyiragongo volcano;

10.  Calls for more closely coordinated actions by the many international humanitarian organisations present in Goma so as to ensure that the humanitarian aid reaches the most vulnerable groups affected by the volcanic and seismic tragedy, whilst assisting rehabilitation and reconstruction that promotes self-sufficiency in the region;

11.  Insists that development cooperation and funding, apart from humanitarian aid, should be implemented in return for disarmament and guarantees of stability and security by the Congolese when the Inter-Congolese Dialogue resumes this month;

12.  Notes that cooperation between the European Union and the DRC has restarted and calls for it to be ensured that this benefits the whole country;

13.  Calls on the Commission to propose, within the context of such cooperation, but outside the scope of the reconstruction programme for Goma, a programme of disarmament to remove any pretext for keeping Rwandan armed forces in Kivu;

14.  Calls on all parties involved in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue to give priority to the need for peace and stability and to speed up the national reconciliation process so as to benefit from European Development Fund programmes aimed at combating poverty, the reconstitution of the social fabric and the rehabilitation of economic structures and the infrastructure of the DRC;

15.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the DRC authorities, all parties to the Inter-Congolese Dialogue, the governments of Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the African Union, and the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

(1) P5_TA(2002)0033. (2) Texts Adopted, Item 26.

European Parliament resolution on the detainees in Guantanamo Bay

P5_TA(2002)0066 RC-B5-0074/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, adopted on 12 August 1949,

–  having regard to the conclusions and plan of action of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 21 September 2001,

–  having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Laeken European Council of 14 and 15 December 2001,

A.  whereas the United States has airlifted 158 of its Afghanistan war captives to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and whereas their treatment and the pictures taken in this camp have attracted international attention,

B.  whereas Member States have expressed their concern about conditions at the base, and have called for the prisoners to be treated according to "the rule of law",

C.  whereas a handful of states, including Member States, have revealed that they have citizens among the detainees and are sending delegations to the base to verify several suspects' citizenship,

D.  whereas the US Government has declared that the prisoners from Afghanistan held at Guantanamo Bay are in an uncharted legal limbo, but taking note that the US army is providing conditions consistent with the Geneva Convention and has accepted most of the recommendations of the International Committee of the Red Cross to improve the situation of the detainees,

E.  whereas the US Defence Department has announced that detainees will be questioned for intelligence information; following questioning, a decision will be made as to what is to be done with them, some may be tried by a military commission, others could be tried in the US criminal court system, and others may be returned to their countries of nationality for prosecution,

F.  recalling the provisions of Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, which state that a detainee's legal status and entitlement to treatment as a prisoner of war, if disputed, must be determined by a competent tribunal,

G.  noting the fact that the prisoners have been treated humanely and that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the British Government sent to the US base in Guantanamo have stated that the detainees are being treated in compliance with international humanitarian law,

H.  recalling that enforcement of international humanitarian law is a priority of the European Union's international action, and noting that the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross has welcomed the inclusion of compliance with international humanitarian law among the priorities of the current Spanish Presidency of the Council,

1.  Reaffirms its unwavering solidarity with the United States in combating terrorism with full regard for individual rights and freedom;

2.  Agrees that the prisoners currently held in the US base in Guantanamo do not fall precisely within the definitions of the Geneva Convention and that the standards set out in these conventions must be revised to respond to the new situations created by the development of international terrorism;

3.  Believes that all the detainees regardless of their nationality or origin should have the same treatment;

4.  Calls therefore on the UN and its Security Council to pass a resolution establishing a tribunal to deal with Afghanistan, with the aim of clarifying the prisoners' legal status;

5.  Believes that these difficulties would have been much easier to resolve with a fully functioning international criminal court with jurisdiction over acts of terrorism;

6.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the US Government, the US Congress and the United Nations.

European Parliament resolution on the jailing of the Russian military journalist Grigory Pasko and the closure of TV-6

P5_TA(2002)0067 RC-B5-0054/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions in support of Russian military journalist Grigory Pasko, who, in an earlier trial in 1999, was acquitted of espionage but found guilty on lesser charges; Mr Pasko appealed the verdict, but so did the prosecutors, insisting he was a spy; subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and ordered another trial,

–  having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the European Union and Russia, which entered into force on 1 December 1997, with regard in particular to Title I, Article 2,

–  having regard to the fact that the independence and plurality of the news media are a key element in the democratic values upon which the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia is founded, which also remains the basis for the common fight against terrorism,

–  having regard to the declaration of 29 January 2002 by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the situation of the media in Russia,

A.  deeply concerned and stunned by the jailing of Grigory Pasko, who, in a new trial on 25 December 2001, was found guilty of 'high treason in the form of espionage' by the military court of the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok, which also stripped Mr Pasko of his military rank of captain (second class) and ruled that he should pay the costs of the trial,

B.  noting that Mr Pasko and his lawyer, Anatolii Pushkin, deny the charges, stressing that the trials were punishment for Mr Pasko's reports on environmental abuses by the Russian navy and that the verdict was passed under open pressure from the Federal Security Service (FSB) and was based on false evidence fabricated by that agency,

C.  whereas the Russian law on the media stipulates that 'any journalist has the right to seek, request, receive and circulate information' (Article 47),

D.  whereas President Putin has stated publicly that freedom of the media is necessary for the democratic development of his country and that financially secure media groups, free from control of both the state and big business, will be the future guarantee of Russian media freedom,

E.  whereas, according to the terms of Articles 41 and 42 of the Russian constitution, withholding information with respect to the environment or to catastrophes endangering human life is a criminal offence,

F.  noting that the newly elected leader of Russia's upper house of parliament, Sergei Mironov, on 26 December 2001 criticised the jailing of Grigory Pasko, saying he now understands 'how a man feels who is condemned for something he is not guilty of',

G.  noting the growing public support for Grigory Pasko in Russia, culminating in the picketing on 10 January 2002 of the buildings of the FSB department for the Pacific Fleet, the Pacific Fleet military prosecutor's office and the Pacific Fleet military court,

H.  whereas Amnesty International has adopted Mr Pasko as a prisoner of conscience and has said that his prosecution appears to be 'motivated by political reprisal for exposing the practice of dumping nuclear waste' in the Russian Far East,

I.  noting that the defence of Grigory Pasko has filed an appeal against the verdict and is seeking a full acquittal,

J.  whereas the conviction of the Russian citizen Grigory Pasko, who on 25 December 2001 was sentenced to four years' labour for treason through espionage, seems to involve several violations of the standards drawn up in the European Convention on Human Rights, as also ratified by Russia,

K.  seriously concerned about other events affecting the Russian media and especially the decision by Russia's highest arbitration court to close down the last national independent television station, TV-6, resulting in a considerable impoverishment of the Russian audiovisual panorama,

L.  whereas a new company, to be named '000TV' will make a bid for the licence in a spring tender,

1.  While respecting the decisions of the judicial institutions of the Russian Federation, calls on Russia's prosecutor-general, Vladimir Ustinov, to speed up procedures for the revision of the judgement of the court in Vladivostok;

2.  Calls on the Russian authorities to ensure that Mr Pasko's appeal is heard swiftly and is handled in accordance with the general principles of the rule of law which Russia is obliged to respect under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Russian constitution;

3.  Calls, in this respect, on the Russian authorities to release Grigory Pasko from custody pending the hearing of his appeal in the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court;

4.  Calls on the Russian authorities, in accordance to President Putin's view on the media, to take measures enabling the plurality of the media in Russia to be preserved and strengthened and to rein in the secret services;

5.  Regrets that the closure of TV6, the last nationwide private television channel, has resulted in a considerable impoverishment of the Russian audiovisual panorama;

6.  Calls upon its colleagues in the Russian State Duma to use their political weight in order to ensure freedom of the press, and, in particular, the rights of journalists so as to guarantee the right to information of the population of their country;

7.  Calls on the Council to express the European Union's concerns and to protest to the Russian Government about the worsening of the situation in the field of press freedoms and civil rights in Russia;

8.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the government and parliament of the Russian Federation.

European Parliament resolution on the elections in Madagascar

P5_TA(2002)0068 RC-B5-0055/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the EU Presidency statement [14324/01] concerning Madagascar's Presidential Elections on 22 November 2001,

–  having regard to the statement by the President of the United Nations Security Council [SC/7281] about the elections in Madagascar on 28 January 2002,

–  having regard to the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers to be held on 18 and 19 February 2002 in Brussels,

–  having regard to the proposed second round of Presidential Elections in Madagascar on 24 February 2002,

A.  whereas on 25 January 2002, Madagascar's National Electoral Commission released results showing that Mr Ravalomanana had won 46.44% of the vote and Mr Ratsiraka 40.61%, with the remaining four candidates receiving low levels of support,

B.  whereas opposition parties have alleged that the election was rigged,

C.  whereas this presidential election dispute has led to weeks of massive protests and a general strike,

D.  whereas Madagascar's High Constitutional Court has defied huge opposition protests and ordered a run-off second round of voting on 24 February 2002,

E.  whereas the High Court has rejected all applications for the results obtained by the various candidates at each polling station to be compared, so that no common interpretation of the results has been possible,

F.  whereas the members of the High Court were appointed entirely by the outgoing President, which cannot be regarded as a guarantee of impartiality,

G.  whereas a comparison of the official records would be the only democratic method of establishing the genuine result of this election,

H.  whereas the EU Presidency pledged to keep "an interested and careful watch on the preparation and organisation of the presidential elections' in Madagascar with specific reference to human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance and the hope that the elections "will pass off calmly, fairly and with the utmost transparency',

I.  whereas Mr Ratsiraka's government did not allow international observers during the first round of elections,

J.  whereas mediation proposals have been made by the Organisation of African Unity and the International Organisation for the French-Speaking World,

K.  whereas Members of the United Nations Security Council have "expressed concern over the situation of unrest prevailing in Madagascar and the potential for undermining peace and stability in that country and the region as a whole',

L.  noting the recent comments of the opposition candidate that he would consider standing in the second round if international observers were present and an international inquiry into the results of 16 December 2001 were to take place,

M.  whereas only the public media are covering the whole territory, and they have displayed much bias,

N.  having regard to the economic damage caused by each day on which workers remain on strike in one of the poorest countries in the world, whose economy is currently in a critical condition,

1.  Expresses its extreme concern about the risks inherent in the current situation in Madagascar and calls on all parties to refrain from violence;

2.  Hopes that the electoral process will continue, on condition that both rounds of the elections are conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner and in the presence of international observers;

3.  Requests that the Spanish Presidency of the EU send an official Troika to hold talks with all sides ahead of 9 February 2002, the date on which campaigning is scheduled to begin if a second round of Presidential elections takes place;

4.  Calls on the Commission, Council and Member States to send an international election-monitoring team to Madagascar if the Troika reports back that a second round will take place;

5.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the African Union, the Government of Madagascar and the UN Secretary-General.

European Parliament resolution on the elections in Cambodia

P5_TA(2002)0069 RC-B5-0063/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Cambodia,

–  having regard to the provisional report drawn up by Carlos Costa Neves, Member of the European Parliament and Chief Observer of the EU observer mission,

A.  whereas the first democratic local elections took place on 3 February 2002 and were expected to be an important landmark in the country's commitment to democratic development at grassroots level,

B.  whereas local democracy makes an important contribution to the construction of a more active civil society,

C.  alarmed by the violent deaths of a number of candidates and political activists during the pre&nbhy;election campaign, involving in some instances local-level officials, both civil and military,

D.  concerned by the fact that the widespread intimidation and abuses have prevented many candidates from FUNCINPEC and the SRP (Sam Rainsy Party) from competing in this election and that the climate of fear among voters and opposition candidates has undermined the credibility of the elections; noting that the intimidation practices and abuses reported have rarely been addressed by the electoral authorities,

E.  whereas, moreover, serious shortcomings in the investigations of the political deaths as well as the supposed protection of suspects by the military have been reported,

F.  whereas these local elections represent an important step towards the consolidation of democracy,

G.  whereas the elections are part of the policy of decentralisation supported by the European Union and adopted by the Cambodian government,

H.  whereas both the 1993 and the 1998 general elections were plagued by violence and allegations of vote-rigging,

I.  whereas election day was peaceful despite allegations of ballot irregularities, which gives a strong base for future elections and is a positive factor for the strengthening of grass-roots democracy in Cambodia,

J.  regretting that the National Election Committee (NEC), which has generally organised the elections well at a technical level, has had a tendency to play an undesirably intrusive role in the conduct of the campaign, notably through decisions such as the initial attempt to prohibit party campaign materials and the cancellation of 15 election broadcasts, limiting the scope of campaign freedoms,

K.  concerned at the lack of fair and balanced media coverage of the election campaign, the situation having worsened as against 1998, as the main TV and radio stations have focused extensively on the government's activities (respectively 75% and 80% of coverage), thus failing to provide voters with adequate information on the election in order to allow a free choice,

L.  having regard to the presence of 20 000 Cambodian and international observers,

M.  whereas for the first time the European Union sent an official delegation to observe the local elections,

N.  whereas despite last year's adoption of the Tribunal Bill, final agreement on the establishment and functioning of the Tribunal has not yet been reached with the UN, as a number of issues concerning the criminal procedure remain unresolved,

1.  Strongly condemns the political killings as well as the numerous cases of political threats and intimidation which have taken place during the pre-election period;

2.  Considers that this climate of instability has affected the organisation of the elections and that certain aspects of the pre-election period fell short of international standards as a result;

3.  Urges the Government to take immediate action to stop the violence and to vigorously investigate and prosecute any persons, including government agents, found to be involved in election-related violence;

4.  Underscores the importance of the EU representatives' mission in the post-electoral framework, in particular as regards the monitoring of ballot-counting, as well as through a relevant contribution to an independent investigation aimed at determining the exact causes of the deaths that occurred during the election process;

5.  Deplores the restrictions that were imposed on the activities of the political opposition throughout the election campaign, which failed to offer parties a free environment or equal opportunities, as well as the banning of access to the broadcast media for all political parties taking part in the elections;

6.  Recalls the commitment made by the Prime Minister in his 10 December 2001 speech marking International Human Rights Day to prevent all forms of violence and intimidation before, during and after the elections;

7.  Notes that the Cambodia People's Party (CPP) has to share power for the first time at local level;

8.  Instructs its interparliamentary delegation to the ASEAN countries and its Committee on Foreign Affairs to monitor the situation and evaluate the final report drawn up by the EU observation mission;

9.  Strongly believes that democracy must be strengthened with the support of the European Union, which is one of the major donors, and the international community;

10.  Deeply regrets that as yet no agreement has been reached with the UN on the establishment and functioning of the Tribunal, thus allowing the culture of impunity in the country to persist;

11.  Urges the Government of Cambodia to finalise as soon as possible the Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations concerning the details of the Tribunal in order to enable the proceedings in the trial of the leaders of Democratic Kampuchea for crimes against humanity and genocide to begin in the near future;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the government of Cambodia, the UN Secretary-General and the governments of the ASEAN member states.

European Parliament resolution on Eritrea

P5_TA(2002)0070 RC-B5-0057/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the statement by the Presidency of the Union expressing concern at the imprisonment of a number of prominent advocates of democratic reform,

–  having regard to the Council statement expressing concern at the authoritarian trend in the country,

A.  whereas, on the country's independence from Ethiopia in 1991, President Issaias began his presidency with encouraging moves, both towards democracy and in his own modest official lifestyle, but he has since ruled the country with an iron grip, allowing no political opposition, with the PFDJ (ruling People's Front for Democracy and Justice) being the only official party recognised by the government,

B.  pointing out that the Eritrean parliament, all the members of which belong to the PFDJ, has decided to prohibit the formation of political parties in the country,

C.  concerned at the infringements of human rights, including the arrest of politicians and journalists,

D.  concerned at the arrest of representatives of the Eritrean opposition, including 11 former members of the government,

E.  having regard to the ban on an independent press and the arrest of several journalists since September 2001,

F.  whereas a constitution with provisions for creating civil liberties was adopted in 1997, but has never been implemented,

G.  deploring that ten years after independence, President Issaias has yet to formalise his position through the normal democratic process of an election, and that the country's first-ever parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2001 have been shelved indefinitely on the grounds of security concerns,

H.  whereas the growing public dissent and criticism of his rule resulted in a government crack-down on students in August 2001 - with two of the detained students dying whilst in detention in the desert - and reached a nadir in September 2001 when the government ordered the arrest of 11 of the 15 senior government and party figures (G15) for their open criticism of his leadership in a widely-publicised letter,

I.  whereas nothing has been heard of the prisoners since their arrest but a report currently being discussed in the National Assembly accuses them of treason, in essence because they made their remarks at a time "when the country should be united in the face of the threat from Ethiopia',

J.  deploring in the strongest possible terms the expulsion of the Italian Ambassador to Eritrea, Mr Antonio Bandini, on 28 September 2001, following an official protest to the Eritrean government lodged by the EU ambassadors over the abovementioned human rights violations, and in particular the arrest of the 11 former members of Eritrea's ruling party, the indefinite closure of the country's independent press, and the arrest of independent journalists,

K.  whereas all Member States withdrew their ambassadors from Asmara following the expulsion of the Italian Ambassador, and the EU expressed, in October 2001, its concerns over recent developments in Eritrea in the light of what it described as "authoritarian developments'; whereas four of the EU envoys (from Germany, Holland, France and Denmark) have meanwhile returned to Asmara, but deploring that this was not coordinated at EU level,

L.  whereas peace on the country's borders and within the country, respect for human rights and the democratic participation of the citizens in political, economic and social life are essential conditions for lasting economic and human development,

M.  whereas the EU is Eritrea's leading development partner and is expected to provide crucial finance to rebuild the country's war-shattered economy,

1.  Condemns the human rights violations in Eritrea, in particular the crack-down on students in August 2001, as well as the arrest of the 11 dissidents and the shutting down of the independent press in September 2001;

2.  Calls for the release of all political prisoners in general and the 11 public figures in particular, known as G15, who wrote an open letter to the President of Eritrea, criticising his authoritarian leadership of the country;

3.  Calls for the ban on an independent press to be lifted;

4.  Deplores the postponement sine-die of the first-ever parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2001, calls for the lifting of the ban on political parties, including the recently formed Eritrean People's Liberation Front Democratic party (EPLF-EP), and calls for a new date for elections to be set as soon as possible, to be conducted under international scrutiny and observation;

5.  Considers that these human rights abuses constitute a flagrant violation of the essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and warrant the immediate opening of consultations pursuant to Article 96 of the same Agreement;

6.  Strongly condemns the expulsion of the Italian Ambassador on 28 September 2001 and demands his immediate reinstatement;

7.  Reaffirms its attachment to fundamental freedoms: freedom of expression, including press freedom, freedom of association, including the formation of political parties, trade unions and civil society organisations, and respect for the principle of independence of the judiciary;

8.  Calls for an inter-Eritrean national conference to be held, bringing together the various political leaders and representatives of civil society, with a view to finding a solution to the current crisis and to setting the country on the path to democracy and sustainable development;

9.  Calls on the Council and the Member States to take a coordinated stance with regard to relations with Eritrea, to monitor closely the political situation in the country and to make the continuation of EU development cooperation conditional upon substantial progress being achieved in the areas of human rights and democratisation, in particular freedom of speech, press and assembly, and the holding of democratic elections;

10.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the Eritrean Government, the African Union, and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

European Parliament resolution on the earthquake in Turkey

P5_TA(2002)0071 RC-B5-0071/2002

The European Parliament,

A.  having regard to the severity of the earthquake, measuring 6 on the Richter scale, which hit western Turkey on 3 February 2002,

B.  whereas this earthquake left several score dead and several hundred injured, and destroyed large numbers of houses, especially in the towns of Bolvadin, Sultandagi et Cay,

C.  whereas Turkey is regularly hit by violent earthquakes,

1.  Expresses its deep sympathy with the relatives of the victims and the persons affected, and shares the grief of the people of Turkey at this new tragedy;

2.  Shares the distress and despair of the population of Turkey, who have suffered another devastating earthquake two and a half years after the terrible earthquake of August 1999;

3.  Welcomes the reactions of the Turkish authorities, the international community and civilian organisations, and calls on the EU's humanitarian agency (ECHO) and the EU Member States to assist urgently in alleviating as far as possible the sufferings of the populations affected;

4.  Calls on the Commission, once the scale of the disaster has been ascertained, to help the Turkish government in its efforts to reconstruct the region;

5.  Calls on the central and local authorities to ensure that the rebuilt housing complies with the safety legislation, especially regarding earthquake protection;

6.  Stresses the need to strengthen the provisions for earthquake surveillance and warning, especially in the most earthquake-prone regions;

7.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the Turkish Government and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

European Parliament resolution on the Commission report: "State of implementation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time ("Working Time Directive')" (COM(2000) 787 – C5&nbhy;0147/2001 – 2001/2073(COS))

P5_TA(2002)0072 A5-0010/2002

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission report (COM(2000) 787 – C5&nbhy;0147/2001),

–  having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities) (A5&nbhy;0010/2002),

A.  whereas the Commission's report gives general information on the way in which Member States have transposed and implemented Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(1),

B.  whereas Directive 93/104/EC has been transposed through state legislative measures (laws, decrees) in some cases and through non-state measures (collective agreements) in others,

C.  whereas the transposition of the directive through collective agreements may in some cases have hampered its practical and widespread implementation, since the Member States did not ensure that the directive was applied to all workers and not only to those in sectors where collective agreements had been signed,

D.  whereas the majority of Member States had not implemented the directive by the final deadline for implementation,

E.  whereas the report does not contain an exhaustive, detailed examination of all national implementation measures,

F.  whereas the number of infringement proceedings brought before the Court of Justice by the Commission has increased,

G.  whereas the directive on the organisation of working time was adopted within the framework of Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(2),

H.  whereas Directive 93/104/EC does not define the term 'worker', but refers back to the framework directive 89/391/EEC, which defines it as any person working for an employer,

I.  whereas the derogations from the provisions of the directive, which are divided into three categories, each with different conditions, are extensive and often expressed in unclear terms,

J.  whereas confusion reigns in some countries with regard to the distinction between the permitted derogations from certain provisions and the total exclusion of certain situations from the directive's scope,

K.  whereas the policy of improving the quality of employment rests first and foremost on compliance with safety rules and health protection measures,

L.  whereas the directive applies to working relationships in both the public and the private sectors,

M.  having regard to the development of modern forms of atypical working relationships and other working patterns,

N.  having regard to the ILO's international labour conventions on working time,

O.  whereas some 'vulnerable' groups of worker, such as working mothers, minors, the disabled, etc. need additional health protection,

P.  whereas the derogations from certain provisions should under no circumstances lead to the deprivation of certain basic rights,

Q.  whereas the flexibility governing the provisions of the directive makes it easier to apply it to distinct particular circumstances, but at the same time creates considerable interpretation difficulties,

R.  whereas Community legislation rightly recognises collective labour agreements as a suitable means of implementing directives, on condition that equal results in application are guaranteed in comparison with legal implementation measures taken by the state, and that there are equal opportunities for legal review of correct application,

S.  whereas the reference to national legislation and practices, which is necessary in order to facilitate the exercise of certain rights, cannot be used as a pretext for failure to implement provisions of the directive; whereas, lastly, the completion of the internal market should lead to an improvement in the living and working conditions of workers in the European Community, a process that will be achieved through progress towards harmonisation of these conditions, and whereas such harmonisation will be secured not through the transposition of rules but through their effective implementation,

1.  Welcomes the fact that new directives cover the areas excluded from the scope of the original directive;

2.  Regrets the fact that some Member States, in order to avoid reporting the measures missing from full transposition of the directive, resort to the tactic of claiming that their existing legislation covers the provisions of the directive;

3.  Regrets the fact that, although the relevant provisions are worded in such a way as to leave room for manoeuvre, and lengthy transitional periods were provided, many Member States have displayed a reluctance to implement the directive in a correct and timely fashion;

4.  Calls for an investigation into why the Member States refuse to comply with certain of the directive's provisions;

5.  Calls on the Commission to examine and report on cases where the directive has supposedly been transposed and effectively applied but which actually make a mockery of the principles of the directive and fail to apply them, because of confusion created by exclusions and exceptions;

6.  Asks the Commission to monitor the effects for the sea fishing and fish processing industries of being covered by different rules and to comment on these effects in its implementation reports;

7.  Expresses its concern that the possibility of transposing the directive by means of collective labour agreements is causing the Member States to be unable to submit a full list of the contents of the collective labour agreements in order to make possible a check on the gaps in transposal of the directive;

8.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States which transpose the directive by means of collective labour agreements see to it that all workers are covered;

9.  Regards the agreement reached by the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers in the European Union (FST) embodied in Directive 1999/63/EC as an example of best practice and asks the Commission and Council to encourage the social partners toward the conclusion of such agreements;

10.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the directive is fully applied in the public sector;

11.  Calls on the Commission to speed up and complete checks on the application of the directive, as well as infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice in cases of incorrect application;

12.  Calls on the Commission to investigate the conditions of application of the directive to new working time patterns such as precarious work, part-time work and fixed-term work;

13.  Calls on the Commission to study the particular characteristics of the work of home workers, whose numbers are rising as teleworking becomes more widespread, in order to make use of the suggestions contained in the ILO's recommendation of 1996, to encourage the social partners in negotiating the directive on teleworking and to regulate the relevant working time issues;

14.  Calls on the Commission to make special checks on the compatibility with the directive of working time regulations governing pregnant women, women in the post-natal period, the disabled, trainees and apprentices, and minors;

15.  Calls on the Commission to closely follow-up the realisation in the Member States of Article 9 as regards pregnant and post-natal workers, implementing a medical follow-up system and enabling women, where required, to transfer to day work for the duration of the pregnancy;

16.  Calls on the Commission to distinguish, in view of the Court of Justice's judgement concerning the meaning of working time and periods of readiness to work, cases of readiness for work, requiring the worker to have alert physical and mental faculties and to be present in the workplace, from the cases, excluded from working time, of simply being on standby;

17.  Calls on the Commission to specify clearly the circumstances which are considered to be derogations from the application of the directive, with the workers' consent (voluntary derogations);

18.  Calls on the Commission to monitor the way in which Member States define the meaning of "managing executives or other persons with autonomous decision-taking powers' (Article 17(1)(a)), while proposing measures (including concepts and definitions) to prevent the directive being applied in such a way as to water down the notion of "managing executives or other persons with autonomous decision-taking powers';

19.  Stresses the need for the Commission to remind the Member States of their obligation to include clear definitions of basic terms, such as maximum working time and night work;

20.  Stresses that the Commission must ensure that separate laws cover overtime night work and that the uncertainty regarding the method of calculating maximum working time is removed, and accordingly that an overall ceiling on permitted work is clearly set out;

21.  Stresses that since the right to paid leave is a fundamental right, it must be guaranteed for all categories of workers, in proportion to the period of employment spent with an employer; special care should be taken to ensure that paid holidays are included in short-term employment contracts;

22.  Stresses that replacing paid leave with compensation is not wholly compatible with the directive;

23.  Calls on the Commission to coordinate the monitoring of the application of the Working Time Directive with the monitoring of compliance with the obligations imposed within the framework of the directive on the health and safety of workers, so that the level of protection of all workers regarding health and safety can be assessed as a whole;

24.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission and the parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18. (2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.