Decision on urgent procedure President. We begin by voting on a request to apply urgent procedure to the proposal for a Council Regulation amending, as regards the exemptions to the freezing of funds and economic resources and for the tenth time, Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda network and the Taliban [COM(2003) 41 - C5-0048/2003 - 2003/0015(CNS)] I would first give the floor to Mr Hernández Mollar, Chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. (ES) Madam President, yesterday, the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, of which I am chairman, did indeed hold an extraordinary meeting to deal with this matter and it was agreed to refuse urgent procedure, and for two basic reasons: firstly, because the urgent procedure is not authorised to be applied on one day for the next; in the meeting, neither the Commission nor the Council presented good enough arguments; and, secondly, because I believe we must demand of the Council that it justify urgent procedure and, also, not to treat Parliament as a mere formality, even though it has to be said that, in this case, the content of the proposal also reflects the opinion of Parliament. In any case, this matter will be dealt with next Monday in our committee's ordinary session. President. If no one else wishes to take the floor, we shall vote on this request for urgent procedure. We shall now proceed to the vote on the request for urgent procedure. (The decision was made not to apply urgent procedure.) President. The next item is a report (A5-0021/2003) by Mrs Malliori, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Council recommendation on the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence [COM(2002) 201 - C5-0270/2002 - 2002/0098(CNS)]. Byrne Madam President, this proposal for a Council recommendation is based on Article 152 of the Treaty, which stipulates that Community action complementing national measures is to cover the fight against the major health scourges. The Treaty cites drugs and drugs-related harm in the following way: 'The Community shall complement the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention.' May I also remind you that one of its main initiatives in the fight against drugs - the EU Drug Strategy 2000-2004 - includes amongst its three main public health targets one to reduce substantially drugs-related health damage and the number of drugs-related deaths. The reported number of deaths related to drug overdose in the European Union is approximately 7 000 per year. Deaths indirectly related to drug use, such as AIDS, traffic accidents, violence or suicide, bring this figure to approximately 20 000 a year. Preventing the use of illegal drugs is a top priority. This can be achieved by reducing both the supply and the demand for drugs. This proposed recommendation particularly covers the demand side and takes over where law enforcement fails to stop the supply of drugs. Clearly, we should try to persuade people not to use illegal drugs in the first place. However, when an individual cannot be stopped from taking drugs, it is of vital importance that every effort is made to decrease the damage to the person involved, as well the indirect damage the user can cause to others. The addicted individual needs to be actively involved in these efforts. This is called risk reduction - or sometimes harm reduction or harm minimisation. This is what the main part of the recommendation is about. The risk reduction methods that feature in the recommendation are well established. They have been used in most or all of the Member States, but to varying degrees. Opiates, such as heroin, are the root cause of most drugs-related deaths. One of the oldest of the risk reduction methods is controlled use of methadone tablets as a substitute for injected heroin. Methadone first appeared in the EU in the late 1960s in response to emerging opiate use. The emergence of HIV in the 1980s led to the introduction of needle- and syringe-exchange programmes. In recent years, the number of acute drugs-related deaths at EU level as a whole has stabilised, in spite of increasing drug use. Many factors may have contributed to this development. Injecting drugs has decreased in some countries and medical treatment of overdoses has improved. However, the risk reduction methods covered by this recommendation are likely to have made a large contribution to this favourable development. Drug services need to be easily accessible, reaching out to the place where the drug user happens to be, not where we want him or her to be. These are termed 'outreach services'. Such services should also be offered without unrealistic demands - sometimes called 'low threshold services'. The aim is to prevent further deterioration in the health and social circumstances of users and motivate them to seek treatment. The more controversial risk reduction methods are not mentioned in the present recommendation, although they are being used in some of the Member States. Methods such as heroin injections under supervision, injection rooms, open-drug scenes and on-the-spot anonymous testing of substances require more research and evaluation before they can be generally recommended. The recommendation emphasises evaluation as a key tool for improving drugs-related measures. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon plays a crucial role in the development of key indicators for monitoring and comparing drug use in the Member States. It also assists in providing guidelines for the evaluation of drugs-related projects and evaluates different programmes and policies. The Commission has received invaluable help from the Lisbon agency in preparing this recommendation, which I see as a positive step for drug users as well as public health in general. Malliori (PSE) Madam President, Commissioner, unfortunately, drug abuse is one of today's major social problems, meaning that the measures and policies applied so far have been inadequate. Drug use is increasing along with the other problems facing modern society. The 2002 annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction shows that the level of drug use is fairly stable, with 2 to 9 users per 1 000 population in the 15 to 64 age group, 500 000 to 1 000 000 of whom are drug injectors, that is, heroin addicts. That is why, even though the primary objective when dealing with this problem is still and always will be prevention, I think this is a very important initiative and I congratulate you, Commissioner, on your proposal on the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence. I make no bones about the fact that I would have preferred this particular proposal to have been a legislative proposal because it is common European policy or at least a legislative approach that makes our policies effective. Nonetheless, I think that the proposed recommendation is an important step towards protecting both public health and the personal health of users and that we are sending out the right political message; that addicts are patients in need of medical and social care, not just offenders, as most societies today believe. Our proposed amendments mainly specify the action needed at local level if we are to achieve maximum possible results in this difficult and sensitive sector. Raising public awareness in order to gain acceptance of various forms of treatment and other user protection programmes is vital if we are to be able to implement the proposed recommendation. In other words, when we talk of measures to reduce the harm done by drug use, the main objective is still to cure the user. However, as we know, a large number of drug addicts do not sign up for treatment programmes, and it is basically this group that has the most problems. We can only stop dangerous diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS and tuberculosis from spreading if we educate this group on the health risks. This should also encourage users to be more careful when taking drugs and adopt a healthier lifestyle. It is also vital to include measures targeting high-risk environments, such as prisons. The proportion of inmates in the EU reporting having used drugs varies according to prisons and countries from between 29 and 86%. Prisoners are highly exposed to illnesses through the use of common syringes and needles and sexual contact. Inevitably, the prison staff also face an immediate danger and a number of amendments have been proposed in order to reflect this. As you know, Commissioner, the drug debate has been a topical debate for quite some time now and always gives rise to a great many, usually conflicting views. Nonetheless, and my thanks here to all my colleagues, especially the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation, we have managed to table a relatively well-endorsed proposal in plenary today, despite the 103 original amendments. I think that, if the Member States implement just some of the proposed measures, both users and their families and European citizens will feel that we are determined to do something about this complex and difficult problem. Bowis (PPE-DE). Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her report and the Commissioner for bringing forward this proposal. I think the Commissioner is right at this stage that it should be a recommendation. There are different cultures in different Member States and we need to respect that, and so recommendations on good practice are probably the way forward at this stage. I should also like to point out to him and to you, Madam President, that he needs to go through the text of his communication to make absolutely certain there is nothing in it which will frighten people into thinking that this recommendation is in any way promoting drug use. There is no safe drug abuse, it is a question of how we reduce and prevent the harm that arises from such abuse. In my country we have 3 million people on illegal drugs, 28% of them are 16-29 year olds, 14% of them are 14-15 year olds. We have 12 000 new notified addicts, 70 000 drug offences and 1 200 drug related deaths per year. If you look at the European figures from the MCDDA, offences in the EU have doubled since 1991 and quadrupled in some countries such as France, Greece and Spain. Acute drug related deaths have doubled since 1985. There are those who use the same arguments as we sometimes hear on AIDS, saying that we can forget about those people who are infected, but should protect and save the rest. However, we must not abandon people who are hooked. Many of them, as those figures show, are children. We are losing the battle but we must not give up the fight. Our aims must be to target the growers and manufacturers, the traders and pushers, and to educate, deter and prevent, but also to reduce the harm to those addicted and to those with whom they come into contact. This recommendation does exactly that. No Member State is forced to do anything. This sits alongside measures on prevention. To my colleague Mr Santini I would say that if his amendments 60, 61, 63 and 64 were in addition to the proposals in this report then I would be happy to accept them. It is only if they replace the proposals that I am less happy. This is not the occasion for a debate on legalisation and I know there are some amendments on that. That is why I would reject the legalisation and decriminalisation arguments on this occasion. The report does not replace harm reduction with other measures, least of all 'JUST SAY NO', which does not work. I know that from having been Minister responsible for drug addiction in my own country. You have to tell young people in particular the truth. They have to know the upside as well as the downside. We had the case of Leah Betts, a young girl who died taking ecstasy, an amphetamine. Afterwards, her parents very bravely allowed a video of her body to be shown, so that young people would understand the effect of taking ecstasy. They also joined us in making sure that we issued guidance to night clubs on how to avoid this catastrophe affecting other people. It is a question of water provision and 'chill-out rooms' and so on, and not a question of 'shooting rooms', which is a completely different matter. There are so many young people who need and deserve our support. There are needle exchanges, which protect not just the addicts, but also the people with whom they are in contact. Prison health needs to be looked at and we need to stop the abuse of drugs in prison, but we also need to ensure there is harm reduction and that we do not incorporate perverse incentives to further drug taking. I welcome this report. The whole subject needs to be treated with care, and I know the Commissioner will ensure that this is the case as we move forward to take on good practice throughout the European Union. President. I give the floor to Mrs Sandberg-Fries, whom I would take the opportunity to welcome back to the European Parliament. Sandberg-Fries (PSE). Madam President, this report concerns the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence. From the beginning, we Swedish Social Democrats have held the view that the recommendation focuses to an unduly high degree upon harm reduction. Our point of departure is that the most important measure for reducing harm is that of preventing dependence itself. That does not mean that we deny the need for efforts to reduce harm. Such efforts must, however, form part of a coherent strategy aimed at bringing about lasting change and lives not dependent upon illegal and other drugs. On this point, the committee has complied with quite a few of the proposals we have tabled. It is therefore very odd that the same committee in the same report should also have accepted a number of amendments in quite the opposite vein. I mean the proposals concerning so-called chill-out rooms, drug classification, special injecting rooms and positive information about drugs. These are proposals that we cannot under any circumstances support. Such measures would imply social acceptance of drug abuse. Nor, obviously, do we accept proposals that are basically contrary to the UN Convention on Drugs. The fact that a drugs policy based upon the three components consisting of prevention, treatment and control really can be successful is, I think, confirmed by the latest major survey carried out in Swedish schools. This survey shows that 92 out of every 100 pupils in Swedish schools have not even tried drugs. This is a result that, in an international context, is extremely encouraging. Ries (ELDR). Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am keen to do again what I did in committee, that is, to express my support for our rapporteur Mrs Malliori on this subject, which is, to say the least, a controversial subject that evokes passion. The approach deliberately chosen by the committee and by our rapporteur, that of focussing on providing, on a local scale, step-by-step programmes targeting persons addicted to hard drugs, seems to us to be the right one, the one most likely to yield tangible results at grass-roots level and to reverse the current, rather disturbing, tendency. Drug-related deaths are on the up, and that seems to be the case in most of the Member States. For all these reasons, the Liberal Group welcomes the amendments that add value to this recommendation in terms of public health. Our governments must indeed give priority to high-risk environments. Streets, the penal system, nightclubs, raves, are all places where hard drugs circulate freely and without regard to the minimum standards of health and safety. We must of course prioritise action programmes on the street, in prisons and also in places of nocturnal entertainment where the simultaneous consumption of more than one drug is prevalent. As regards this latter practice of using drugs and alcohol at the same time, which is cutting swathes through young people in particular - and they are getting ever younger - it is imperative that, in parallel with one another, schemes for prevention, information, analysis of chemical substances and providing a rapid response in the event of illness or withdrawal, should be operated and made widely available. The 8000 citizens who are dying every year in the European Union, from overdoses, from adulterated products, or as a result of shared needles, deserve a full-frontal approach to risk reduction on the part of the European Union. Let me say now that I regret the fact that we have not, in this report, completely succeeded in focussing our attention on this specifically health-related aspect, at the risk of watering down our message and reverting to an ethical and generalised debate, which would again be futile and would attempt to set up prevention and suppression in opposition to each other. I wish to say that I go along with Mr Bowis' arguments and that I am unable to accept those put forward by Mrs Sandberg-Fries. My conclusion, Madam President, is that we need to set ourselves realistic targets if we are to be able to say, tomorrow at least, that the EU's new action plan on drugs has been a success. González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). Madam President, I should like firstly to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Malliori, who, as do other rapporteurs in the case of all the reports we prepare, relies on the opinions of the other groups with a view to obtaining a final outcome that we can all accept. It seems that, in this case, there are some differences of opinion, but I believe that it will be possible for the report to be approved by a majority of this Parliament. The report and the Commission communication refer to the prevention and reduction of risks. Every Member will express his or her opinion in this Chamber on how risks are to be prevented and reduced. Mrs Malliori's report clearly refers to reducing supply and demand, to integrated policies, to the exchange of good practice and to a concern for social re-integration. These are the bases of the report. To achieve these aims, a variety of methods, including prevention programmes, are required, as are assessments of various methods of treatment and rehabilitation, taking into account the work of former drug addicts, their families and the communities that work with them. In my own region of Asturias, the organisation 'Proyecto Hombre' operates in this way and obtains results that I can see every day, encouraging local communities to set up, on the one hand, mobile units able to provide information, advice, assistance and first aid in the event of overdoses and, on the other hand - and, in this connection, I do not understand some of the amendments tabled - mobile units to dispense condoms, needles and syringes, something that has been proven to reduce AIDS infection and other illnesses. Furthermore, it is necessary to support the innovative proposals reflecting experiments carried out with, as one approved amendment states, some success by a number of Member States with a view to preventing deaths and reducing risks. I know that, on this subject, there are differences, including in my own group, where my Swedish fellow MEPs do not share this position of mine. In this case, I agreed with an amendment by Mr Davies - defeated in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy - that proposed authorising and evaluating the professional prescription of heroin to addicts so that they might escape the clutches of dealers. In my own country - and I heard the Commissioner say that he is now ready to approve this option - a pilot programme is to be carried out in one autonomous region, specifically Andalusia, involving chronically ill people who have completed re-integration programmes and entailing controlled doses of heroine being administered professionally only to those drug addicts who have shown that they are unable to give up the drug. An assessment will be carried out in due course. One hundred and thirty people chronically addicted to the drug have been selected to see if the programme produces results. I, for my part, Commissioner, think that this programme is very worthwhile because it may help us all in the future. I shall conclude by pointing out that the report also deals with the situation in prisons. Depending upon the particular country, the situation in prisons is very serious, and there are a very great many prisoners infected with a variety of illnesses, precisely because they have taken drugs and used infected needles and syringes. Buitenweg (Verts/ALE). Madam President, a report like this, on how to deal with drug abuse, will always be controversial in this House. This is because it touches on our inability to control reality, and that is difficult for us as politicians. I therefore think that it is courageous and commendable that the rapporteur has managed to keep both feet on the ground. She says in her explanation, and I quote: 'In an ideal world there would be no drug abuse. In the real world, drugs have always been a fact of life.' and that is the way things are. Zero tolerance or simpler still, closing your eyes, is not a solution. The question to our politicians is therefore how can we bring about an improvement to a reality that we do not like. One such possibility is described in Amendment No 24, which encourages Member States to facilitate the testing of synthetic drugs. These are drugs that are mainly used by young people at discos, concerts and parties. A lot of young people use them, perhaps even our sons and daughters, but many of these drugs are not innocent - certainly not if they have been tampered with to increase the profit margin even further. I am in fact talking about ecstasy, the consequences of which have also just been set out by Mr Bowis. It often results in fatal accidents. Testing can reduce the health risks. It puts social workers in touch with users, and it also helps assess the dangerous substances that are available on the market. Testing can take place in testing centres throughout the country or in situ at parties or concerts. You will of course have to be careful and make sure that the approval of a pill cannot be interpreted as a statement that it is a good idea to use it, because of course it is not. Advice, the provision of information and prevention naturally remain key, but I nevertheless think that it is also extremely important for the government to try to make nightlife a little safer. The use of these pills by young people is a fact, and I think that it is important for us to prevent fatal accidents from happening in our children's nightlife. Blokland (EDD). Madam President, given the seriousness of the drugs problem I find it incomprehensible that Mr Byrne and the Malliori report are recommending a 'beating your head against a brick wall' policy in this way. Parliament's resolution on the Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000-2004) clearly indicated at the time that drug abuse results in biological, psychological and social problems, disease, problems with families and at work, committing offences, traffic accidents, and so on. Drug abuse is also a threat to young people. For these reasons, in 1999 the same resolution called for everything to be done to give priority to protecting children under the age of 18 and to reduce the number of drug-related deaths. It is well known that there are differences between different kinds of drugs. The most serious drug problems affect intravenous drugs users, of whom there are, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, between 500 000 and one million in the European Union. Intravenous drug use inevitably results in social exclusion, as it soon excludes the essential elements of normal life - work, family, personal relationships and a permanent home. That is not to say, however, that there is nothing wrong with other drugs. It was wrongly stated in the discussions that so-called soft drugs are harmless. It is partly on account of this belief that the use of cannabis has increased enormously. It has furthermore been scientifically proven that there is a relationship between the use of these drugs and mental health. For example, the chance of developing schizophrenia is 30% to 50% higher for cannabis users. I am quoting the British Medical Journal of 23 November 2002. What is more, the policy of tolerance of soft drugs - as in the Netherlands - has resulted in an increase in use, particularly among young people. In practice the switch to hard drugs has also been shown to be much easier; after all, the use of drugs is already accepted. The recommendation before us is about the health risks associated with drug addiction. The European Commission mainly places the emphasis on limiting the risks instead of prevention. The rapporteur is arguing for additional measures, particularly for the care of drug users at local level, for example by helping drug users achieve a healthier life. The rapporteur cites the provision of a number of elementary health services such as clean hypodermic syringes and blood tests. This may perhaps go a little way towards achieving better hygiene, but does not contribute to solving the problems. I am firmly convinced that kicking the habit is the best way of achieving a healthier life. The policy of harm reduction does not work, as it has been shown that the overload caused by users increases again after a while and the provision of free methadone seems only to result in additional addiction. The negative effect of a liberal drugs policy has the effect of drawing people into certain other areas. Crime, decay and the lack of safety in certain parts of towns and cities have taken on serious proportions. To dismiss these arguments with the argument that this recommendation is only about the effects on health is misplaced. The effects on health can best be reduced by means of a restrictive policy. In addition, I am also in favour of proper help for addicts. It does depend on how this is done, however. We do not help drug addicts by only treating symptoms. If we want to get drug addicts out of the downward spiral, kicking the habit - either voluntarily or otherwise - is the best option. In the Netherlands there are fortunately examples of so-called hopeless cases who, with the right motivation, have been helped to achieve a drug-free existence. This approach does most to benefit health. I cannot accept Mr Bowis' suggestion for Amendments Nos 60, 61 and 64 to be regarded as additional ones. Thomas-Mauro (NI). Madam President, Commissioner, it is a matter of concern that the use of drugs is everywhere being treated as unimportant and commonplace. This phenomenon goes hand in hand with the social acceptance of the marketing of them for recreational purposes, sometimes on a daily basis. Drugs are not, though, an accident of fate to which one must resign oneself. They involve serious risk of infection and lead to people being socially excluded in a very real sense. You have to call a spade a spade. This report speaks of risks, for the danger is indeed there. Let me say that I am astonished that the report does not retain the amendment I had tabled in committee with the aim of avoiding the pitfall of trivialising drug use. How do you combat evil if you start from the premise that it is inevitable or even necessary? To do so demonstrates a sad detachment from reality. The risk will be no less if we sink into politically correct indifference. Drug addiction is not tolerable. It is a scourge that must be fought against. There are no soft drugs. There certainly needs to be information, but the trivialisation of drug use is a snare and must be combated. As for a policy of risk-reduction, it could not do other than appear like fatalistic acceptance of the dangers. This not about marginalising drug users still further, nor about scuppering risk reduction schemes, but about demonstrating at last the will to undertake preventive measures, which must have a simultaneous effect on both supply and demand and on our sense of social responsibility. The refusal to trivialise drug use means taking up our responsibilities, both as regards our young people, who are most affected by this, and also with respect to social cohesion, which must always unite us all. Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE). Madam President, Commissioner, I am one of those who take the view that, where the global repercussions of drug addiction for public health, crime and insecurity are concerned, it would be preferable, wherever possible, to develop European approaches. I therefore welcome this proposal for a recommendation and the excellent report by Mrs Malliori. Our policy for combating drug addiction has proved to be a failure: the prohibitionist approach has given trafficking oxygen, allowing it to thrive and to make ever-greater profits, boosting both organised and petty crime, corrupting regimes and humiliating us for being powerless to do anything about it. Furthermore, the deterioration of drug addicts' health is of concern, but also the health risks arising from infection such as HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, as well as the increasing number of deaths from overdoses and poisoning. Faced with such problems, it is impossible to be absolutely sure of what approach to take. We must, however, move in a new direction. Although I believe that the debate must continue calmly in the United Nations on the impact on public health and crime of the possible decriminalisation of some drugs, I do not think that this should be our priority. Our priority should be, firstly, to draw up rational prevention policies based on scientific knowledge of each drug and not on an emotional response and on the radical approach which, by treating all drugs equally, ultimately removes the credibility of preventive action. Our second priority is to develop a risk-reduction policy. For those infected for whom free drug treatments have not achieved positive results, methadone substitution programmes must be pursued. It is also important that experiments involving administering heroin under medical supervision to patients with a long history of failure to respond to treatment and chronic illnesses are pursued and implemented in other States. We must also be able to undertake an evaluation of these results. Many of these experiments have shown positive results in reducing crime, the number of overdoses by poisoning and the number of those infected with HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Corbey (PSE). Madam President, drug addiction is a complicated problem with significant social consequences for the user and for his or her environment, with risks to health and ongoing crime. There are, however, not only social consequences, but also social causes. Our rapporteur, Minerva Malliori, deserves our firm support for her approach. A tailor-made approach; as drug users are not all the same, the prevention of drug use and drug addiction must be based on respect for the drug user. There has been a great deal of disagreement over the years about the approach to the drugs problem, all of which involve firm stances. The Commission has opted for a policy of risk reduction or damage limitation. Rightly so, as risk reduction can limit the impact on health. A policy of monitoring substances and clean hypodermic syringes can save lives. Naturally risk reduction must not lead to complacency, however. We cannot relax about the addiction problem. Conversely, the policy of damage limitation is precisely what makes a convincing approach to drugs crime possible. There thus does not need to be a huge contrast between the policy of damage limitation and the policy of drug prevention. We should be receptive to the benefits of each approach. Mrs Malliori's local approach can achieve a great deal, and the establishment of mobile low threshold help services is a good idea. We do not, however, have to strive towards a uniform approach, although we must be willing to learn from one another. We must compare the approaches to see which is effective in countering addiction. This report is a good opportunity for us to familiarise ourselves with the approach in various countries. I warmly invite my fellow Members to come and see how it is done in the Netherlands. My thanks and appreciation to Mrs Malliori again. Davies (ELDR). Madam President, hundreds of thousands of people die each year from the use of perfectly legal drugs. Yet we subsidise the growing of tobacco plants while we cut down cannabis plants. It is all complete nonsense. The truth is that prohibition lies at the very heart of many of our problems. Prohibition creates huge profits for criminals, who seek to extend their market. Prohibition fosters corruption and theft. Prohibition denies drug users the information about content that is available to everyone who enjoys an alcohol drink in the evening. If health messages are to work and society is to be protected we must replace prohibition with government regulation. The criminals must be denied their profits if we are to bring these problems under control. This paper is an excellent step forward. It ignores the moral outrage which has been expressed so often in the past. It concentrates on pragmatic and sensible steps to inform people and reduce harm. It is in complete contrast to the Swedish approach, which I find utterly appalling. As Mr Bowis said, just saying 'no' does not work - it certainly does not work in most of the societies in which we live. The idea that we should try and prevent needle exchanges, for example, will simply mean more deaths, more blood poisoning, more AIDS. It is a vicious and cruel approach. Dell'Alba (NI). Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Italian Radicals do not support this report either. At a time such as this when we have an opportunity to discuss drugs, the Malliori report does not provide Parliament, particularly in the light of the disastrous effects of 40 years of prohibitionist policies and insubstantial endeavours - 'lightweight' measures - which have failed miserably to control the spread of illegal drugs and, on the contrary, even exacerbated the social effects and effects on people's lives and health - does not provide the European Parliament - with the opportunity to state some very simple truths: that prohibitionism has failed and that we therefore need to take steps, even one step at a time, to separate the markets, for example, to prevent the black market attracting consumers of hashish or marijuana, which are not drugs, and inducing them to approach the markets of other drugs. We need to look carefully at the experiments with public injection rooms, at the experiments carried out in Switzerland and other European countries, to find a different path from that of the current policy which has led the European countries, and all the countries striving in vain to combat drugs, to continue with their prohibitionist policies. This is why, together with other Members and the International Antiprohibitionist League, we have launched a large-scale campaign condemning the UN Conventions. This is our position and we will therefore vote against the Malliori report, for it contains nothing new and just stresses the severity of the problems without proposing any solution, in some cases even changing the approach for the worse. Santini (PPE-DE). Madam President, when we talk about drugs, we clearly mean out-and-out war. We cannot just be content with a few short battles. The battles we are talking about today are preventing and reducing the damage but, clearly, all these measures are, in any case, dependent upon the success of other measures such as combating drug trafficking and consumption. It must be pointed out that we need to start by addressing a human condition, the condition of drug addicts. We need to change our approach: drug addicts must be treated as people who are ill rather than criminals, and so we need to take lines which are consistent with this view and, therefore, employ treatments which bring about the recovery of drug addicts rather than social exclusion. That is why, out of the two kinds of treatment still being debated, many of us still prefer the more human approach of rehabilitation communities, therapeutic communities, to the administration of chemical substances which are alternatives to or substitutes for drugs. We do not endorse the use of substances such as methadone, except in extreme clinical cases. In addition to medical and pharmaceutical care, we need to provide drug addicts with psychological help too. First and foremost, we need to step up the fight against the network of traffickers who continue, I regret to say, to be on the scene. Turning briefly to methadone, I would say that it is a substitution substance which does not resolve the problem of drug dependence and, worst of all, does not bring about the recovery of the drug addict: it is a bit like drugging up someone who is ill and administering pain killers without ever giving them an operation. Mr Blokland and other Members have also mentioned the unsuccessful results of attempts at liberalisation and legalisation in this field: these kinds of approach must be abandoned. That is why, therefore, I too have taken the liberty of tabling some amendments, which Mr Bowis is kindly going to illustrate during the vote, presenting them to our rapporteur not as replacing but as supplementing the contents of the report. They are amendments which relate, above all, to prevention. Amendment No 60 proposes some ideas for freeing addicts from their dependence, striking at the root of the evil. Amendment No 61 relates to treatments which are not based on drugs but which include a great deal of psychological help for the ill drug addict. Amendment No 62 recommends great caution in providing access to needles, condoms and syringes. Amendments Nos 63 and 64 are on the subject of preventive and preparatory measures, first and foremost, for the people responsible for implementing these measures. Lastly, the other amendments propose measures to combat drugs in prisons, to encourage data collection on prevention and, once again, to discourage substitution treatment, which not only fails to reduce damage and consumption but increases, boosts, the black market. Schmidt, Olle (ELDR). Madam President, I am deeply concerned, Commissioner. Listening to our fellow MEP, Mr Davies is extremely depressing. More and more young people in Europe are ending up in the type of squalor brought about by drugs. The trend is in the wrong direction. Mr Davies thinks so too, but more and more EU countries appear to have given up. In this Chamber too, voices in favour of legalising and liberalising drugs and classifying them as dangerous and less dangerous are being heard more and more often. Here in Parliament, there is a desire to tear up the UN conventions on drugs. These are what we have to hold onto, Commissioner. I am afraid that European drugs policy is on the decline. The overall tenor of Mrs Malliori's report is, unfortunately, along those lines, even though certain parts of it are constructive, for example the demand for drugs-free prisons. That being said, it is quite unreasonable to begin talking about the 'upside' of drugs and about chill-out rooms and injecting rooms. Drug policy must free addicts from dependence, not sanitise dependence. The only way to achieve that goal is through a combination of bans, care, preventive work and international cooperation. The objective, which has to remain in place, must be a drugs-free society. We Swedish Liberals will vote against the report because it lacks this overall combination. Frank Vanhecke (NI). Madam President, I would like to use the mere seconds I have been given to speak in to firstly point out to my fellow Members that the government in my own country, Flanders, in Belgium, has, over the past few years and in the most outrageous way, been neglecting the drugs problem and trivialising drug use. In my country the use of so-called soft drugs has been de facto legalised, and this has also been advertised to young people in television programmes with ministers in office acting as if they were smoking dope. At this moment nobody in my country knows what is actually legally permitted and what is not legally or socially permitted, with all the extremely serious consequences this entails. Young people and children in my country currently do not know where they stand. What we ought to be sending out today is a signal from a Europe that is engaging in the fight against drugs in a serious and consistent way - by means of prevention, certainly, by supporting addicts and their families, certainly, but also if necessary by means of compulsory detoxification programmes for addicts and by means of the toughest possible penalties for drug dealers. I regret the fact that the present recommendations do not contain these two necessary components, and so I am unfortunately not able approve the report. Väyrynen (ELDR). Madam President, Mrs Malliori's report is mainly acceptable in itself. The main basis of the report is health grounds, but its general tone could be interpreted as permissive with respect to drugs. For that reason I would stress that we must tackle the drugs problem strictly and that in the EU we must achieve minimum norms in legislation as well as in the penalties we impose. The credibility of our fight against drugs is weakened by the fact that in the Member States the use of those other intoxicants, alcoholic drinks, is viewed permissively or even idealised. It does Mrs Malliori's report credit that it should mention that problems with alcohol are on a par with drug problems. This is the way we should be going. The EU must agree to raise taxes on alcohol, hence reducing consumption and the harm it does. Social welfare and healthcare costs will then come down, so allowing us to cut other forms of taxation. The Member States must also be able to maintain a protection from imports system that would make possible a national, health-promoting policy on alcohol. Ebner (PPE-DE). Madam President, initially we denied that the problem existed. Then gradually we moved from denying that the problem existed to playing down its importance; it varied depending on the country and the society concerned. I think that this report now presents us with a more holistic approach. I find the report positive overall, although it could certainly be improved. The analysis is very comprehensive and good. If we consider the five different levels - production, transport, marketing, consumption and consequences - we realise that as a society and as a legislator we are going to have to intervene in various different areas and sectors. Where production is concerned, I think that we need to intervene much more decisively through development aid, which is a different field, but one that is entirely relevant here. Because if we are not in a position to share of our own free will now, then we will certainly have to do so in the future. As regards transport, marketing and the criminality associated with them are concerned, I think that this is where more effort needs to be made, and it is essential that this go hand in hand with tightening up the relevant measures on prevention and care. Although this is not directly our responsibility, I do believe - indeed I am convinced - that this issue needs to be raised. Consumption is generally presented as an individual problem. But it is not just an individual problem; it is an issue not only for the individual, the family and their immediate circle, but also for the local community and society at large. The consequences, as it states in detail in the analysis contained in the report, are also a public health problem. It is then an issue for the whole of society and I believe that this phenomenon - which after being played down is now once again entering a new phase in which a holistic approach is being adopted - can only be tackled through dialogue and with the help and willingness of the entire community - the local community in particular - to provide care. I hope that society's attitude gradually changes in this regard and that people become more willing to show greater commitment here, because that is what is required if we are to be successful in combating this scourge. Byrne . Madam President, I very much appreciate Mrs Malliori's report and in particular the many wise remarks in her explanatory statement, which demonstrate a profound knowledge in this field and a positive attitude. Let me first make it clear that prevention will always be our priority. The scope of the recommendation is, however, focused on risk reduction. This is not an alternative, but an important other element in the fight against drugs. Most of the suggested amendments strengthen the recommendation. I am pleased to say that the Commission agrees with 41 out of the 66 proposed amendments. A number of those amendments overlap and redrafting may be necessary for other reasons. Those involving financial commitments should be dealt with according to normal procedures. I particularly welcome Amendments 12 and 24 suggesting the addition of risk reduction methods related to the use of new synthetic drugs such as ecstasy. Strictly speaking, this might be regarded as on the periphery of the scope of this recommendation, as most users of these drugs are not actually addicted. But the use of these drugs is on the increase. Some users show a compulsive use pattern and they are frequently part of a network where drug use is very common. As I have said, many of the suggested amendments can be supported, but time does not allow me to mention all of them. There are 25 amendments that I cannot support, not necessarily because I disagree with the thrust of their content, but because they clearly fall outside the scope of this recommendation. I have arranged for a list to be handed over to Parliament's secretariat for inclusion in the Minutes of this debate for greater clarity and precision. President. - Thank you, Commissioner Byrne. The debate is closed. The vote will take place today at midday. President. The next item is a report by Mrs Stihler (A5-0008/2003), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the communication from the Commission on community and national measures in relation to breast implants [COM(2001) 666 - C5-0327/2002 - 2002/2171(COS)]. Stihler (PSE) , rapporteur. Madam President, I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. Throughout this process there has been a lot of consensus and, for a change, most colleagues agree that action needs to be taken. That is why I accept all three amendments which have been tabled to this report. How did we get to this stage? Over eight years ago a woman called Margot Cameron attended a surgery held by my colleague, Mr Miller. She said that nobody would listen to her. Her story so inspired my colleague that a petition was lodged with the European Parliament which showed that Margot was not alone. There are many Margots in the UK and across the EU with similar stories concerning problems with silicone. The petition has led to the Commission reclassifying breast implants as a Class III product under the Medical Devices Directive 93/42/EEC. Member States are to adopt and publish laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive no later than 1 August 2003. If I am not mistaken, this is the first time that such a petition has led to direct action by the Commission. I hope that more and more EU citizens will find solutions to their problems through this route. However, much as Parliament welcomes the Commission's actions, we would like to take this matter still further. As more women choose to have implants - whether for purely cosmetic reasons, reconstruction after breast cancer or breast deformities - we must ensure that people make informed choices and we must put patient safety first. My report aims to answer both the legitimate concerns of thousands of women and the need to put patient safety first. Therefore, the report recommends Member States to take measures to increase and improve information for patients through tracking and surveillance, quality control and assurance. In this perspective, I particularly want to emphasise three main points. Firstly, the need for responsible advertising. This includes all forms of direct advertising, such as in magazines and the use of
{'language': 'en'}