Debates of the European Parliament - EN

THURSDAY, 13 MARCH 2008

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRASVice-President

1. Opening of the sitting

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

Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, yesterday afternoon, in an unscheduled announcement in this Chamber,the President made a show of imposing financial sanctions on a number of Members because of the protestin December. What I want to know is: was it in order for the President to make that announcement withoutdoing those Members the basic courtesy of telling them that such an announcement would be made andwhen it would be made? The President talked much about showing courtesy to Members in this House, sowhy, I ask, were those of us affected by his announcement not done the basic courtesy of being told that hewould make such an announcement? Is it too much to expect an answer to that?

President. − Mr Allister, it is not the duty of the Presidency to judge on courtesy. Our duty is to apply therules, and you can be absolutely sure that the rules have been fully respected.

Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, with reference among others to Rule 146 of the Rules ofProcedure, you just said that it is your duty to apply the Rules. I cannot understand why sittings keep startinglate, sometimes by several minutes or even a quarter of an hour. That wastes a lot of taxpayers’ money. Youare very strict about observing the Rules vis à vis political opponents, who simply want a referendum orfairness and democracy, but not when it comes to yourself!

If you treated everybody equally in this House, then you would long since have had to initiate proceedingsagainst the Presidency for countless incidents of serious fraud, because that is precisely what I would call itwhen sittings keep starting late, with the resulting waste of taxpayers’ money.

Two different yardsticks are being applied here and you must accept the reproach that this is a Parliamentthat acts arbitrarily, that deliberately sidelines political opponents on the grounds of technicalities whileconstantly tolerating what happens on its own side and even covering up serious fraud!

President. − Thank you very much, Mr Martin, for your interesting views.

2. The challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the new Member States(debate)

President. − The first item is the report by Danutė Budreikaitė, on behalf of the Committee on Development,on the Challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the New Member States (2007/2140(INI))(A6-0036/2008).

Danutė Budreikaitė, rapporteur. – (LT) Since the enlargement rounds of 2004 and 2007, the EuropeanUnion has seen the accession of 12 countries, 10 of which have special experience. They have moved froma planned economy to a market economy and from authoritarian control to democracy.

Prior to accession, these countries were recipients of aid, but now they have become donors of developmentcooperation aid. Most of them had no previous experience of pursuing EU cooperation policy. By signingthe Treaty of Accession they have committed themselves to implementing this policy.

Moreover, in 2004 the Commission produced several documents emphasising the European NeighbourhoodPolicy that were directly connected with the new Member States’ official development assistance. After threeyears of membership it is important to examine the progress of the new donor countries in meeting thechallenges of development cooperation.

I would like to point out that the report covers only the 10 Member States that share land borders withEastern neighbours and benefit from the Neighbourhood Policy. These 10 countries have always had long-termtrade, economic and cultural relations with their neighbours and shared a common history as well as theaspiration to achieve the objectives of development and consolidation of democracy and to increase security

1Debates of the European ParliamentEN13-03-2008

in Eastern and Central Europe. The results of a special study show that most of the new Member States usuallyallocate official development aid to their neighbours – the countries of the Western Balkans and theCommonwealth of Independent States.

Moreover, relations between the EU and its Eastern neighbours remain the least developed, and the newMember States, having relative advantage over the old Member States, can have a beneficial influence on thegeographical position and nature of development aid policy. The new Member States can also share theirrecent experience of the transition to a market economy and implementation of good governance, democraticprinciples and human rights.

Meanwhile, the new EU Member States are devoting relatively little attention to the ACP countries. Aid tothese countries is mostly of a socio-economic nature: new projects are being developed in the education andhealth sector; efforts are being made to encourage the development of the public sector and civil society andthe principles of gender equality.

Documents defining development cooperation policy give no directions on which countries should receivethe aid. In view of the limited financial and human resources available to the new Member States, it wouldbe best for them to concentrate their aid on a specific number of countries, offering assistance in the areasin which they have most experience, in both neighbouring and ACP countries.

With regard to the problems encountered by the new Member States in pursuing development aid policy, Iwould like to point out that:

1) The majority of the new Member States still have not defined their key priorities.

2) There is practically no strategic planning or control mechanism in the sphere of development cooperationpolicy.

3) The level of communication between the bodies implementing development aid policy and NGOs isinsufficient.

4) The level of public initiative is too low, and there is a general lack of information on developmentcooperation available to the public throughout the EU.

In order to achieve greater success in the implementation of development cooperation policy, all countriesinvolved should share their positive experience, taking account of the experience of the new Member Statesin the East. The new Member States should take part in the preparation of plans for neighbourhood policyimplementation activities, ensure a higher degree of participation by national parliaments and increase theactivity of NGOs.

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasise that the last two EU enlargement rounds have created a new outlooktowards development cooperation policy and its inextricable link to the European Neighbourhood Policy,the latter being the direct result of enlargement. Both development cooperation policy and neighbourhoodpolicy are integral components of political and economic relations with other countries.

The institutionalisation of development cooperation policy in the EU would be of great importance for theimplementation of the objectives mentioned. It would also enhance the efficiency of the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy alongside that of official development aid and would favourably influence theachievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

To achieve this we should create an assembly of EU and neighbouring countries, which would cover theEastern dimension and help to implement the development cooperation and neighbourhood policies. Iwould like to call on Parliament for its support in this regard.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to beginby congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Budreikaitė, for this excellent report detailing the challenge thatdevelopment policy poses for the new Member States.

I was reminded by your report of all the discussion and concern expressed in the run-up to enlargement,both among the public generally and in the political world; I recalled the suspicions and fears voiced invarious quarters that enlargement would dilute our solidarity with the developing world, pushing Africadown the European Union’s order of priorities. In the event the fears were groundless. The predictions andanxieties were shown to have been unjustified. European development policy has never been as ambitiousin its aims or as cohesive in its methods as it is today, and Africa has never ranked higher on the Union’s

13-03-2008Debates of the European ParliamentEN2

foreign policy agenda. Your report confirms that this has been achieved not in spite of engagement but byvirtue of it, and by virtue of the new Member States’ willingness to shoulder the full weight of theirresponsibilities.

Let us look first at the question of financing. Of course the new Member States still have some way to go tomeet the targets for 2010; of course it is essential that more countries should produce multiannual plans forstepping up their aid – only four of the 12 countries concerned have so far carried out that exercise – but wesimply cannot overlook the collective effort that these 12 Member States have made, for it is quite remarkable.Since joining the Union, these countries have doubled and in some cases tripled the level of aid they provide.In 2007, aid from these 12 states totalled almost EUR 800 million. Moreover, these countries have undertakento channel 0.33% of their GDP into development aid from the public purse by 2015.

The next thing to consider is the effectiveness of the aid. Last year the European Union adopted a code ofconduct setting out a number of principles for a better division of labour within the Union. I am pleased toreport that the new Member States can hold their heads high with regard to implementation of these principles.All the states concerned apply the principle of concentrating their aid in a limited number of countries – anapproach long recognised in best practice as making for greater efficiency.

Several of the new Member States also deliver their aid in partnership with other Member States undercofinancing arrangements, thus reducing their own and their partner states’ administrative costs. I am thinkinghere, for example, of support provided jointly by Slovakia and Austria for infrastructure in Kenya and of aidin the water sector delivered by the Czech Republic in partnership with Luxembourg. These are tellingexamples and they are not isolated.

Another illustration of efficiency is the fact that the majority of the new Member States support developingcountries on the basis of adding value in specific sectors – an approach informed by their own experienceof political and economic transition. I could point, for example, to the aid that is directed at good governance,at capacity-building in public administration and at economic reform.

As I see it, these types of action, which are approved in the Code of Conduct on Complementarity and theDivision of Labour in Development Policy, are absolutely vital. In April I am to present the first assessmentof how the code is being implemented, a year after its adoption, with analyses and proposals for increasingaid and making it more consistent. I intend to use the assessment as a basis for serious discussions with allthe Member States about how to proceed from here. Just a few months away from the High-Level Forum onAid Effectiveness, in Accra, the developing world is counting on Europe to point the way ahead, and rightlyso because – let me remind you again – Europe is by far the world’s major source of development aid, so itis capable of leading by example and it has a duty to do so.

Your report highlights another fundamentally important point, namely the need for awareness-raising inthe new Member States. It is true that most of these countries do not have a long tradition of developmentaid, particularly to Africa. It is therefore part of our responsibility to keep working on public opinion, gettingthe message across that this is not just a matter of charity, it is also a matter of mutual interest – and I amthinking here of issues like peace and security, migration, climate change and food security.

In mid-February, with all these things in mind, the European Commission launched the third capacity-buildingprogramme for the new Member States. Under the programme, the Commission will supply the expertiseneeded to develop communication strategies that will enable administrative authorities to tell the publicmore effectively about what they are doing and to raise levels of awareness, particularly in the media andamong students, about what is at stake in development policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no longer an ‘old Europe’ or a ‘new Europe’. There is no first class and nosecond class, no old Member States and no new Member States. There is just one Europe – a supportive,open and politically aware Europe – with values that are not only European but also universal. The evolutionof development policy over the years since the latest enlargement is proof in itself that the European Unioncan grow while at the same time becoming more meaningful. In essence this is a remarkable history lesson,relevant both to the future of development policy and to the future of European integration.

Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, at a public hearing on the subject ofnew EU donors, held in the European Parliament in January last year, the participants expressed the hopethat the discussion on the development policy of the new EU Member States would continue in the nationalparliaments and in the further work of the European Parliament itself. I am therefore very pleased to welcomeMrs Budreikaitè’s report, which is the first report in the history of the European Parliament that attempts to


analyse the commitment of the new Member States to EU development policy and the challenge it involvesfor them.

It is not easy to summarise all the challenges facing the new European donors in formulating nationaldevelopment policies and modernising development policy at Community level. I shall therefore confinemyself to a few key issues. First, the role of national parliaments in shaping development aid in the newMember States needs to be strengthened. Without the establishment of a firm legal basis by the nationalparliaments it will be impossible to pursue an effective development policy and arrive at proper coordinationof the planning and management of aid to the developing countries. In some countries work on the necessarylegislation has been going on since 2004 and has still not been finalised. As a result, among other things,those countries have no implementing agenda.

More work is need on raising public awareness – and here I agree with Commissioner Michel about publicsensitivity in the new Member States with regard to the importance of development policy. In a transitionperiod of this kind, education for development, wide-ranging social consultation, mass communicationsand information campaigns have an important role to play. Without them, it will be hard to secure taxpayers’consent for increased public expenditure on development policy. The greater the public awareness, the morereadily will society accept the financial burden.

I also agree with the Commissioner on the need for European solidarity in development policy. We mustcoordinate our cooperation and learn from each other. On the one hand, the commitment and knowledgederived from history and the transition period in the new Member States can help the whole European Unionto develop and strengthen democracy in countries in transition. On the other, the knowledge derived fromthe experience of the old Member States, and in particular from their aid to the world’s poorest countries,can help to increase and steer development aid to those countries most in need of it – in sub-Saharan Africa,for example, which is not seen as the main destination for aid in the new Member States. Such mutualeducation and mutual assistance can make the development policy of the whole European Union moreeffective.

Corina Creţu, on behalf of the PSE group. – (RO) The report that we are discussing today has, in my opinion,the merit of helping the new Member States of the European Union in defining new policies and newmechanisms designed to help countries which receive the attention of the European Union.

Based on the founding values of the Union and the obligations undertaken under the Treaties to which ourcountries are a party, the new states are now redefining their policies on the development cooperation grantedto the counties that need it, diversifying their cooperation instruments and the areas covered. What therapporteur said in her foreword is perfectly true, in the sense that priorities are not defined clearly enoughand good intentions are often limited by lack of financial resources. It looks like the new Member States stillneed a period of adaptation to the decision-making systems in the Council and to its priorities in the field ofdevelopment cooperation.

Romaniahas a national strategy on international development cooperation, providing that it supports thedevelopment of the states in the geographical areas identified as priority areas for external relations, namelyEastern Europe, the Western Balkans and the Southern Caucasus. Another effort refers to the gradual extensionof aid to African States, especially in the field of education.

I am glad that this year, on 1 October, the European Socialist Day for Development will be held in Bucharestand I want to thank -here and now- my socialist colleagues for unanimously voting in favour of my proposalto organise this event in a new Member State of the European Union, namely Romania. I praise this reportwhich represnents a useful framework of field-related conceptualisation for the new Member States of theEuropean Union.

Toomas Savi, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, on Tuesday the President of the Republic ofEstonia, Mr Toomas Hendrik Ilves, said that we should cast aside the term ‘new Member States’. That is alsopart of the title of Ms Budreikaitė’s report. Although I agree in principle with my President, the term has apositive connotation as well, involving innovation and readiness for reforms. Today’s report gives acomprehensive overview of the progress that the new donor countries in the European Union – that werethe recipients of similar help a decade ago – have made in the field of development cooperation, pointingout both the shortcomings and the potential for further increase in the contribution to the EU developmentcooperation policy.


In 1970 the United Nations agreed upon the target of 0.7% of GDP for development assistance to eradicateextreme poverty – the most humiliating state for human beings. Dear colleagues, do not forget that thisconcerns approximately one third of the world’s population. Unfortunately, the efforts made so far are clearlynot enough. No new Member State has reached the target. The same applies to the old Member States, withthe exception of Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. Norway, although not a member ofthe EU, has also achieved the same goal.

I would like to thank Ms Budreikaitė for the extensive work that she has done in compiling the draft reportand accommodating the amendments made by me and my colleagues on the Committee on Development.The rapporteur has been elected from a new donor country and her report will definitely be studied in greatdetail in those countries, including Estonia.

Finally, the European Consensus on Development is committed to a further increase of the designated fundsand I encourage all the Member States to take it seriously. This report is a praiseworthy document that onceagain reminds us of our commitments, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Adam Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I too wish to congratulate Mrs Budreikaitė onthis excellent report. The document makes reference to the Eastern dimension of EU external relations andthe need for a new assembly on the lines of EUROLAT or EUROMED – an assembly that could build on thehistorical experience of the new Member States in particular, including my own country, Poland.

I fully agree with the rapporteur on this. Europe needs a new vision of a broader sphere of influence extendingthrough the Balkans and the Black Sea region to the southern Caucasus. EU policy with regard to theseregions is outdated. The very name ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ is inappropriate and insulting forcountries like Ukraine, which is undoubtedly part of Europe. The name should be changed to ‘EuropeanUnion Neighbourhood Policy’, as the former Ukrainian foreign minister, Borys Tarasiuk, rightly pointed outat the last meeting of the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council.

The European Union must give more support to Ukraine and Georgia and draw them into its sphere ofinfluence. Those countries need our commitment even more than the countries of Central Europe did beforethe 2004 enlargement. They need an individual approach on the part of the European Union, not a generalneighbourhood policy that de facto treats Ukraine in the same way as countries that historically do notbelong to Europe. Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus too, are poorer, economically weaker and in greater politicaldifficulty than the countries that joined the Union after 2004.

Recent years have seen a significant strengthening of Russia’s position in the region. Russia’s readiness touse its energy reserves for political blackmail deters the European Union from opposing the Kremlin’sshameful practices, which have nothing in common with democracy. In Georgia and Ukraine, Moscow isattempting to reverse the democratic transition. The European Union Neighbourhood Policy, as we oughtto call it, must offer immediate political and economic aid to our nearest neighbours. Poland already hasprojects waiting and ready to go, such as the Bielsat independent television project for Belarus.

Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, coming back to the actual subjectof the report, let me give Mrs Budreikaitė very warm thanks for her report, which I regard as very balancedand competent. It is also a particularly important one at this point in time because we can now take provisionalstock and also draw conclusions in regard to greater development cooperation on the part of the new MemberStates, with particular reference to the ACP states.

Accession to the EU clearly also means an obligation under the Treaty to accept the achievements of theacquis communautaire. It is also clear, however, that the Treaty is one thing and public awareness of a majorarea of policy in the various countries is another. The statistics we have been given make that very evident.

Development cooperation with the states of Africa, Asia and Latin America often does not look like aparticularly urgent issue in countries that are themselves still lagging behind in their economic development.That is why we must jointly push for recognition of the importance of this task and urge that we continueto pursue it, looking back also at the development cooperation that certainly existed in the past with somestates, in particular African countries.

Many ties that existed prior to 1989 were dissolved very quickly yet almost without a murmur. There werealso some very regrettable episodes. A number of projects that had been started up in those countries nowlie in ruins. I think we need to make a new start here.


I am also rather sad that by agreement with the Commission, nearly all the Central and Eastern EuropeanMember States are concentrating their development cooperation on cooperation with the former Sovietrepublics, which sidelines the real objective of development cooperation, namely to achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. Even if the new Member States were to succeed in raising their ODA to 0.17% by 2010as agreed, it is to be feared that only a fraction of that amount would go to development and support for thepoorest countries in the world.

Once again, let me give warm thanks to Mrs Budreikaitė for her report.

Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) I think that this report has its good points. It gives an interesting overview ofthe position regarding development cooperation in the new Member States. That is a good thing. Basically,however, I believe this report above all represents a missed opportunity. Rather than encouraging the newMember States to pursue the traditional objectives of European development aid, Parliament would actuallydo better to debate those same objectives and think about whether it makes sense nowadays just to continuewith the traditional form of development aid.

Time and time again this House elevates the financial objectives into a kind of dogma, without any properdebate, and time and time again we refuse to acknowledge the fundamental causes which are at the root ofmost developing countries' problems. In Africa it is certainly the case that the leading cause of poverty,hunger, insecurity and the enormous social and economic problems in developing countries is actually thefact that they are very badly governed by totally corrupt regimes.

The new Member States are being urged here to organise information and awareness-raising campaigns. Iam in favour of that, but should we not also inform people of the fact that African nations spend more onarms than they receive in development aid? Or that African rulers have billions stashed away in Swiss banks,to a total greater than many years'-worth of development aid? If there is one signal that Europe ought to begiving out, it is that only democracies where the rule of law applies guarantee people a real chance of improvingtheir lot, and that in those circumstances development aid will be effective and beneficial. At the moment,sadly, it is not.

Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE-DE). – (RO) I praise this report which will be of real help to the newMember States in the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken with respect development developmentcooperation policy.

I support the recommendations made in the report and I wish to point out two of them, first of all thenecessity of a strategy for the education of citizens. It does not mean making citizens of a Member State witha gross domestic income per inhabitant of only 38% of the EU average, such as Romania, understand thatthey must allot part of the budget resources for the development of other countries, but it is a fundamentalvalue of the European Union that we undertook; and Romania, which is a Member State in this situation,will take action in this direction.

I also wish to point out the recommendation concerning the transfer of positive experience from the olderMember States to the newer Member States to avoid such failures in development cooperation, such as failurein achieving its goal, inefficiency and opening opportunities for corruption in the beneficiary states.

I wish to underline the importance that should be attached to the development cooperation for educationand training of human resources. In this context Romania has an extremely positive experience as it awardsscholarships to pupils and students from the Republic of Moldova and the South-Western Ukraine. Thereis a direct relationship between the Romanian universities and schools and the pupils and students of thesaid countries.

Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) Congratulations to the rapporteur, Mrs Budreikaitė, for the report,which must have taken a lot of time and effort to prepare. It is uplifting to know that in such a short periodof time the new Member States have transformed themselves from being assistance recipients to assistancedonors. However, most – if not all – of these countries might struggle to achieve the objective of allocating0.17% of GDP to development assistance by 2010.

What could be the reason? The countries that acceded to the EU in the 21st century are still being stifled byethnocentrism. They feel that they have suffered the most, are struggling and need the most assistance.Nevertheless, being a part of the EU and participating in development cooperation helps to eliminatenarrow-mindedness.


Today in Lithuania, where development assistance projects were met with scepticism until recently, themajority of the population believe that such assistance is welcome and necessary. The new Member Statesare in the advantageous position of being able to share the experience of the transitional period with otherregions of the world. We are familiar with the difficulties that our close neighbours in Central Europe, theCaucasus and Central Asia are struggling with, as we have recently experienced similar hardships ourselves.

However, we need to focus our attention and assistance a little further still. It is quite difficult to see povertyin African and Asian countries from the viewpoint of Vilnius, Warsaw, Budapest or Bucharest, but we haveto realise that by assisting those in need today we are actually helping ourselves. Every country on this planetis connected with others, as in the ‘law of connected vessels’. The increasing gap between the richest andpoorest countries, as well as the unstoppable flood of economic migrants, is eroding the world’s foundations.

Alongside state assistance, civil society organisations play a very important role. The value of money andgoods collected through non-governmental organisations, schools and the Church is not very great but ishighly appreciated.

Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, my own country received aid for many years because ofthe prevailing poverty. Today, after four years’ membership of the European Union, Poland is joining moreand more actively in aid to the developing countries. Recently, for example, we wrote off Angola’s very largedebt. We are also putting money into support for the elite in the developing countries, by funding scholarshipsfor study in Poland. Our basic assumption is that investing in knowledge and the creation of an elite is noless important than distributing charity.

I must say – perhaps taking issue with some of you – that aid to developing countries should not be confinedto support for African countries, and I would remind you that the European Consensus of 2005 does notoblige us to direct our development aid to Africa. As a Pole, I am proud that my country, a new MemberState, allocates the same percentage of its GNP to aid for developing countries as Greece, which has been inthe European Union for 27 years, Portugal, a Member State for 22 years, and Italy, a founder-member of theCommunity.

Katrin Saks (PSE). – (ET) I would like to thank the rapporteur for a timely and balanced report. I have acouple of remarks to make on matters arising both from earlier debate on the report and from today’s debatein this Chamber.

My first point is about the idea that people’s attitude in the new Member States towards developmentcooperation and humanitarian aid is lukewarm. I think that awareness-raising has a very important role toplay in that respect. A study has been carried out in Estonia comparing attitudes today with those of threeyears ago and even the figures from three years ago show that awareness of development cooperation hadimproved to such an extent, not only in the institutions but among the general population, that it enabledconsiderable budgetary support, or an increase in that support, to be given to development cooperation.

It is important for the public to know that money is not going into a vast black hole but to specific countriesfor specific projects. Estonia’s development cooperation is based on the principle that responsibility fordevelopment lies primarily with the developing countries themselves: nothing can be achieved by force. Forthat reason close cooperation is especially important and a very good example of this is provided by thecooperation between Estonia and Georgia.

I therefore welcome paragraph 17 of the report, which states that the biggest challenges will be the increasein budgets and awareness-raising, especially among the general public. For example, although the amountallocated to international development by Estonia in 2006 was 0.09% of GDP, the position today is that theamount should rise and we aim to achieve a figure of 0.17% of GDP by the year 2011, in accordance withthe development cooperation programme adopted in 2006.

I welcome the fact that the proposals made by my colleagues, my Estonian colleagues, were incorporatedinto the report at the drafting stage and I believe that this marks a fundamental change whereby the newMember States have metamorphosed from recipients of aid into donors of aid; I hope that this supportcontinues to grow.

Liam Aylward (UEN). – Mr President, it is amazing that 200 million children around the world can bedescribed as child labourers. This is totally unacceptable practice. The international community must workin a more concerted manner to ensure that international codes of practice to combat child labour are rigorouslyenforced in all countries round the world.


This must be a key issue in the context of EU development aid policies at all times. The EU must work moreclosely with the United Nations, UNICEF, the World Bank, the International Labour Organisation, donorsand NGOs to introduce the correct strategies to ensure that uniform laws are in place to stop this inhumanepractice of child labour.

A multidimensional approach is needed if child labour is to be effectively tackled around the world. Enforcedsocial protection measures and changes to the labour market rules are needed. Child labour and educationissues are inextricably linked. Children denied access to education are more likely to be engaged in childlabour. The European Union, as the largest donor in the world of development aid, must continue to workaggressively to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals are met by 2015, including the targets setby the international community relating to availability of education to all children in the world.

Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, helping others when you yourself are still inneed of help is indeed proof of solidarity. It is demonstrated by the actions of the 12 states that recentlyjoined the European Union, and it should be appreciated. Last November I showed what Poland was doingin this respect through an exhibition entitled Polish aid to the world. So I am very grateful to Mrs Budreikaitėfor her complex presentation of the subject.

The point of the Millennium Goals, which we have been discussing for years, is to help people who live inpoverty, including millions of undernourished children. Such help, however, should consist in providing afishing rod and angling skills rather than putting fish on the plate.

We must also strive to achieve a fairer system of trade with third-world countries. There is a need for generosityon the part of donors in writing off debts and for widespread sharing of scientific achievements, especiallyin medicine. Let us support schools and universities in these countries, so that their graduates can work tomeet the needs of their fellow countrymen. Let us help resolve the shortage of drinking water. We inhabitantsof the European Union make up barely 7.5% of the world population but we take up 23% of world GNI. Ofcourse, we in Europe have problems of our own, including economic problems. But we must keep them inperspective. Let us not be indifferent to the suffering of those who are hungry, sick or uneducated, who livein poverty, deprivation or mortal danger.

Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to come back to a remark the Commissionermade in his introductory statement, namely that we should not just give development aid but could andshould also link it to general concerns – not in the sense of the kind of power politics and strings-attachedpolicies once pursued by the USA and the former Soviet Union and pursued by Russia and China today, butin the sense of aiming at good governance, human rights and fighting corruption. Those are concerns thatwe should all emblazon on our banners – and I am not referring only to the new Member States and theirdevelopment aid policy but to all of us. Perhaps we could take this as a practical opportunity to place evenmore emphasis on those concerns.

Jan Zahradil (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, of course the report is very useful. Development in this area isvery dynamic and even ahead of the report. For example, the report does not reflect the fact that some newMember States have already set up development organisations.

However, I would like to talk about something else. I would like to dispel the widely held myth that the newMember States have no experience in this area. We have this experience, although we gained it when Europewas divided, behind the Iron Curtain, in a different regime when everything was ideologically and politicallymotivated. The fact remains that we used to build power stations and breweries, and provide agriculturalaid to developing countries. By the way, we are still due money since then and some debts are quite large,but that does not matter now. We simply have the know-how. I would like to see this know-how being used.I would also like to use this opportunity to ask the Commission not to think of the new Member States aswet behind the ears but rather to make effective use of their existing knowledge.

Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, I would like to pick up where my colleague Mr Zahradilleft off. He is perfectly right. In the past Czechoslovakia, just like other countries of the Soviet bloc, was activein developing countries. Our country successfully participated in helping the economies of these countriesand now we can tap into this potential.

There are also some negatives though due to the fact that external growth resources can never replace internalresources: the economies that find themselves in this situation are often incapable of developing from theinside.


Some time ago, actually quite a long time ago, Gunnar Myrdal published his book ‘Asian Drama’. In thisbook he contrasts the optimism felt after World War II for example in Africa with the pessimism prevailingin Asian countries. Today the situation is quite different. Many Asian countries show strong growth whileAfrica attracts only 2% of world investment and the economies in many of its countries are in dire straits.

There is also the connection with the behaviour of the ruling elites in these two regions, which was in sharpcontrast. One French study compares the behaviour of these elites and shows that while the Asian eliteinvested in the economy, the African elite hoarded resources that had been created and removed them fromtheir own territories.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, clearly I need to beginby thanking all the speakers for the very high quality of their contributions and the relevance of the pointsmade, which closely mirror my own concerns. I should also like, at the outset, to thank the SlovenianPresidency, which has taken a remarkably refreshing approach: it is working to encourage and energisethinking about development policy in the new Member States and has already organised two extremelyproductive meetings to discuss these issues.

With regard to the comments made about levels of aid – that is, about the amounts of money needed – I fullyunderstand the difficulty facing the new Member States. I would remind you however – indeed, you yourselveshave already made the point in a general way – that there are many alternative methods of getting involvedand using transfers of expertise, which cost very little. I heard one speaker, for example, referring to projectsfor cooperation in education. Obviously, sending instructors or teachers to African countries costs relativelylittle but it nonetheless constitutes an extremely important contribution to those countries.

The underlying question suggested here, as to whether the new Member States would not do better to investin their own neighbourhood – neighbourhood is not, perhaps, the best word and I may yet think of a betterone – as opposed to investing in Africa, is, in my opinion, the wrong question. I fully realise that investmentin the neighbourhood is more obviously attractive and easier to justify and that it is more appealing both topublic opinion in your countries and to potential development-policy partners. The one approach does not,however, exclude the other and it sets a quite exceptional educational example to young people to see anation deciding to extend its aid commitment to Africa, to open up to Africa, because it expresses valuesthat are both European in the deepest sense and also universal. Let me say, further, that the basis on whichI have made my case for the new Member States having a presence in Africa is the fact that some of yourcountries have already had experience there, and that experience has generally left quite positive traces,notably in relation to the construction of certain states and certain state services and in the form of realexpertise that has been retained.

My second point, ladies and gentlemen, is that Africa is not on target to achieve the Millennium Goals. Thegoals will be realised in all the developing countries except in Africa. So I would argue, on that basis, that itis part of our responsibility, or our co-responsibility, not to reduce investment in Africa, and I would stressagain, echoing one of the speakers, that investment can be sustained through exchanges of expertise. Givingour universities, colleges, municipalities and local authorities encouragement or incentives to get involvedin exchanges with developing countries is obviously a relatively low-cost approach and it is an effective one.I must say, too, that I am very willing to invite representatives of the so-called ‘new’ Member States to comewith me on some of my missions. I believe it is extremely important that they should see for themselves notonly the issues at stake but also the truly tragic situations confronting certain countries and certain peoples.

I should like to conclude with an aspect that offers great potential for added value – probably greater potentialthan we have in some of our own countries, as has been pointed out – namely the whole area of governance.After all, what do we actually mean by governance? Governance is the ability of a state to assume its majorsovereign functions and to provide its people with a basic level of social services. I believe you have atremendous amount to contribute in terms of governance: that is, everything entailed in building a state and– to underscore a point made, I think, by Mr Lambsdorff – everything concerning the journey from a periodof transition towards the building of a state or of more definitive structures. I am thinking here of tax collection,of the establishment of administration at local level, of the principle of subsidiarity and of decentralisation.All these aspects are clearly of fundamental importance in building states that will be genuinely capable ofserving their people, and it is obvious that you can play an important role here.

I believe it would be useful – and it is something I will propose – to invite the 12 so-called ‘new’ MemberStates to work with the Commission on the basis of the tenth European Development Fund programme.The current position is that we have more or less completed the programming of the tenth EuropeanDevelopment Fund, and it would be a worthwhile exercise to involve the new Member States in determining,


country by country, how they feel they could best be associated with it. We could look to them, for example,to offer training in the areas of justice, administration or education, or they could be asked to make availablecertain experts. For instance, some of the new Member States have expertise in the field of e-governmentand this type of expertise is much in demand in certain African countries. That is why I am making myproposal. I think it has been important to have this discussion and I recognise there are some very usefulavenues to pursue. That said, I would suggest that if we really want to be effective and to move mattersforward we should plan to meet representatives from the 12 countries concerned very soon and activelyaddress the issues so that we can actually produce joint programmes in the weeks ahead. I believe this is achance that we cannot afford to miss.

Finally, you have talked about conditionality and I can fully understand that point of view. Everythingconcerning values, human rights, respect for human rights and combating corruption is obviously important,I agree, but in some cases it can be very difficult and even counterproductive to link development aid to –or make it contingent on – the strict observance of such values, dear to us though they undoubtedly are.What has to be recognised is that imposing a value-related link or condition in countries where this type ofrequirement is not respected will hurt, in the first place, the ordinary people of those countries. Our responseto the problem, in countries where good governance is not respected, is to work in conjunction with specificoperators, either indirect local operators or NGOs or agencies representing the United Nations. We offerbudget support only to countries that can guarantee a minimum level of good governance. So I think therecan be no doubt that we are on the same wavelength insofar as that approach is concerned. As for the valuesthat I referred to – they are the values that we consistently convey. We constantly attempt to promote andpush these values through political dialogue. Implementing strict conditionality is difficult, however, if wegenuinely want to help the people on the ground and that is, after all, the main aim.

Danutė Budreikaitė, rapporteur. – (LT) My sincere thanks to everyone who has taken part in the discussionand supported my report. I would also like to thank all the members of the Committee on Development forhaving voted unanimously in favour of it.

I would like to highlight several issues. The ‘new Member States’ – actually, the name continues to be sort ofconditional, making it easier to distinguish between the ‘old’ Member States and those that acceded to theEU after two enlargement rounds, owing to their particular historical background and perhaps the fact thatthey are poorer than the old ones.

I want to mention the experience of development cooperation policy. This policy initially started to beapplied in 1958. Central European countries – the Czech Republic, Slovakia and others – have had moreexperience of participating in development cooperation. Participation by the Baltic States was much morelimited. Nevertheless, my country is currently involved in delivering oceanological assistance to Mauritius,an African country. The progress is evident.

Why do I emphasise the ‘Eastern’ dimension, ‘Eastern countries’? They happen to be very important neighboursof ours. It is pointless to try to demarcate the neighbourhood and development cooperation policies or tohave politicians debate their details. These notions are interconnected. In Belarus, our neighbour, somepeople survive on less than two dollars a day. Which group of countries does this country belong to, then?These countries are backward too and are asking for help, insisting that they should receive assistance. Weall want our neighbours to have a decent quality of life. We therefore appear to be pursuing the same globalobjectives.

We are involved in assisting African countries in fighting poverty, lowering the level of migration, increasingquality of life, boosting their economy, enabling them to battle diseases and become self-reliant. While weare assisting neighbouring countries to fight poverty, giving a helping hand whenever we can and where wehave the relevant experience, we are helping to bring about stabilisation all over Europe and in the BalkanRegion. Thank you to everyone for taking part in the discussion and for your support.

President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) Although the draft resolution being debated hasambitious goals, I believe it will be hard to achieve a common policy in the near future, even from as a matterof principle. Although we all form a large family, each EU Member State has its own priorities with respect


to the countries or geographical regions to which regional development cooperation is currently provided;of , priorities which are motivated by economic, geopolitical, ethnic, historical interests etc., and it is unlikelythat this pattern can change significantly. The recent incident related to the declaration of independence byKosovo showed a lack of unity among the Member States in terms of opinion and, on the same grounds, itis likely that the same diversity of opinion will be shown when the matter under discussion is the situationof our extra-community neighbours. It is true that a major step was taken with the appointment, under theLisbon Treaty, of an EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs. However, thanks to lack of clear rules onthe determination of community priorities, each Member State will try to promote and focus on developmentpolicies, including financial (allotments from the Union budget) on such extra-community regions thatcoincide with their own priorities.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZVice-President

3. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in Development Cooperation(debate)

President. − The next item is the report by Feleknas Uca, on behalf of the Committee on Development, onGender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation (2007/2182(INI))(A6-0035/2008).

Feleknas Uca, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, five days ago wecelebrated the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. Much has been achieved, yet there is stillno evidence of equal opportunities in the poorest countries of this world. The human rights of women andof the girl-child are still far from being an unalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights,called for in the United Nations Vienna Declaration of 1993.

In my report I dealt in detail with the situation of women and girls in developing countries and I have alsolooked at ways in which European development cooperation can improve the lives of these women. Let mebriefly quote a few facts and figures.

Two thirds of all illiterates in the world are women. More than 40% of women in Africa have not attendedprimary school. In Africa, women make up 52% of the total population but perform 75% of the agriculturalwork and produce and market 60-80% of the food.

The Commission’s updated strategy for women’s equality and participation in development cooperationaddresses important areas and proposes concrete measures to promote equality. The dual approach of thestrategy, making gender mainstreaming more efficient and also proposing separate measures to promoteequality, is welcome. I also applaud the 41 practical measures in the areas of responsible governance,employment, the economy, education, health and violence against women. Nonetheless, in my report I havecriticised several points. Let me discuss the most important ones briefly.

I believe that combating traditional forms of violence should lie at the heart of the measures to combatviolence against women. Secondly, I must say I am rather taken aback that the strategy fails to mention theEconomic Partnership Agreements. At no point is reference made to the link between strengthening the roleof women and the economic agreements between the EU and the ACP States. As for the specific situationof women in conflicts, I regret the fact that the strategy fails to comment on the specific role that womenplay in what are called weak states and in the least developed countries. Special attention should also be paidto the reproductive health and sexual rights of women in developing countries.

I very much regret that most of the draft amendments are once again concerned only with deleting passagesfrom the report that call for the right of women freely and independently to decide about their body andtheir life. I do not want to sound boastful, but my report should not be reduced to that issue. In this connectionI welcome the amendments proposed by Mrs Buitenweg on behalf of the Greens and thank her for herimportant contributions.

On reproductive health, I just want to say the following at this point: every woman has the right to decidefreely and independently about her body and her life. Women’s full access to sexual and reproductive healthis a prerequisite for achieving gender equality. So long as women are refused that access, it will be others


who decide about women’s bodies and lives. Surely nobody seriously concerned with Europe’s humanisttradition, with our shared values and with respect for human rights could want that!

(Applause)

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin bycongratulating the rapporteur on this extremely thorough examination of a very important cross-cuttingsubject. Greater participation by women in the economy and the fair sharing of power between men andwomen are actually prerequisites for development. If we cannot ensure gender equality in development wewill never achieve either the Millennium Goals or sustainable economic growth.

Why in sub-Saharan Africa do women constitute only 34% of the workforce in regular employment? Whydo these women’s earnings represent only 10% of total income and why do women own only 1% of theassets? Obviously these questions are extremely important. And why, as your report points out, do womenmake up 70% of the 1.3 billion people living in absolute poverty? What is illustrated here is a very particularkind of tragedy intrinsically associated with being female. Sadly there are too many such questions that weneed to answer. Even in Europe, even in our Member States’ national parliaments with their reasonably highlevels of female participation, there is no guarantee that women’s priorities will always be addressed.

With regard to our policy towards partner countries, we recognise the need to engage in really thoroughgoingpolitical dialogue. I can tell you that dialogue on the issue of gender equality is not always straightforward:it can involve, for example, helping to ensure the breakdown of statistics by gender; or insistence thatbudgeting should take more account of the social sector, for in many cases education and health are not realpriorities, although it is well known that women’s education and health are keys to development.

All these concerns are central to the Communication entitled Gender Equality and Women Empowermentin Development Cooperation, adopted by the Commission on 8 March 2007. The policy set out thereconstitutes a response to commitments made in the European Consensus on Development with regard togender equality in all our cooperation policies and practices. The aim of the communication is to develop aEuropean vision and to offer consistent support for the promotion of gender equality in all developingregions and countries.

The communication is also a guide to new aid modalities, notably budget support. I take issue here with thecriticisms expressed in your report, for I believe that budget support offers new opportunities for effectivelyfurthering gender equality. Why so? I have already outlined on a number of occasions the reasons why,insofar as possible, I have favoured budget support. The fact of engaging in budget support gives usincomparably greater leverage in political dialogue with the authorities of the partner country concerned.It enables us, for example, to discuss policy options and, among other things, the need for better promotionof women’s potential in a country’s economic and social development. Moreover, in such cases, we base oursupport on the verification of tangible results presented or revealed via indicators that are alwaysgender-specific and therefore clearly highlight gender gaps where they exist. The objectives that we use tomeasure a country’s results are in line with the Millennium Goals and, for the most part, are highly relevantto the improvement of women’s living conditions. They include, to name but a few, increasing the proportionof girls attending school and increasing the number of ante-natal check-ups. The progress that a countrymakes towards meeting such targets is the basis on which the European Commission disburses variabletranches of budget support.

One of the speakers in the debate mentioned a form of conditionality. When you engage in budget supportyou are clearly able, to some extent, to oblige the partner to respect criteria and observe certain types ofconditionality. In terms of positive influence, there is a stronger effect than there would be without themechanism of budget support. Be that as it may, I am prepared to pursue this debate in other contexts. I amdeeply convinced, however, on the basis of my experience to date, that budget support – where it is possible– is obviously a much more efficient way to proceed.

For a number of years we have taken a twin-track approach. Firstly, we integrate gender equality into all ourpolicies and actions, including as part of budget-support arrangements and in political dialogue with ourpartners. One of the consequences of this approach is a need to train our colleagues who take part indelegations on gender-related issues. Since 2004, more than a thousand of them have received specific‘gender’ training and we have now set up a gender helpdesk to pursue this training in the future. Secondly,we finance specific actions to advance male-female equality.


Actions of this type are included in certain national indicative programmes but, more importantly, there arealso thematic programmes that complement geographically-based cooperation. For example, ‘Investing inhuman resources’ and ‘Human rights and democracy’ programmes incorporate specific elements for furtheringgender equality. The ‘Investing in human resources’ programme has EUR 57 million for targeted ‘gender’activities between 2007 and 2013: that is an annual average roughly three times higher than our spendingup to 2006. Of course, gender equality is also incorporated into other thematic programmes whether foreducation, health or agriculture, or indeed for environment and culture.

It is true that we still have a long way to go but I am convinced that, with a shared commitment to promotinggender equality and, most importantly, in cooperation with women in the developing countries, we will becapable of fighting poverty and building fairer societies.

Gabriela Creţu, Draftswoman, Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. − (RO) Dear colleagues, Isee that the report has already provoked reactions. We hope it is a proof of its political relevance.

The Commission’s Communication was a very good premise and the Parliament added useful specifications.I would only like to explain the principle at the basis of this position. The objective was clear, we supportwomen’s role in development cooperation. Apart from arguments related to equality, there is enough proofthat women are a good investment as they are excellent multipliers of results.

But how do we get maximum efficiency in achieving the goal? We could have requested strict criteria fromthe beneficiary states on strengthening \ women’s position. As a matter of fact such criteria already exist.However, we can also expect poor reactions, lack of both expertise and administrative capacity, formalcommitments in the strategic development plans and lack of implementation of such commitments.Non-compliance with obligations may result in the diminishing or suspension of aid. It would negativelyaffect the final beneficiaries, and women would end up paying for the incompetence of governments, andwe do not want that.

Under these conditions, we chose to insist on compliance with those requirements that we control and forwhich we have the action means. For this reason, we ask the Commission and the Member States to ensureconsistency between other Community policies and development policy. Otherwise, certain aspects ofdomestic commercial policy or of the common agricultural policy may negatively interfere with our goals.

Given the significant differences overgender issue in the policy of the Member States, we believe that thedrafting of the European Commission roadmap on gender equality within the Union is a pre-condition fortrue and efficient use of women in developing development cooperation, which is a policy primarily managedby the Member States. The new means for granting support seem to have weakened the attention given towomen.

We request an assessment of their gender impact and adequate correction measures, subject to theresponsibilities and transparency of funds use undertaken before the European citizens.

Anna Záborská, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SK) Preparing the report on gender equality and women’sempowerment could not have been easy, as its size testifies.

Although I do not agree with everything in the report by our colleague Mrs Uca, I would like to congratulateher on the consistency and accuracy of her approach to this topic. When debating this matter we shouldunderscore our support for women’s dignity and their role in acting for the common good in society.

In developing countries (but not just there) many women suffer from discrimination and violence, oftenwork in poor conditions and for low salaries, lack basic health care, work too many hours and face humiliationand physical abuse. That is the reason for inadequate development. All these factors also have an impact onthe quality of their family life. Boosting development and enhancing equality in order to promote peace inthe 21st century: these are the concrete steps that can help to improve the situation if we take them. We haveto condemn repeatedly, uncompromisingly and at every opportunity the sexual violence often suffered bywomen and young girls. We must encourage developing countries to adopt laws that will offer womeneffective protection.

In the name of respect for each individual we also have to condemn a very widespread quasi-culture, leadingto systematic sexual exploitation and destroying the dignity of even very young girls by forcing them to offertheir bodies and so contribute to the billions in profits raked in by the sex industry. Unfortunately, theirclients come mostly from the civilised parts of the world, including the European Union. Women in areasof military conflicts are victims of systematic rape for political purposes.


I appreciate that there are women’s movements working to enhance the dignity of women. When lookingat the issue of helping women in developing countries we must not forget that apart from financial aid fromdevelopment funds there is an effective net of religious and charity organisations. This initiative has for manyyears enjoyed the support of local churches, through parallel schemes and informal micro-loans to the poor.It is very uplifting to see the patient, honest and hard work of poor women being rewarded in this way. Thisalso has to be supported by reforming the structures that help to expand the success of new initiatives.

Women must be granted equal opportunities, fair pay, equality on the employment ladder, equal access toeducation at all levels, access to health care and equality in family affairs. Women’s involvement in politicsneeds courage but progress made by women in developing countries is progress for us all.

Anne Van Lancker, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) On behalf of my Group may I say that we emphaticallysupport Mrs Uca's report and we congratulate the Commissioner on this gender strategy. Virtually all countriessigned up to the Millennium Development Goals eight years ago. Half the time has already passed and itlooks as if most of the Goals are not going to be met in Africa.

Women play an essential part in combating poverty, but they still do not have equal access to education,healthcare, employment or property ownership. Their social status is low and violence against women iswidespread. At the same time, most of our partner countries' strategic programmes simply ignore womenaltogether. So the gender dimension really must be placed centre-stage in the political dialogue with ourpartner countries and women's organisations must be involved in the framing of policy.

I find it monstrous that colleagues from the EPP and UEN Groups want to remove the report's plain speakingon sexual and reproductive health, because if women are able to make decisions about their own bodies andwhether and when they have children, not only will this save millions of women's lives; children too willhave more opportunities and communities will be made stronger. Anyone who denies that undermines theconsensus on population and development which the international community endorsed in 1994, and wewill not allow that to happen.

One final word: I am one hundred percent in favour of the Green Group's call for a European Envoy forWomen's Rights. A women's envoy will give the world's women a face and a voice in Europe and itsgovernments and may also on occasion remind the Commissioners of the commitments they have given.

Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, gender equality and women’s empowermentare values and principles that we all praise in the European Union. As such, they definitely need to be sharedwith the developing countries within the framework of existing cooperation. We all have a huge responsibilitywhen addressing them because promoting double standards would morally outlaw us, and we certainly losecredibility. I am referring specifically now to the amendments tabled for voting today, the same amendmentsthat were rejected by the Committee on Development.

I fear that we risk using different yardsticks when, on the one hand, we express these values to our developmentpartners and when, on the other hand, we use them inside the European Union. We cannot afford to excludereferences to reproductive rights from this report because this is a core topic when we target the promotionof women’s rights and their empowerment.

As the report correctly emphasises, women’s full enjoyment of their sexual and reproductive health andrights is a prerequisite for achieving gender equality. The protection of reproductive rights, such as planningtheir family in terms of birth timing and spacing, and decision-making regarding reproduction free ofdiscrimination, coercion and violence, provides women with the freedom to participate more fully andequally in society.

We cannot go only halfway towards our partners and claim at the same time that our goal is to have healthierand stronger women who are able to participate actively and equally in society. Please excuse my toughwords but to me this is mere hypocrisy. We will fail to achieve these goals if we start by excluding core issuesor give a different impression of our principles, different to what we have back home.

In today’s world, promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment in the developing countries is notan easy task. Reaching these targets implies a genuine commitment and action and, most of all, it impliesour good faith in our relations with developing countries.

Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, 750 million women are living inpoverty, and these women are fighting for their own survival as well as that of their families. As Europeanswe must fight alongside them for their right to a better life. The role of women is inestimable; yet their abilities


and potential are not appreciated. Their access to education, work and property is severely restricted. Itshould be one of the principal tasks of the EU to ensure that women are placed at the centre of developmentwork involving the EU. As things stand, our policies all too often end up lowering the already low status ofwomen, and for this reason I am very pleased with Mrs Uca’s report.

It is important not to dilute this report, as many in the Group of the European People’s Party (ChristianDemocrats) and European Democrats and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group are attempting to dothrough their amendments, which would remove all talk of women having sexual and reproductive rights.As has been said many times already, these rights are crucial to enable women to take responsibility for theirown and thus their families’ lives. This is often a matter of life or death for them. Women must have the rightand opportunity to say ‘no’, in order to avoid violence and to obtain an education and the opportunity toset up on their own. This is crucial if development is to result from our development aid, and it is bothimmoral and foolish not to put women at the centre of this work.

Unfortunately, the political will is lacking, of course – as has also been said – and thus many of us supporta proposal for the appointment of an EU High Representative for women. He or she should ensure thatwomen are involved in political and social work worldwide, bringing to bear the influence they ought tohave as half of the world’s population. Women must not become victims or poor wretches. We all need themto be put on an equal footing with all of us.

Luisa Morgantini, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what can Isay? All credit to the Commission for a well-structured communication which for the first time sets out aEuropean strategy for gender equality in development cooperation, in keeping, moreover, with the demandsput forward by vast groups of women who refuse to be victims. On the contrary, we refuse to be victims andare protagonists of our lives and our sexuality and it is we who decide on the type of society in which wewant to live: a society able to tackle and put an end to discrimination, injustice, violence and the militarisationof states and minds.

All credit as well to Mrs Uca’s report which looks in greater depth at and grasps the aspects that theCommission has not taken into account, which I think the Commission should accept. Here, I do not needto reiterate the figures on women living in abject poverty, women who are illiterate and suffering from AIDSor malaria and the many women victims of physical and sexual violence, especially in their homes, even inEurope.

Practical measures are the ones that count: governance, education, health, violence against women, accessto property and work and, as Mrs Uca says, EU economic and commercial policies which do not run counterto development policies.

What is needed is a much stronger mainstreaming policy and that requires a major commitment of financialand human resources to the Commission’s delegations and to those projects having a major impact, suchas micro-credit. These are practical measures likely to bring about a permanent relationship with women’smovements in local and national situations, with the networks of women from different countries set up tocampaign against desertification, for urgent conflict resolution, and for the right to health, housing andwater.

I should like to say something about the amendments aiming to remove the references to the variousinternational strategies – from Cairo to Maputo – on women’s reproductive health and free reproductiverights. Defending life is sacrosanct. The right to life means, however, that there can be no hesitation inimplementing development policies able …

(The President cut off the speaker)

Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, the Report on Gender Equality andWomen’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation deals with problems affecting women in Africanand Asian countries, for example. It sets out a strategy involving measures in various categories: genderequality, the political system, employment, education, health, and violence against women.

As we know, equal rights for women and men are a major aspect of social development enshrined in ourEuropean civilisation in basic regulations on respect for human rights and all people. But equal rights andnon-discrimination against women are not the only condition for social development. There are a wholeseries of factors that are important for social progress, starting with compliance with ethical and moral


principles that guarantee a signification reduction in exploitation, violence, cheating and other forms ofmanipulation, including discrimination against and oppression of women.

The dramatic living conditions of women in the African countries are the result of a policy of pillaging naturalresources and of speculation by international companies that enrich themselves at the cost of the life andhealth of the local population. Budget support and other EU programmes will not compensate for the lossesinflicted by a robber economy. Ethical relativism, too, favours sexual exploitation and the spread ofsexually-transmitted diseases. Sexual freedom as propagated robs women of their dignity by reducing themto sex objects and encourages violence. The situation of women will be improved not by more funding forcontraception and abortion, but by financial support for families, especially those with many children, soas to make education and development possible and to improve health care and social protection, especiallyfor pregnant women. Educated women with a predisposition for leadership or a desire to engage in politicsshould of course be able to stand for election and use their psycho-physical difference to broaden the spectrumof views on matters of importance not only for women and children.

However, gender mainstreaming as a central idea – which has brought us paternity leave, among other things– has already had the results that might have been expected, since Swedish fathers are not alone in preferringelk hunting or reading the newspaper to looking after children. The tyranny of sexual aggression spread bythe mass media influences ...


Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Mrs Uca’s report deals with the important issue of genderequality in development cooperation. Unfortunately, the rapporteur’s undoubtedly positive intentions areundermined by an excessive and controversial presentation of the issue of health and sexual and reproductiverights. This subject ought not to be treated controversially, but the report uses the paradoxical language sofrequently employed in the European Union. It is precisely this strange use of language that is distancing theEU from its citizens and turning it into a unintelligible, alienated bureaucratic machine. That is also how weare creating and nourishing opponents of the EU.

I therefore hope the PPE-DE Group’s amendments will be accepted by this House. Why? Because by “healthand reproductive rights” the author and promoters of this report mean the opposite of what those wordsactually say. “Reproductive rights” does not mean the restriction of reproduction. What we are doing is givinga positive name to something that has negative consequences, namely the restriction of reproduction. Thatis outright deception.

Those who advocate restricting the population in poor countries and promoting contraception or abortionshould not hide behind terms like health and reproductive rights. We should call a spade a spade. It seemsto me they don’t want to do so because they suspect the European Union should not really be concerningitself with such matters. Is there not something dubious about Europeans promoting and fundingcontraception and abortion outside Europe? In Africa and Asia, just as in the EU, it is individual states thatshould decide what policy to pursue in this area. The report says women should decide. But it is we who aretelling these women in Africa what to do. I think there is some confusion here.

Another point: there is no relation of cause and effect between having a large number of children and equality.The two things are unconnected, and I fail to understand why this report makes a connection between them.

Alain Hutchinson (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, just this once I do notintend to speak about the report itself – on which I congratulate the rapporteur – but rather on theamendments soon to be put to the vote, and I wish to say that I find the amendments proposed by our UENcolleagues literally scandalous.

(Applause)

By refusing to countenance in the report any consideration of, or reference to, the problems of contraception,the UEN is effectively refusing to recognise that women in the southern hemisphere are entitled to a decentlife. It is more than scandalous, it is irresponsible and hypocritical, when we know that the absence of properfamily planning condemns millions of people across the world to unnecessary suffering, illness and death– the hardest hit being women and the children that they bring into the world, all too often against their ownwishes.

The amendments proposed by the PPE-DE Group are no less regrettable. They merely formulate the ideasdifferently, particularly by refusing to consider recognition of a woman’s right to control her own fertility.


In the great majority of developing countries, women and girls – even young girls – continue to suffersignificant forms of discrimination and quite intolerable violence. Anyone rejecting the view that eachindividual woman in those countries should be entitled to full control of her own destiny is obviously refusingto regard these women as the equals of men. Yet reproductive health should not be such an alarming subject:it simply implies enabling people to experience responsible, satisfying and safe sexuality, and giving womenthe freedom to choose to have children if and when they want children. This concept of health depends onwomen and men being able to choose, on a basis of equality, methods of regulating fertility that are safe,effective, affordable and acceptable.

Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, it is important is that we be clear about what we want. For toolong a discussion which should be dealing with human rights has been poisoned by various politicalconsiderations. It goes without saying that a woman has a right to her own body. This is why I did not dodgethe question, in the debate on genital mutilation, whether the application of Sharia law amounts to notrecognising the equal value of human beings. No one would think of refusing a man the right to decide onhis own reproduction or say that it was a question of cultural values to refuse a man the possibility of earninghis own money and maintaining his own independence.

When the EU, which is the world’s biggest aid provider, acts in the Third World, our values must always beclear. Human rights – by which I understand equality not just in theory but also in practice – must be thewatchword. We must make it clearly understood that the market economy is good for poor women andmen, not bad. That is demonstrated not least by the successful campaign for micro-credit, which has createdboth prosperity and empowerment for millions of vulnerable women.

Of course, it is not for us in the rich world to force a particular way of life on other people, but we have, asI think it is important to point out, a responsibility to render possible choices where there are no choicestoday. Like many of my colleagues here, therefore, I am truly disappointed to see some of the amendmentstabled to an otherwise good and important report. They really do point in the wrong direction.

To my colleague behind me, I would like to say that, when I was a Member of the Swedish Parliament, Istayed home with my son for six months on paternity leave. I think that I actually became a better parentthan I had been before. Certainly, I read the papers, but my main responsibility was to look after my childrenand to do it together with my wife. I can only say that it is a good thing. I think more people should do it andsee how important it is to keep a family together: man, woman, children.

(Applause)

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by giving an enthusiasticwelcome to this report because it is important on several grounds.

First, on grounds of justice: while women and girls perform approximately two thirds of work in the world,they only receive 5% of the income and, moreover, poverty has a distinctly a female face.

Second, on grounds of dignity: I think it is imperative to replace the image often given of women as vulnerablevictims with an image of women as a highly differentiated group of social actors, who possess valuableresources and capacities and who have their own agendas; this involves among other things, recognisingand fully taking on board a woman’s right to take decisions over her own sexuality and her own body.

Third, on grounds of genuine commitment and consistency: it is regrettable that gender mainstreaming isoften perceived as an excuse for not outlining specific proposals and objectives in, for example, countrystrategy papers.

For all these reasons, I believe this report is to be welcomed and should receive the support of an absolutemajority.

Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this is a report on gender equality and women’s empowerment indeveloping cooperation. Why, then, are the Socialists, Liberals and some others preparing this morning tovote against an amendment which seeks information on discrimination against females and which starts inthe womb?

An amendment in my name and that of Mr Deva and Ms Belohorská calls on the Commission to ask all ofthe Union’s partners around the world, both governments and NGOs, to undertake a permanent genderanalysis of all abortions and to regularly report the findings to Parliament. Perhaps Mr Hutchinson mighttell us what is so terrible about getting that information? Parliament is, this morning, planning to look the


other way by voting down this amendment, yet in some countries a strong preference for sons has led to theelimination of millions of girls through parental sex selection. Baby girls also die through deliberate neglectand starvation. According to the UNFPA, in Asia alone, at least 60 million girls are ‘missing’. In some countriesit is reported that sex selection is more common in cities, where technologies such as amniocentesis andultrasound are readily available and open to misuse. In others it occurs more commonly in rural areas where,according to UNFPA, the preference for sons is strong. Daughters are in some countries seen as an economicliability and, according to UNFPAs, the sex ratio at birth, although it is slightly higher, becomes moreaccentuated because of this. The shortage of women and girls in some Asian countries has potentially alarmingsocial repercussions, including increased demand for trafficking in women, whether for marriage or for sexwork, and the worsening of their status overall. Those are the words of the UNFPA, not mine.

What is Parliament’s position? To look the other way. Throughout history, majorities have got it wrong, forexample in Austria and Germany in the 1930s. How could a supposedly reflective body like the EuropeanParliament do such an injustice as to vote down that amendment? We are simply seeking information ...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Mr President, I congratulate my colleague Ms Uca on this excellent report andI welcome the two-track approach, endorsed by the Commission in its communication, focusing on bothgender mainstreaming and specific actions to empower women. I deplore, however, that many DCI countrystrategy papers merely refer to gender as a cross-cutting issue, failing to specify concrete activities, targetsor financial allocations. This means that, despite the strategic framework, gender efforts in developmentcooperation could be reduced to rhetoric in the years to come.

Gender-sensitive performance indicators should be assessed in mid-term and final reviews. Parliament willmonitor the implementation of the CPS, and we hope that the Commission will be able to indicate progressin terms of specific gender-related outcomes.

Finally, I am shocked by several medieval conceptions reflected in some amendments to this report putforward by some colleagues on sexual and reproductive health matters. I will vote against them, evidently.

Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, I too want to thank the rapporteur for this excellentreport and also congratulate the Commission on its communication. The challenge now is to be consistent.Ten days ago I went to New York, together with several colleagues from national parliaments, to visit theCommission on the Status of Women, at the invitation of the European Parliamentary Forum. It is interestingto find that countries that are our ACP partners say one thing when they are talking to Brussels and thevarious capitals and then say something quite different in New York, when it comes to discussing the matterat global level.

That is why I call on the Commissioner to be consistent, to advise his delegations that there is also talk inthe respective capitals about the attitude taken in New York, because our goals in regard to women’s policyand development policy are often contradicted in New York.

In that connection, I am very glad that UNIFEM is now opening an office in Brussels; that will certainly raisethe level of the debate between the United Nations and the European Union in this area.

I am particularly glad that micro-credits are being named as one means of empowerment, of liberatingwomen. There are some relatively obscure arrangements...


Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my many thanks go to Mrs Uca for anexcellent report, and at the same time I share the disapproval expressed my many of the Members hereregarding the amendments tabled by the Right.

For women’s rights to be fully implemented in development cooperation as well, the European Union needsan envoy for women’s rights, whose role would be to ensure that women’s rights were taken into account.That way it would also be possible to spend development cooperation money more effectively.

We know that the cheapest way of promoting development is to improve women’s rights, including theirsexual rights, education, opportunities for employment and so on. Although people know this from experienceand numerous reports, it gets forgotten time after time, even when they are deciding on how to spend EU


development cooperation cash. That is why we need an envoy for women’s rights, and that is why I hopethat everyone here will show their support for Amendment 20 on this issue.

Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, although there is much good in this report, there is something I totallydisagree with, as my colleagues, Mr Kaczmarek and Mr Mitchell have already done.

I start by asking you, Mr President, who said this: ‘Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countlesswomen are denied the right even to exist.’ It might surprise the rapporteur of this report to know that it wassaid by Ban Ki-moon in his opening address to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, inNew York.

Furthermore, according to the UNFPA, in its state of the world population report last year, there is a globaldeficit of 60 million women in the world – that is the whole population of the United Kingdom! Thesemissing females have been prenatally sex-selected, aborted and ‘infanticised’ out of existence, and this ishappening on the continent on which I was born; I know what I am talking about. How is it that a report ofthe European Parliament on gender equality can be silent on the deliberate elimination on the basis of genderalone? Where is the equality in that?

I tabled an amendment to this report demanding a gender analysis of all abortions performed in the world,and guess what happened? The Socialists voted against it! Why? Do we not have the right to know howwomen are being aborted before they are born? We will see later today how they vote on Amendment 11.

I do not know why the rapporteur has insisted on squandering this valuable opportunity to remove the mostsignificant cause of injustice against women in the world today – their basic right to life – and, instead, insiston perpetuating through championing the so-called rights of sexual...


Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the statistics prove that equal rights policyhastens achievement of the Millennium Development Goals for eradicating poverty and correctingdemographic, social and economic indicators. Gender issues, however, are still considered of secondaryimportance.

In many countries women continue to lack access to basic health services, education and participation indecision-making processes. Two thirds of all the world’s illiterates are women. In the developing countriesthe likelihood of attending secondary school is 11% less for girls than for boys. The statistics also show atragic health situation. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, 60% of those infected by the HIV virus are women,and girls account for 75% of new cases of AIDS among young people.

The Commission’s Communication is an important step towards the EU’s introduction of gender issues intothe programme of cooperation with partner countries as a major instrument in the eradication of povertyand support for human rights, which includes combating violence against women. I congratulate therapporteur on a very well prepared report, and in conclusion ...


Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) Today we are discussing another report that analyses the situationof women, the second one this week, but this time from the perspective of equal opportunities concerningthe development of the Community.

It is a report that provoked discussions and controversies, different approaches and contextualised analyses.It is however important that we discuss this kind of matter; it is even more important that contextualisedproposals and tangible results should exist.

We talk much about education and its outstanding role in changing attitudes, contouring behaviours,integration of groups with high risk of marginalisation and development of communities. However, I believethat it is high time we had a consistent policy at European level in the field of education, with clear steps thatshould be monitored. It is obvious that gender issues must be part of educational programmes.

It is important that the European Union include this theme in the dialogues with third countries in the fieldof human rights protection. 2008, the Year of Intercultural Dialogue, must be used to encourageinter-university exchanges and exchanges of experience between European women and women in developingcountries with a view to stating women’s role all over the world. From this perspective, the promotion ofyoung generations, including young girls, must be a priority of development cooperation.


I thank you and I hope that the final version of this very important report will reflect all views existing withinthe European Parliament and we will have a balanced approach on this issue.

Thijs Berman (PSE). – (NL) Women's freedom to make their own choices is a simple human right. It helpsthe economy to grow and social protection to improve. Mortality amongst women in developing countriesis still tragically and unacceptably high. Families are destroyed as a result. There is a direct link here withchild labour. Investing in equal opportunities and freedom means investing in the future, in Europe and inthe developing world.

Along with my Group I find it shocking that in this House a whole lot of ultraconservative amendments,aimed at curtailing women's rights, have been tabled to Mrs Uca's excellent and comprehensive report. Theseare not really about choices in pregnancy, that is pure hypocrisy. They are about scrapping all references toeven the most moderate UN texts on women's rights. But sexual freedom and reproductive rights guaranteefreedom of choice for every woman. Even the Vatican will recognise that freedom one day. But womencannot afford to wait; the world cannot afford to wait.

Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I sincerely believe that having access to informationand services relating to sexual and reproductive health protects women from AIDS, if anything. I am thereforetotally opposed to our refusal to allow it on the grounds that the hidden agenda here is abortion. I am alsoopposed to the fact that for the same reason we are deleting the Kyoto Protocol from the well-known MaputoProtocol text on the rights of women in Africa.

Certainly, the issue of abortions is one of principle and each of us will adopt a position according to whatwe believe. I respect the beliefs of others, but I also ask them to do the same for mine. We ought, then, torespect both the rights of women and the right of each woman who chooses whether or not to have anabortion, be it for economic, social, family or even health reasons. I personally will therefore vote in favourof the report.

Rovana Plumb (PSE). – (RO) There are many good aspects in this report and I will support it, but I will voteagainst the absurd amendments from the right-wing on reproductive rights.

I want to say that it is quite obvious that sustainable development cannot be achieved without reconsideringthe role of women in the economy, society, politics, environmental protection and family. We determinedand discussed today that education is a key field in development. Given that equality is first of all an issue ofstereotypes and education, I propose that the Commission support the Member States in including genderequality issues in school curricula.

We now need concrete and firm actions, such as an increase in budget resources to improvethe economicand social condition of the family and I am sure and we have the political will to achieve these goals.

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Since 70% of the 1.3 billion people who live in absolute poverty are women,development aid must be targeted mainly at women.

I agree with all the points in Mrs Uca’s report, which states that education is the key to women’s empowerment.I agree that financial and technical support should be provided to those women’s organisations that are activein the area of education and teach women how to become successful. I support microcredit as a tool formeeting the Millennium Development Goals.

However, I do not agree with the rapporteur’s position on the issues of reproductive health in the report. Ifwe want to give women the right to make decisions concerning their bodies, why do we not give their unbornchildren the same opportunity to decide between life or death? I support the amendments tabled by mycolleagues from the PPE-DE and UEN political groups in this regard and I thank my colleagues for theircourage to include them. I will not vote for the report if these amendments are not adopted.

Karin Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I congratulate the Commission and the rapporteur. I am sorrythis debate has focused so strongly on sexual and reproductive rights, because there are many other importantissues in this context.

It seems to me that the UN and a number of conservatives are acting as though sexual and reproductive rightsrelate only to abortion. In that case I would advise them to check the facts and look at them closely: to beagainst contraception, against information, against giving women access to these services will only furtherincrease the number of abortions. I find it more than cynical that those same people stand up and pretendthey have a monopoly on ethics and morals.


In view of the statistics we hear from the United Nations and the World Population Monitoring Report everyyear, it is unethical and immoral to come out against sexual and reproductive rights here.

(Applause)

Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we are discussing gender equality and women’s empowerment anddevelopment cooperation. I am increasingly saddened by the fact that every time we have a debate aroundthese issues, it descends into a very intolerant debate around sexual health and reproductive rights for women.It is a tragedy. It is one of the ongoing tragedies in this Parliament that we cannot see the bigger picture aboutthe importance of education and micro-credit.

I will not be supporting most of the amendments tabled by some of my colleagues. It is not that I am notconcerned. It is not that I am not concerned about the rate of sex selection that disposes of female foetusesin China and everywhere else. Of course we all have concerns about what is going on there. It is because,truly, I am not convinced that the motives for putting down these amendments are in what the amendmentactually says.

If our colleagues were against abortion I would respect them putting down a motion against abortion becauseI think sex selection of male foetuses to them is as much of a concern as female foetuses ...


Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) I would like to commend the rapporteur for the comprehensivereport on the gender issue and the Commission for its Communication. However, a document is as powerfulas its implementation. Therefore we should make efforts to make this happen.

The Millennium Development Goals can be achieved through balancing all policies – family, school, university,healthcare, economy – in which women should be pivotal. In our cooperation programmes we have toemphasize on the right of women to be healthy, including reproductive health.

We should also think of the women’s economic independence which is a prerequisite for the developmentof entrepreneurship and the fine-tuned use of their entire potential. It is particularly important to speak ofshared responsibilites at all levels, national and international alike, shared responsibilities between men andwomen. This pertains to all walks of life and to all sectors of the economy.

Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, this report was preceded by a very heated debate in thecommittee at the start of the year, and it seems this debate is continuing today here in plenary.

I consider women’s health services in general to be a very important component of human rights. Thesedefinitely extend to services relating to sexual and reproductive health.

This is not only a problem in developing countries: according to what I heard yesterday about the UnitedStates of America, 40% of young teenage girls have sexually transmitted diseases. Mere education andresponsibility are not enough even in the western world.

In the developing countries the situation is far worse. HIV among women is on the increase, as is sexualviolence against women. The provision of sexual and reproductive services in the developing countries isnot about abortion either; it is about women knowing what options they have and knowing that they havea right to make their own choices.

Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, thank you for allowing me to speak on this because, inthe heat of the debate, I think I want to bring matters down to a more practical level. The reality is stated inthe explanatory statement, for example in Africa, where women make up 52% of the population but perform75% of the agricultural work and produce and market up to 80% of food. I think the role of women indevelopment in terms of food production is often ignored.

But I do take exception to the paragraph in the explanatory statement, which is historic and not up to date,in relation to a comment it makes about the common agricultural policy, which I absolutely disagree with.Europe is the largest importer of produce from the developing world. We have the Everything But Armsagreement and we will soon, perhaps, have a world trade agreement. But I think we need, as the World Banksays, to invest again in agriculture and food production, and we need to do that through women.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I will be very brief because I presume there isnot time to speak at any length.


I should just like to pick up on Mrs Gomes’ question. Why do the country strategy papers contain so fewspecific actions on the issue of gender? The answer is simple: the country strategies are worked out anddecided by the partner countries themselves because they have to choose two sectors on which to focus andwe do not dictate what sectors they should select. I would, however, emphasise that we insist on genderquestions being taken into consideration throughout the entire course of projects.

Mr Lambsdorff, I understand why you find it hard to accept the lack of cohesion in the European Union’sposition in New York, but I think you need to take that up with the Council rather than the Commission, forit is not something that the Commission can rectify. That said, I would obviously echo your desire for a morecohesive position.

Very briefly – and there may be those among you who find my words provocative – I should like to sharewith you my own conviction: I fully agree with those who regard reproductive health as a precondition forwomen’s equality. Personally, I do not see how we can address the subject and tackle this question withoutagreeing on that precondition, just as we agree on access to school, access to work and access to micro-credit.All these things are clearly important in themselves but ultimately it comes down to creating conditions inwhich women can choose freely. That is a basic principle of gender equality and it cannot be denied!

(Applause)

I would also invite anyone who might be in any doubt about the human tragedy of women’s circumstancesin certain developing countries to come and see for themselves and to hear the stories that some womencould tell them about the anguish of their own experience. That is all I wanted to say: there is little to add.Thank you again for the high quality of the debate.

Feleknas Uca, rapporteur. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am most grateful to all the speakersfor their interesting contributions. My special thanks go to Mrs Creţu who drafted the opinion on behalf ofthe Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Her clear analysis and proposals for greater coherencehave enriched the report in many important areas. For reasons of time I cannot, unfortunately, discuss allher contributions and I hope she will not take that as a sign of disrespect.

Many thanks to Mrs van Lancker, Mr Berman, Mr Lambsdorff, Mr Hutchinson, Mrs Scheele, Mrs Doyle,Mrs Weber, Mr Varvitsiotis, Mrs Hassi and Mrs Gomes. They are quite right to say that reproductive healthin the developing countries has absolute priority and it is important to fight for it boldly and consistently. Ivehemently disagree with Mrs Krupa’s view that the sexual freedom of women provokes violence. That isan appalling and discriminatory kind of logic!

(Applause)

I say to Mr Deva that I did not expect anything different from him. Please forgive me for that remark. Mydear Luisa Morgantini and Mr Romeva i Rueda have, as ever, found strong words to make it clear that womendo not want handouts but simply what is due to them as half of humankind.

Many thanks to all those who support my report. I am also glad that NGOs in the field of development andwomen’s rights have given a most positive assessment of the report. I am very grateful for all the cooperationand support I have received.

(Applause)


We shall now proceed to the vote.

Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), in writing. – (PL) Equal opportunities and equal access for women and mento resources and participation in public life are of decisive importance not only outside the EU, in theframework of sustainable development, they are also extremely important for many women in the EuropeanUnion itself. I will give you an example: in Poland, in my own region, Silesia, women working day-to-day infavour of equality between women and men are worried that gender mainstreaming, i.e. gender policy, isnot properly incorporated in regional economic, political and cultural action.

Women meeting in Katowice on 8 March 2007 proclaimed that ‘gender policy is not promoted by the localauthorities or the media – either publicly or privately – despite the fact that Poland joined the EU almost 4


years ago.’ They added that the Silesian authorities were apparently not convinced by the slogan ‘Democracywithout women is only half democracy’.

Following the recent elections there are one-third fewer women in Silesian politics. So how can one speakof women’s equality? That is why Silesian women are demanding that the local authorities ensure them equalinvolvement in local government and the decision-making process, access to promotion and the pursuit ofbusiness activities, equal opportunities with regard to employment, working conditions and pay, and freedomfrom violence.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROUREVice-President

4. Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see the minutes)

4.1. Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (A6-0006/2008, ClaudeTurmes) (vote)

4.2. The challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the new MemberStates (A6-0036/2008, Danutė Budreikaitė) (vote)

4.3. Enhancing the quality of life of older people (A6-0027/2008, Neena Gill) (vote)

4.4. Taxation of unleaded petrol and gas oil (A6-0030/2008, Olle Schmidt) (vote)

4.5. The European Union's role in Iraq (A6-0052/2008, Ana Maria Gomes) (vote)

– After the vote on Amendment 10

Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, I should simply like to propose an oral amendment asfollows: ‘having regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons inTime of War, of 12 August 1949, together with Additional Protocols I and II thereto, and particularlyconcerned at the violence suffered by humanitarian, medical and religious personnel in the performance oftheir duties’. That is the text of the amendment. I have consulted widely with colleagues from the variousgroups and they have assured me that they will not obstruct my proposal.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

4.6. European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (vote)

4.7. The particular situation of women in prison and the impact of the imprisonmentof parents on social and family life (A6-0033/2008, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou)(vote)

– Before the vote:

Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, before we begin the vote on this report I must saythat along with the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos, and the other rapporteurs, I have an oral amendmentto propose regarding the first amendment to paragraph 6.

It is to remove the last two words of the amendment, I shall say them in English: (EN) ‘contraception andabortion’; (ES) this would obviate the need for voting on the second part of the amendment in question.



– Before the vote on Amendment 7:

Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, rapporteur. − (EL) Madam President, this is about a change in the phrase‘detention of girls and boys’; and the age is changed too, to 18 instead of 17.


4.8. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in Development Cooperation(A6-0035/2008, Feleknas Uca) (vote)

5. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- Report: Claude Turmes (A6-0006/2008)

Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, whatever one thinks of the current debate on climate change– and I can sense a lot of hot air all around me – I think we can all agree on the need for more energy efficiency.

But, if we are going to talk about energy efficiency, let us make sure that we actually have some joined-upthinking on this. I will give an example: our whole policy on energy-saving light bulbs. Yes, we want to phaseout existing light bulbs, but yet we impose tariffs on the import of energy-saving light bulbs. Yes, we talkabout banning mercury in barometers (even though it actually constitutes a very small risk), yet at the sametime we are encouraging energy-saving light bulbs which contain, yes, you guessed it, more mercury. Notonly that, but we are talking about energy efficiency, yet we continue to come to Strasbourg, which emitstonnes and tonnes of needless extra CO2.

Therefore, if we really want to take a lead on energy efficiency, we should close down the StrasbourgParliament.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

- Report: Neena Gill (A6-0027/2008)

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of Community participationin a research and development programme aimed at enhancing the quality of life of older people throughthe use of new information and communication technologies. The project provides development opportunitiesnot only for older people but also for the handicapped, women bringing up children at home and peopleliving in rural areas. In my view, this initiative will prevent social stratification in Europe in the area of accessto digital services, as well as the marginalisation of social groups threatened by less access to moderntechnology. However, it is very important to bear in mind that the cost of these technologies must be keptas low as possible.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) I voted in favour of the report on “enhancing the quality of lifeof older people”, which deals with issues of major importance for many European citizens, especially theolder generation. Older people are dependent on retirement benefits, which are mostly at a very low level.The problem is growing with the increase in the numbers of older people receiving these funds, which arelimited since the number of contributors is falling. Thus we are heading for a situation in which a large groupof older people will be applying for various social benefits. Many of them, however, are still capable of variouskinds of work and can remain active on the labour market. The growing number of older people, plus theneed for a wider range of services and products, increases demand in this area.

- Report: Olle Schmidt (A6-0030/2008)

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I voted against, since the report gives rise to anumber of doubts. I do not support the provisions of the directive on the harmonisation of excise duty rateson gas oil and petrol. Diversity of excise duty rates creates the possibility of competition among transportfirms from different EU countries, which undoubtedly works to the benefit of the consumer. I also opposethe provisions on the increase of excise duty rates on fuel throughout the European Union. High oil prices


on national markets and the harmonisation of excise duties in all 27 EU countries will put a brake on economicgrowth in countries with a low GNP. An increase in fuel prices means an increase in the price of goods andservices. I accordingly voted for the amendments tabled to allow the new Member States, including Poland,to retain different excise duty rates.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I voted against, because the significant increasein excise duty on gas oil will give rise to an increase in customs duty on goods and services in countries whichare supposed to charge a rate of excise duty that is lower than the proposed Community minimum but is inany case high with regard to conditions in those countries.

Given that average income in the Member States that joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007 isrelatively low, the proposed increase in excise duty is too great. Its effects will be felt especially by the poorestfamilies, since the present rise in fuel prices already weighs heavily on their domestic budgets. The leastdeveloped countries, with their low income levels, should therefore be granted much longer transition periodsthan those proposed by the European Commission, to give them time to adapt. I consider the proposedincrease unjustified and excessive.

Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, it is very good to see you back in your chair listeningto these explanations of vote, which I know you enjoy so much. I would also like to say I appreciate thekindness and understanding of your staff and services and interpreters this week whilst we have been makingthese explanations of vote.

I voted against this particular report for a whole bunch of reasons. Firstly, I believe in tax competition. I donot believe tax harmonisation or tax should be a competence of these institutions at all.

Secondly, this week, in my country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed higher fuel taxes on Britishcar and freight drivers without understanding the consequences of his actions. I should like to raise a separateproblem. I am running a campaign with the Northampton Chronicle and Echo for the people who live in thatvicinity in my region, where we are being charged more for our fuel than all the other major towns around.I wish to highlight that there are other problems within the fuel market, let alone the problems to do withtax.

Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to echo the comments of my colleague in thankingyou, the staff and the interpreters for your kind patience as we seek to deliver these explanations of vote,which at times may be rather entertaining and at times rather boring for you. I understand that. But that isthe great contrast in this place.

Now, let us talk about tax competition. We talk about creating the world’s largest single market here, andwe talk about making the EU the most competitive economy in the world, and we talk about the worldcompetition, yet what do we do when it comes to tax competition? Well, as it actually says in the explanatorystatement, the best way to address the problem of competition would be through full harmonisation.

So here we are, seeing competition as a problem, while at the same time talking about the need for a morecompetitive economy. This should not be a competence of the EU. It is a competence of Member States, andwe should leave it as such, because the best way to ensure a competitive economy is to make sure that wehave tax competition, not harmonisation.

- Report: Ana Maria Gomes (A6-0052/2008)

Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I voted against. The European Union has nointerest in funding Iraq. There are other countries in Europe itself that would benefit much more from suchaid. The Caritas Europa report shows that in 14 European countries – including Poland, Austria, Germanyand Britain – single parents, especially women, are particularly affected by poverty.

According to an EU report Poland, with 26%, has the highest percentage of children living in poverty of allthe EU countries. One Pole in five (19%) lives below the poverty line. And 22% of Polish children with atleast one working parent are threatened by poverty. That is the highest figure for Europe. Thirteen percentof Poles in employment are threatened by poverty. In Austria, 47% of unemployed single parents live inchronic poverty. Let us concentrate our efforts on Europe.


- Report: Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (A6-0033/2008)

Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, yesterday when you were in the chair I emphasisedhow much I always enjoy reading the reports by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equalityin this place and wonder why it exists. To prove this point today we have a report whose findings are morecoherent with somebody who watched too much Prisoner: Cell Block H as a child than on the actual facts ofthe situation of women in prisons – and whether that should be a competence of this place anyway.

For example, in recital Q, it says: ‘whereas the increased number of women in prison is partly due to theworsening economic conditions of women’. I think, and I have checked with the statistics from a numberof countries in the European Union, the number is going up simply because the population is going up. Infact, the proportion of women in prison across Europe is dropping.

It says here that access to health care of all kinds should be provided to a very high quality in prisons. Yes,that is absolutely right. But there are plenty of elderly women in my constituency who would love to havethe same benefits of health-care provision that are provided to women inmates in prisons throughout theUK. So that is why I have abstained on the report.


Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) I pointed yesterday to Turkey's unassailable position as an aspiring Member Stateand this report merely confirms that special status. For weeks Turkey has been bombing the north of Iraqand ten thousand Turkish troops have invaded the country. And instead of clearly condemning this aggressionwhat does Parliament do? It politely asks Turkey to respect the territorial integrity of Iraq.

All rules, all principles, all guidelines and criteria have to step aside for Turkish accession, from the Copenhagencriteria to international law and its ban on the use of aggression. Turkey regards itself as above the law, anylaw, and is constantly reinforced in that belief by Europe. One day the European Union will have cause toregret its stance.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I was a sharp and clear critic and opponent of the Iraq warand I still am. I believe, however, that we must also make up for the mistakes we committed there. We in thewestern world – both Europe and the USA – therefore have a duty to do our utmost to secure peace andstability, which will be difficult enough. That is why the Gomes report is an outstanding one.

We really should use the opportunity to support Mrs Záborská’s initiative for the release of the kidnappedarchbishop. I am sorry that as a result of a management mistake on the part of this House the resolution onthe subject is not on this afternoon’s agenda. It is our duty to do our utmost to help this representative of aminority whose existence is under threat, which has lived together in peace with its Muslim neighbours forcenturies, and which is threatened with genocide precisely at a time when we are responsible in Iraq. Thatis not acceptable and that is why we must take strong action here.


Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I agree with much ofMrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou’s report on the situation of women in prison. Prison administrations mustensure decent conditions for persons serving prison sentences or under temporary arrest.

I want to draw attention to the situation of women employed in the prison service. In Poland, 5 000 of the30 000 prison officers are women. Prison officers’ remuneration does not exceed EUR 500 a month. Giventhe role of prison staff in ensuring that sentences are properly served, it important that most officers dealingwith women prisoners should be of the same sex. That lessens the discomfort of women prisoners andensures better protection of their rights. Without a significant increase in remuneration and better workingconditions in the prison services, we shall not achieve the aims of the report.


Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I voted with my party’s whip on this particularreport and against many of the amendments. However, I do have a problem with the contents of the recitals.It says, ‘whereas it is necessary to create a national force for maintaining order that brings together all thecommunities viewed to be trustworthy by them’. This is the people of Iraq, the national force created by, Iguess, people from within Iraq.


You do wonder actually how much determination the individual Member States that comprise the EuropeanParliament have put behind that effort so far. All you have to do is look at how many people have supportedthe efforts in Iraq, believe in them or not. As we do, we should try and tidy up the problems that we havecaused.

I really do think that this resolution shows how trying to have a harmonised EU foreign and security policyin the future will cause us many problems, both in this place and within our Member State capitals.

- Report: Feleknas Uca (A6-0035/2008)

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, like the majority of my Group I voted against this report, notbecause of the subject-matter but because this important issue keeps being exploited for ideological battlesabout the concepts of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

I want to appeal to all the Groups in this House to put an end to this ideological dispute, which is detrimentalto the matter in hand. We must make it clear that reproductive health is important, but that it has nothingto do with abortion, because that does not come within the European Union’s remit and each state has theright to decide its own laws in that area. That is in line with the principle of subsidiarity, which is why theEuropean citizens’ money may not be used for purposes that some EU Member States do not find acceptableon ethical, moral and legal grounds.

We should, therefore, very definitely leave this subject out of our deliberations and concentrate on neutralconcepts that actually have something to do with the question of health and nothing to do with the questionof abortion, on which opinions differ in this House and where I am strongly in favour of protecting theunborn child.

Written explanations of vote

- Report: Claude Turmes (A6-0006/2008)

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Claude Turmes’ report on the Global Energy and Renewable Energy Fund(GEEREF) is one that I endorse. The GEEREF will use limited public funds to encourage private investmentin energy efficient and renewables orientated projects in developing countries and economies in transition.A fund that helps everyone achieve a certain level of energy efficiency and embrace renewables has mysupport and I voted in favour of it.

Rovana Plumb (PSE), − in writing. − (RO) The resolution refers to the creation of an innovative financialinstrument to support the implementation of certain projects financed by this fund in view of the transitionto an economy with low carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation to the effects of climate change.

The development of this type of economy by means of projects financed by the fund means the creation ofnew jobs, equal conditions for social development and elimination of discrepancies. In this sense, the specialsupport granted to SMEs in access to funding of their GEEREF projects is beneficial.

I voted for this resolution because I believe that these two forms of action, namely the abatement of greenhousegas emissions and adaptation to the effects of climate change, must be developed in parallel, by means ofcoherent and convergent policies with a positive impact on the development of labour market/creation ofnew jobs and GDP increase.

- Report: Danutė Budreikaitė (A6-0036/2008)

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) In general terms it can be said that the purpose of this reportis to encourage the integration of the ‘new’ Member States into EU external policy, particularly ‘developmentcooperation policy’ and ‘European neighbourhood policy’.

The report also considers that the ‘new’ Member States represent an opportunity for the EU ‘to reinforce itsstrategic presence in eastern Europe, central Asia and the Caucasus’, regions with which the ‘new’ MemberStates have priority relationships and which have received less EU ‘aid’ to date.

This means seeking to make use of the privileged relationship of the eastern European countries that joinedthe EU in 2004 as an EU intervention instrument (taking into account the interests of the major powers andtheir large economic and financial groups, particularly in the energy sector) in the countries of the Communityof Independent States, the Western Balkans and the Caucasus.


That is, seeking to make use of those countries’ ‘experience’ of ‘transition’ to capitalism and to inclusion inNATO and the EU as a model to be followed in these regions. This is ultimately what is at issue: a policy thatdisguises the interests of capitalism with ‘development’.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support Danutė Budreikaitė’s report on the challenge of EU developmentcooperation policy for new Member States. While the EU’s new Member States, excluding Malta and Cyprus,provide unique expertise for the application and targeting of development policy in our neighbour countriesto the East, we must actively encourage their involvement with Sub-Saharan Africa and other LDCs. Ournew Members strengthen the EU’s role as a world partner and should be fully encouraged in that role. Thereport and its recommendations have my support.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The mere fact that we are discussing the role of the new MemberStates in European Union cooperation and development policies, particularly with the African, Caribbeanand Pacific countries, is clear evidence of the success of the process of enlargement and of the integration ofthe countries that have joined in recent years.

The ‘former Eastern European countries’ certainly had a long tradition of ‘cooperation’ with Africa, and itmay be that the links remain, though in completely different terms. The most relevant issue, however, is thatthese countries, which are still struggling valiantly with the costs of their reforms, are now capable ofcontributing to cooperation and development with the active consent of their populations. This exemplaryway forward could and we hope will be followed by other countries in largely the same circumstances inother parts of the world.

Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I am voting in favour of Mrs Budreikaitė’s report on the challengeof EU development cooperation policy for the new Member States.

The report is of a very high quality, providing a detailed analysis of the current situation of developmentcooperation by the new Member States, the institutions and programmes involved, the recipient countriesand the relevant financial contributions.

The issues dealt with in the report put the emphasis on relations between the EU Member States and theirnew eastern neighbours. The new Member States are important links between the EU and its new neighbours.

I personally would call for the development of effective forms of cooperation between old and new donorsin favour of less developed countries, taking advantage of the predominant influence of the new MemberStates in specific regions or countries.

- Report: Neena Gill (A6-0027/2008)

Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of Mrs Gill’s report on the proposal for a decision ofthe European Parliament and of the Council on the participation by the Community in a research anddevelopment programme. This programme seeks to enhance the quality of life of older people through theuse of new Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). European Union participation in thisprogramme will ensure that it is better able to address the demographic challenges.

The use of ICT may help older people to become more independent and to remain healthy, and may enhancetheir quality of life.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We voted in favour of this report, which deals with theEuropean Commission proposal on the EU’s involvement in the research and development programme thatvarious EU Member States have decided to set up in the field of the new Information Technologies (ICT) tohelp people as they get older and to enable them to act effectively. The programme is entitled ‘AmbientAssisted Living’, and seeks to obtain synergies in terms of management and financial resources. Portugal isalso taking part.

The report, which the European Parliament has now approved, draws attention to and makes concreteproposals for promoting the role of women in science and research, and places stress on the involvementof SMEs and on fair access for all Members States to cost-effective solutions so as to avoid widening thedigital divide and thus creating a two tier Europe.

It is also proposed that the Commission should conduct an interim evaluation by 2010 to assess the qualityand efficiency of the implementation of the programme.


Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I should like to make two comments on the Gill report, which isessentially about organising research programmes with a view to making older people more independentthrough the use of information and communication technologies.

The first point is on the substance of the proposals: it is hard to see what added value the European Unionwould bring to a project initiated, quite legitimately, by a number of Member States – aside from making theprocess more bureaucratic and setting up a new Community body. The Union’s financial largesse, to thetune of EUR 150 million over a number of years minus the operating costs of the aforesaid new body, doesnot seem like a clinching argument.

My second point concerns the form of the proposals. It is increasingly common for legislative reports to bepresented in this House in the form of a compromise between Parliament and the Council – the idea beingto speed the process by facilitating their adoption at first reading. In effect, however, what we see is thelegislative body held hostage by a handful of expert negotiators. I regard the spread of this practice as a threatto democracy.

Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report proposing European Unionparticipation in the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) research and development programme that has beenundertaken jointly by a number of Member States and third countries.

Population ageing is a challenge to European society and to Europe’s economy. Average life expectancytoday is 80 years and the number of people in the 65-80 age bracket will increase by approximately 40%between 2010 and 2030.

New solutions are emerging to help people cope with the memory loss, impaired vision, hearing or mobilityand loss of independence which are more likely to afflict us as we age.

European Union participation in the programme is envisaged in the context of the European Commission’sseventh Framework Research and Development Programme. The European Union will provideEUR 150 million to cofinance projects that will have a leverage effect worth at least EUR 600 million between2008 and 2013.

The countries taking part in the AAL programme are also to help finance it by making an equivalent orgreater contribution, which means that each country will invest at least 20% of its national research budgetin this field.

Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN), in writing. − (PL) I voted in favour of Mrs Gill’s report(A6-0027/2008) ‘Enhancing the quality of life of older people’, which aims to promote the use ofmodern information and communication technology as a means of support for the elderly.

As we know, our societies are marked by ever-increasing life expectancy. That is a very positive trend. TheEU average is now 80 years, and the proportion of people in the 65+ age bracket will shortly reach 40%. Thetechnologies in question can significantly help such people in various situations, including the prolongationof professional and social activity and improvement of the quality of life. Naturally, the specific needs ofhandicapped people must also be taken into account, and access to these services and technologies must beensured mainly through the provision of broadband internet connections in both urban and rural areas soas to avoid geographical discrimination.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am in favour of cofinancing by the European Union of the ‘AmbientAssisted Living’ programme, since it would benefit not just older people but also other population groups,such as those with disabilities. It is precisely because of the major demographic change in the Europeanpopulation and the rising life expectancy over recent decades that we must support new information andcommunication technologies that would make it considerably easier for older people to cope with theeveryday hurdles facing them. In regard to the general cost reduction in the health sector as a result of theuse of these new technologies, I would also draw your attention to the research into ‘mobile health monitoring’systems, the use of which would reduce annual health costs by EUR 1500 million in Germany alone.

Let me underline that one of the benefits of cofinancing is that it would also have a positive impact on theprivate sector, as it would indirectly assist small and medium-sized enterprises.

I strongly support the AAL Joint Programme because the use of new technologies means continued respectfor the private life of older people and allows them to grow old with dignity.


David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I back Nina Gill’s report ‘Enhancing the quality of life of older people’. Inpooling resources and coordinating research and development on a European level we are more adequatelyable to assess how to improve the lives of our older citizens. By setting a minimum contribution we ensurethe participation of all Member States in this cause. I would like to commend the rapporteur on her reportand support the recommendations contained within.

- Report: Olle Schmidt (A6-0030/2008)

Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV)We have chosen to support the report in its entirety since, in our view, the EU must prioritise action onunhealthy tax competition in the fuel sector, in particular with a view to enabling the EU to achieve its climateobjectives.

The tax harmonisation proposal would also not prevent individual Member States from raising their CO2

taxes on petrol and diesel.

This is a further important reason for supporting the report.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a directive seeks to narrow the pricedifferences on fuel among the various Member States that lead to distortions in terms of competition andthe environment in road transport activity. The difference in prices of gas oil used as motor fuel and unleadedpetrol are indeed significant.

Hence its importance for Portugal, one of the countries in which this situation is making itself felt, bearingin mind the price differences between our country and Spain: Portuguese enterprises suffer competitionfrom Spanish enterprises because the latter benefit from lower fuel prices – fuel representing around 30%of costs – due to lower fuel tax (and VAT).

Portuguese enterprises have justified the stagnation of workers’ fixed wages by this pressure on costs, withserious consequences for the labour force.

The European Parliament's proposal is more positive because it eliminates the transitional periods underArticle 18, a very important aspect in the current situation, in the hope that it will make it possible to reducethe difference between Portugal and Spain in 2010, since the latter will have to increase its fuel tax fromEUR 302 to EUR 330 in the case of gas oil. The approximation will continue in 2012 and 2015. In the caseof unleaded petrol, unfortunately, there will be no change by this means.

Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Schmidt report because what the EuropeanParliament has engaged in here, instead of supporting the Commission initiative, is a sort of conjuring trickplaying off the old against the new Member States. In any event the decision will ultimately rest with theMinisters alone and it will have to be unanimous.

Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Higher taxation and more controls: that is the Brussels recipe forEurope! Harmonising excise duties, just like harmonising VAT by imposing binding minimum rates suchas we have had now for 15 years, is demonstrably ineffective, utterly unnecessary and in some cases evendamaging.

Do I need to remind you that measures like this prevent Member States from reducing, for example, VAT inthe catering industry, even though that is a sector where the case for distorting cross-border competition isparticularly flimsy and where lowering VAT could help to create thousands of jobs? Do I need to remindyou that the new Member States are being forced to apply tax increases that their people find quite outrageous,in order to comply with European rules – while at the same time being required, under other European rules,to cut their rates of inflation?

The current proposal is to increase tax on diesel in line with tax on unleaded petrol, the pretexts being adesire to protect the environment and an alleged need to combat ‘taxation tourism’ – by which we meanordinary people taking advantage of competition! It is all the more scandalous because drivers in a countrylike France have been encouraged to buy diesel-powered vehicles – presumably so that we can now clobberthem harder than ever!

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This explanation of vote seeks to stress that we are onceagain wasting an opportunity at EU level – since the mechanism exists – to take action to protect small-scalecoastal fishing by failing to apply to petrol at least the same conditions of taxation enjoyed by users of gas


oil for farming and fishing. It should be remembered that petrol is the fuel used by vessels in this importantand largest segment of the various Member States’ fleets, notably Portugal’s.

In its 28 September 2006 resolution on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry, theEuropean Parliament, considering that increased fuel prices have a particularly negative effect on the fishingindustry – significantly aggravating the existing socioeconomic crisis and drastically reducing fishermen'sincomes – and stressing that there is a serious risk of the disappearance of thousands of fisheries enterprisesand the loss of thousands of jobs, adopted a range of proposals to support the sector so that it can cope withincreased fuel prices. A year and a half later, apart from the increase in the ‘de minimis’ aid, virtually nothinghas been done at EU level.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − The goal of Olle Schmidt’s report ‘Taxation of unleaded petrol, gas andoil’ is to attend to the disparities in excise duty on fuel across the Union. The current imbalance has encouragedfuel tourism, which has economic and environmental ramifications. Measures need to be taken to ensurethat this practice is discouraged. Nevertheless I recognise the needs of new Member States still engaged inthe process of economic development, who will require time to adjust to the measures proposed. I voted infavour of this report.

Pierre Pribetich (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of the Commission proposal was to introduce measuresfor reducing CO2 emissions in accordance with the stated aims of the energy and climate change package.However, neither the Commission proposal nor the report adopted today addresses the urgent need todevelop a fuel capable of making a real difference in the fight against CO2 emissions. The disparity of theplanned adjustments and the way they are to be spread, both over time and geographically across the Union,will make the proposed measures ineffective.

If we really intend to move into a ‘clean-air era’, we ought to be more environmentally imaginative andsupport measures that will allow us to tackle climate disruption effectively. The taxation-change approachproposed by the Commission and by Olle Schmidt’s report fails to promote either research or the conceptof a new alternative fuel to curb CO2 emissions.

I want to take a clear stand today in opposition to the thinking behind this report and that is why I votedagainst what is simply a compromise that subverts the declared aim.


Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) The Gomes report takes stock of the dramatic and difficultsituation in which Iraq finds itself. The non-governmental organisations and the various bodies responsiblefor rebuilding the region are not in practice managing to resolve the problems arising from decades of war,dictatorship and sanctions.

In this context, it is the duty of the European institutions to support a multi-faceted strategy for Iraq whichincreases direct EU support for technical assistance to promote the rule of law, justice and sound financialmanagement in order to safeguard fundamental human rights by creating regional stability and security.

Parliament therefore urges the Council to encourage investment by European enterprises in Iraqi territory,and to conduct the negotiations on the trading agreement between the EU and Iraq so that the Iraqi marketcan be brought more into line with European regulations.

In substance, the European Parliament’s proposal, with which I fully agree, suggests a new strategy for Iraqincluding appropriate use of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) andsupport for a pluralist and independent information system.

As the Committee on Development’s rapporteur for the Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 report, I shall nowwork to increase the financial appropriation allocated to Iraq: the dissemination of culture is a fundamentalstep in creating a genuine rule of law.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The resolution adopted achieves the ‘astonishing’ feat ofnot making a single reference to the brutal and illegal aggression and occupation of Iraq by the USA and itsallies.

The resolution glosses over the whole death toll of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the destructionof an entire country and the premeditated and massive disrespect for human rights resulting from theaggression and occupation.


The resolution is completely silent on the first and foremost reason for the extremely serious problems theIraqi people and their country are now facing, and thus on how to resolve it: the immediate withdrawal ofall occupying troops.

In essence, the resolution endorses the status quo, presenting it as a fait accompli and seeking to promotegreater EU participation in the intervention in Iraq, seeing this country as another ‘state supervised’ by theUSA/NATO/EU, like Afghanistan and Kosovo. This is astounding, in that at the same time it considers thatneighbouring countries must refrain from any interference in Iraq and must respect its independence,sovereignty and territorial integrity and the desire of the Iraqi people to build the country’s constitutionaland political system by their own efforts.

Hence our vote against.

Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted for this report, despite the view expressed in one of therecitals that sees all problems in Iraq as being down to the previous regime. There is no doubt that SaddamHussein was a vicious dictator and caused the deaths of many of his people, not least in the systematic attemptto wipe out the Kurds. However, the total lack of any strategy by the occupying forces to deal with rebuildingthe country has also resulted in untold misery.

I am very pleased, however, that Parliament took the view that no country should be forcibly returningpeople to Iraq. The country is not safe, not even Iraqi Kurdistan, which has recently seen Turkish tanks crossits borders, causing further fear and instability. We were told by members of many parties in the IraqiParliament that return is dangerous and potentially destabilising for the country itself. We have also heardin the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the plight of the millions of Iraqis living as refuges in neighbouringcountries with little support from the international community. We should support the public services inthose states and at least educate the children.

Patrick Louis (IND/DEM), in writing. – (FR) The representatives of the Movement for France in the EuropeanParliament have taken a consistent stand since the beginning of the US intervention in Iraq. Our country’sown experience and its ties with the Iraqi people alerted us to the human, military and moral disaster thatthe intervention would bring.

Now the damage is done and it is up to the Member States to act, either alone or collectively, to rescue andre-establish whatever can be salvaged. Before the US intervention, Iraq was the only Muslim country thatwas home to a large and prosperous Christian community – a community that had lived there even beforethe arrival of Islam.

One of the most tragic consequences of the US intervention has been the exodus of sections of that community,driven out by terror and intimidation. It is a calamity for Iraq, today and in the future. In the bigger picture,the rapid erosion of a religious population mix in the Middle East spells human and economic impoverishmentand threatens the entire region’s stability and prosperity.

The historian Fernand Braudel considered that history began in Sumaria, but it would seem today that thelong history of Christian minorities in Iraq is at an end. We, the nations of Europe, simply cannot condonethis enormous injustice by failing to act.

Iraqi Christian communities were once open and welcoming to Islam, and together with their Muslimneighbours they built a country that was prosperous before it was ravaged by fanaticism and wars.

(Explanation of vote cut short under Rule 163)

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I am pleased to see that Ana Gomes’ report on the EU’s role in Iraq looksforward and formulates a strategy to build a robust democratic Iraqi state that respects human rights andthe country’s rich ethnic and confessional make-up. Iraq needs Europe to help build upon the recent securityimprovements that will go a long way in encouraging investment and increased NGO involvement inreconstructing the country. All of Europe has an interest in a stable and secure Iraq and I feel the report’srecommendations recognise this.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report is intended to ensure that the EU has a bettershare in the imperialist booty from the war against Iraq and interventions in the wider region of the MiddleEast. In this context:


it seeks ways and means of establishing an EU presence in the country on a long-term basis in order to ‘helpEuropean firms to bid for contracts to rebuild Iraq’, i.e. to increase the share of the spoils received by EUmonopolies.

it calls for unconditional aid to the collaborationist ‘government’ of Iraq.

it puts forward strategies for active participation in the imperialist occupation. In order for military andpolice forces to form part of the occupying armies, all that is needed is for different hats to be worn and forthe name to be changed to ‘UN forces’.

Therefore, while cynically recognising the catastrophic consequences of the war and the slaughter of theIraqi people, the report hastily states that events have been wrapped up.

The report legitimises not only the occupying armies, which it terms a ‘Multi-National Force’, but even theprivate firms of murderers active in Iraq, provided that rules are set for their criminal activities!

The Communist Party of Greece condemns the report. It expresses its solidarity with the resistance of Iraqisand the struggle of the peoples of the region for liberation from the imperialist yoke of occupation and fortheir inalienable right to decide their own destinies.

Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The fact that Parliament has decided to discuss the future of theEuropean Union’s role in Iraq, rather than insisting on a pointless debate on past issues, is positive. The fiveyears of importance to us now are the next five years rather than the last.

The starting point for any debate on this issue must now be to recognise that the situation on the groundhas improved significantly, though it is still very serious. What that improvement reveals in particular is thatthere is a viable way forward in the objective of building a democratic and secure state. Our objective can beachieved. Experience in recent years, however, also shows that it will only be achieved with greatercommitment, by increasing security, by investing in training the Iraqi authorities and, very importantly,contributing actively to the creation of infrastructure that will make the country’s economy viable, besidesoil. In the European Union’s specific case, this involves investing heavily in the economic reconstruction ofIraq and in building democracy in the country. A democratic and safe Iraq that respects human rights is vitalfor the region and for the world.

Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) Of course I know that we voted in plenary on the draft report by mycolleague Ana Gomes on the role of the European Union and not on her explanatory statement to the report.Yet I think it is important that in her explanatory statement the rapporteur once again underlines the factthat the invasion of Iraq was a strategic and humanitarian disaster and that Iraqi society was traumatisedafresh by the war and the ensuing chaos and violence.

I welcome the fact that in addition to all the other important points she makes the rapporteur refers explicitlyto the need to ensure that women have a stronger role and to promote respect for the rights of women,minorities and children if good work is to be done in Iraq.

Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (NL) I find it regrettable that the European Parliament has so far producedno analysis at all of the war in Iraq. In recent years Parliament has in fact maintained a deafening silence andnot even challenged the lies put out by the Bush Administration. For a democratic body like Parliament thatmatters very much! It will be hard for us to retain credibility if we do not even act against UN Members whichflout the UN Charter.

Mrs Gomes gives us an assessment of the situation in Iraq. Her report on the European Union's role in Iraqincludes a number of good recommendations for rebuilding the country. It addresses a range of subjects andall the measures proposed seem to me to be achievable. I particularly welcome the proposals for multilateralefforts, under UN supervision, to get intensive diplomatic talks under way between the US and Iraq'sneighbours. The aim has to be to establish democracy in Iraq, based on the principles of the rule of law, goodgovernance and human rights. So I support the report.

Anna Záborská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection ofCivilian Persons in Time of War stipulates that humanitarian, medical and religious personnel are to berespected and protected.

It is vital that we support the case of Monsignor Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop bornand resident in Mosul, who was kidnapped on Friday 29 February 2008.


The three people with him at the time of his abduction were killed by the kidnappers.

It was not possible, in an oral amendment to the Gomes report, to mention Monsignor Rahho by name.

For that reason I would ask the President explicitly to send two letters of support and encouragement onParliament’s behalf:

- one to Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who has condemned the attacks on Christian clergyand has offered, on behalf of the Iraqi Government, ‘protection and justice’ for Christians, with an assurancethat those responsible for the violence will be hunted down and punished;

- the other to the Vice-President of Iraq, Tareq al-Hashemi, a member of the Sunni community, who has alsodenounced terrorist attacks on Christian communities in no uncertain terms and who, following thekidnapping, expressed solidarity with what he called ‘our Christian brothers’.

It is vital that we encourage the national authorities to do all in their power to secure the immediate andunconditional release of Monsignor Paulos Faraj Rahho.

- Motion for a resolution: European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (RC-B6-0063/2008)

Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I will be supporting this resolution. It is essential as I said in my report frommore than a decade ago that we have a binding legal basis for our code of conduct on arms exports.

Yet the imperative to export is driven by a divided European industry that is desperate for long productionso as to enable it to compete with mass-produced armaments from the US with only batch productiondomestic demand.

Thus we need to see a single market in defence equipment which will enable Europe to first compete, secondto stop feeding regional wars around the world and third move some of its most highly qualified scientistsand engineers into the new advanced technology industries of tomorrow.

Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Some Member States have a vestedinterest in the promotion of arms exports. Hence, if a common code of conduct for arms exports is drawnup, it is likely that certain Member States with a more restrictive policy may be forced to compromise.

We take the view that the surveillance of arms exports is best achieved by each Member State working throughits national legislation. Sweden must continue to have the right to pursue a restrictive policy on arms exportsif it so wishes. Cooperation is desirable in order to secure further progress in global disarmament work, butthis is best achieved on an international basis within the context of the United Nations, having regard to theUN’s experience, expertise and global coverage.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) An effective EU code of conduct on arms exports undoubtedlybecomes increasingly important in the context of its rapid militarisation, which is mirrored in the draft Treatycurrently being ratified in each Member State.

Not without a certain irony, the resolution itself specifically refers to ‘the evolving European Security andDefence Policy (ESDP), in which more and more EU military and civilian missions are being deployed (...)where EU personnel might be threatened with arms previously supplied by EU Member States’.

The ‘military equipment market’ is expanding in the EU, ‘several initiatives to harmonise national armsprocurement policies and intra-Community arms transfers and sales’ are being encouraged, and there is a‘willingness to increase arms exports as a tool to promote economic interests’.

The watchword has been given: an arms race and the militarisation of international relations.

Initiatives and measures seeking at the very least to mitigate such an escalation are therefore positive andnecessary. As we stated previously, however, arms trade regulation will be much more significant if it isaccompanied by a process of multilateral and reciprocal disarmament, beginning in particular by dismantlingthe huge nuclear arsenals.

Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − The British Conservative Delegation voted against the resolutionon the basis that it does not accept the references to the Lisbon Treaty or to the evolving ESDP, both of whichit opposes. Furthermore, while it is strongly in favour of a responsible arms transfer policy, it is not convinced


of the merits of a legally binding Code of Conduct, imposed by the EU, in advance of an internationallybinding Arms Trade Treaty.


Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. − (SV)We Swedish Social Democrats voted for the report since it is important that prison conditions be improvedin certain institutions in Europe and that prisoners’ human and fundamental rights be respected. Furthermore,an equality perspective must be integrated into the treatment of offenders and prison operation. However,we have certain objections to some of the content of the report. We do not want harmonisation of prisonconditions in Europe and we have strong misgivings over references in the report to special criminal sanctionsor alternative penalties for women, pregnant women and women with young children. As regards a child’scontact with its parents during periods of custody and thereafter, account should be taken, with the focuson the child’s best interests, of both parents and not just the mother or the one parent.

Den Dover (PPE-DE), in writing. − I and my British Conservative colleagues believe that ways should alwaysbe looked at to improve the situation of women in prison. The report suggests a number of possibilities thatcould be explored further, including the provision of health services.

However, the report is overly prescriptive in what it asks of Member States in this area. It is for Member Statesto decide on the details of prison policy. In particular, we are unable to agree with the premise of Recital Cand Recital Q, which we believe distort other aspects of the report that may have value. For these reasons,we have decided to abstain.

Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou’s report on theparticular situation of women in prison and the impact of the imprisonment of parents on social and familylife, since there is evidence that European prisons are geared largely towards male prisoners and overlookwomen’s specific needs.

I therefore believe that measures should be adopted to promote the improvement of the situation of womenprisoners, particularly in terms of their social and professional reintegration, health care and hygiene,psychological support and the preservation of family ties.

Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Although women represent around 4.5 to 5% of the prisonpopulation in the European Union, prisons continue to be geared basically towards male prisoners and tendto overlook the specific problem of the small but growing percentage of women prisoners. The principalareas of concern are health care, the situation of imprisoned women with children and professional andsocial reintegration.

Specific attention should be paid to women’s health care and hygiene needs. Pregnant women prisoners inparticular require specialised resources and attention in respect of diet, exercise, clothing, medication andmedical care by specialised personnel.

Children who remain with their imprisoned mothers require adequate protection and care and should notsuffer from any form of discrimination. Imprisonment of women can have particularly grave implicationswhen they have been the sole carers of their children prior to imprisonment.

Social inclusion of prisoners must be prepared during and after imprisonment with the cooperation of socialservices and other relevant organisations in order to ensure a smooth transition from prison to liberty.

Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We support thework being done in the Member States to modernise and adapt penal policy in order to make better provisionfor the needs of prisoners and, as part of this, to take account of the specific needs of women.

As the treatment of offenders does not fall under the powers of the EU, we have chosen to vote against thereport. Measures concerned with visiting regulations, the operation of institutions, training of staff in thepenal system, prisoners’ leisure activities or social assistance are and should remain a matter for the MemberStates, so that they can be adapted and developed in accordance with national and local needs.

Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Junilistan sympathises with many of thereport’s views concerning respect for human rights, better conditions in prisons, respect for equality betweenwomen and men and the importance of the resettlement of offenders in society. Clearly it is also immenselyimportant that the greatest possible consideration be given to the needs of the child in these situations.


However, we think that the Member States themselves should determine how they are to proceed in dealingwith these matters. In particular, we stress the right of every Member State to formulate its own criminal lawand hence also to pronounce appropriate sentences. Also, the European Union should not involve itself inthe detailed regulation of whether a prison should have a gym or not, visiting regulations or work duringcustody. These things should be subject to the direction of the Member States and their voters and bedetermined by the public debate in society.

We would remind everyone that all the EU Member States are democratic states complying with theCopenhagen criteria.

Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We support the work being done in the Member States tomodernise and adapt penal policy in order to make better provision for the needs of prisoners and, as partof this, to take account of the specific needs of women.

As the treatment of offenders does not fall under the powers of the EU, we have chosen to vote against thereport. Measures concerned with visiting regulations, the operation of institutions, training of staff in thepenal system, prisoners’ leisure activities or social assistance are and should remain a matter for the MemberStates, so that they can be adapted and developed in accordance with national and local needs.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I agree with the findings outlined in Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou’sreport on the situation of women in prison and the impact of the imprisonment of parents on social andfamily life. Prison remains orientated towards the needs of male prisoners and I welcome the report’s aimto highlight the differences experienced by women. I endorse the report.

Martine Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because there is an urgent need toadapt conditions of imprisonment to address women’s specific needs. Even today, prison conditions in manyMember States remain very poor and are certainly not geared to providing the particular types of supportthat women require.

There are specific issues for women prisoners that demand specific attention, notably in the matter of accessto healthcare.

That is why I supported the amendment tabled by the Socialist Group calling for women prisoners to havethe same access as other women to screening programmes for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The fact isthat early diagnosis of these conditions improves the chances of curing them, so the denial of access to suchscreening programmes can effectively impose an additional penalty on female prisoners.

Furthermore, women are still central to the family unit. In the case of mothers, provided that they pose nothreat to public order, we should therefore try to facilitate forms of punishment other than imprisonment,wherever possible.

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) This is an area for which there are no powers at EU level. Despitesome positive proposals, the report is too concerned with detailed regulation. I therefore abstain in the vote.

- Report: Feleknas Uca (A6-0035/2008)

Nirj Deva and Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE), in writing. − When voting for any policy which includes the term‘sexual and reproductive health’ we understand this to mean the protection and enhancement of the life andhealth of the mother and the unborn. We do not accept any other definition that infers abortion to be withinthis term; and furthermore we understand that any care, information, policies or any other services pertainingto sexual and reproductive health similarly exclude abortion. We will work to have this definition acceptedat every forum and body we can influence.

We note the reply given by the Council Presidency in Parliament on 4 December 2003 that the termreproductive health does not include the promotion of abortion and, inter alia, that abortion should neverbe presented as a method of family planning, contrary to what the WHO states on fertility regulation. It isclear, therefore, that the WHO definition is not binding on or even accepted by governmental andparliamentary institutions.

We will continue to support policies to promote responsible sexual practices, and to protect and enhancethe life and health of the mother and the unborn, including supporting the provision of resources to achievethese objectives.


Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) This own-initiative report seeks tointegrate the equality perspective into the EU’s development cooperation. Junilistan is opposed to aid at EUlevel and is therefore voting against the report.

However, several of the amendments which have been tabled by certain Members are of a less congenialnature. The right of women to sexual and reproductive health is an important element in promotingdevelopment. In this case, we have chosen to support the original proposals as a counterbalance to thedisagreeable tendencies in this Parliament. Work on these questions and development cooperation, however,should in principle be pursued at global level through the UN, not the EU.

Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We consider this report to have several merits, one of whichis to draw attention to a major problem, both in the EU and in developing countries: the need to ensureaccess to information on sexual and reproductive health, to ensure freedom of decision, and to create andpromote public services to protect and apply the rights of everyone, particularly women.

We believe that it should be emphasised, however, that the greatest contribution to ‘gender equality andwomen’s empowerment in development cooperation’ will come not from policies that promote relationshipsof dependency and domination, market liberalisation (see the EU Economic Partnership Agreements – EPA),the exploitation of workers, inequalities and social injustice and disrespect for human rights, which afflictmillions and millions of children and women in particular, but from a policy of effective cooperation basedon equal rights between states, respect for national sovereignty and the right of each country to define andimplement a development model that meets its people’s needs and concerns, i.e. a policy that interprets theword ‘solidarity’ accurately.

Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this amendment, because I strongly believe thatfighting against violence, in this case sexual violence against women in crises and conflict areas, has to bethe highest priority. The EU cannot tolerate any kind of violence and therefore I find that the emphasis shouldbe on fighting against sexual violence targeted against women. Furthermore I think that traditions are notto be seen as something evil. Sexual and reproductive health and rights are sensitive issues, including traditionalsocietal and also religious dimensions, and therefore should not be generalised and thereby forced uponsocieties, especially fragile societies, where drastic changes in traditional ways of living can harm the fragilesociety more than they bring benefits.

Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I vote for gender equality and the empowerment of women indevelopment cooperation.

The way women in developing countries are disadvantaged by religious rules, cultural practices and povertyis usually further worsened by the lack of education. In that regard I want in particular to draw attention tothe potentially enormous social pressure that could come from raising public awareness of women’s basicrights, which could in the final analysis improve the situation of women in the regions concerned.

I further support the idea of regarding ‘violence against women’ not purely in terms of female victims but ofalso developing practical programmes addressing the ‘male abusers’ aspect, as proposed in Mrs Uca’s report.

I too am highly critical of the Commission’s failure to include a strategy against culture- or religion-basedviolence against women in its list of measures.

Poor access to education leads to disadvantages in other areas of life for the simple reason of lack ofinformation. To be poorly informed in this respect can have lethal consequences in developing countries inwhich health provision and standards of hygiene are often appalling. I need only refer to the alarmingly highpercentage of HIV-infected women – south of the Sahara the figure is 57%.

One extremely positive point is the call for ‘gender-sensitive performance indicators’ to be developed, whichwould also make the controversial subject of quotas less acrimonious.

Maria Martens (PPE-DE), in writing. − When voting for any policy which includes the term ‘sexual andreproductive health’ I understand this to mean the protection and enhancement of the life and health of themother and the unborn. I do not accept any other definition that infers abortion to be within this term; andfurthermore I understand that any care, information, policies or any other services pertaining to sexual andreproductive health similarly exclude abortion. We should work to have this definition accepted at everyforum and body we can influence.


I note the reply given by the Council Presidency in Parliament on 4 December 2003 that the term reproductivehealth does not include the promotion of abortion and, inter alia, that abortion should never be presentedas a method of family planning, contrary to what the WHO states on fertility regulation. It is clear, therefore,that the WHO definition is not binding on or even accepted by governmental and parliamentary institutions.

I will continue to support policies to promote responsible sexual practices, and to protect and enhance thelife and health of the mother and the unborn, including supporting the provision of resources to achievethese objectives.

David Martin (PSE), in writing. − Feleknas Uca’s report ‘Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment inDevelopment Cooperation’ welcomes the Commission’s strategy on the issue. I reiterate this approval of astrategy that seeks to mainstream gender equality in development cooperation. I have voted in favour of thereport.

Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) While gender equality has been an integral part of theEuropean Union’s development cooperation programmes for many years now, actual progress is still tooslow. The European Commission therefore needs to set itself targets, in terms of figures and deadlines, sothat development can become the main driver of improved living conditions for women.

To that end, the Union needs to focus on three priorities in the partnerships that it enters into: fundamentalfreedoms, women’s status in public life and their access to healthcare.

On the one hand, the Commission needs to be more vigilant than ever with regard to violations of women’sphysical integrity and human dignity (in the form of torture, traditional practices of mutilation and forcedmarriage). At the same time, cooperation must entail recognition of women’s place in society, which affectseverything from access to knowledge through to financial independence. In addition, commitments areneeded so that by 2010 the prevention and treatment of AIDS in developing countries will be a reality.European development policy will fall flat on its face if it cannot bring about genuine change in women’scircumstances.

Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report, despite its accurate findings on the tragic stateof women in developing countries, conceals what is to blame: capitalist production methods and the brutalimperialist interventions by the EU, the United States and other imperialist states and organisations. Theyprey on these countries and plunder their wealth-producing sources, which all results in hunger and theimpoverishment of millions of people.

The solutions proposed operate within the bounds of capitalist development and the EU’s developmentalaid. Another typical aspect of this approach is the proposal to reinforce female entrepreneurship in order toincrease employment. In this context, the proposals for fairer and more democratic societies, access for girlsand women to education and health services, the eradication of poverty, disease, etc., are hot air. They aremere wishes diverting attention away from the truth, because meeting the people’s needs is incompatiblewith the supreme principle of capitalist development and the pursuit of profit. For every euro that the EUgives, it steals thousands from these countries.

The improvement of the position of women and the living conditions of the peoples of these countries willbe achieved not through the legalised robbery of ‘EU developmental aid’, but through resistance to imperialistintervention, the quest for equal international relations and the struggle for a different developmentalapproach based on the needs of the people.

Karin Scheele (PSE), in writing. − (DE) This report on equality and participation, on the role of women indevelopment cooperation, covers a great number of different aspects and also includes important practicaldemands.

As a whole, therefore, it should definitely be supported. One theme that runs through the entire report issexual and reproductive health and violence against women, together with promoting women’s right toself-determination.

It is important to expand the micro-financing networks, because micro-credits can help improve women’seconomic situation. I cannot understand why people are trying to table various draft amendments thatweaken the report and are simply dismissing UN documents that are on hand.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. − Mr President, I am all in favour of gender equality and empoweringwomen and I would have liked to support this positive report.


Sadly, this report, like many others on women and children, has been used to promote abortion under sexualand reproductive rights. As the majority of my colleagues have voted to include a number of amendmentson sexual and reproductive rights, I found myself unable to vote in favour of this report.

Konrad Szymański (UEN), in writing. − (PL) The Uca report on gender equality in development policy isan expression of European moral imperialism vis-à-vis the developing countries. It exports the sick socialmodel of the rich European countries to the countries of Africa and Asia. The repeated references toreproductive rights denote support for generalised abortion. I was therefore unable to vote in favour of thereport.

Anna Záborská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Equality between men and women is a priority in developingcountries. I greatly appreciate the thorough and painstaking work that Mrs Uca has done on this importantsubject.

Nonetheless, I voted against the report because the substance of certain paragraphs in the final version, whichrefer to sexual and reproductive health in imprecise terms, remains ambiguous. Conflicting interpretationspersist and some of them imply a threat to the lives of unborn children.

In the next report on the subject, women’s health should not be seen solely in relation to reproduction, forall women have the right to an environment that allows them to enjoy continuing good health. That meanspaying particular attention to supplies of safe drinking water, proteins and basic medication, alongsidetraditional medicines.

Since Gertrude Mongella’s visit on 6 March 2008, marking International Women’s Day, I would also saythat we have a lot to learn from African wisdom with regard to gender equality: it is something that is livedthere and is passed on in oral traditions among women and men who are blessed with good spiritual andmental health. All of us could take inspiration from that.

6. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

7. Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELANVice-President

8. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

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

9.1. Armenia

President. − The next item is the debate on five motions for a resolution on Armenia(1).

Marie Anne Isler Béguin, author. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, will the tragicevents that have occurred in Armenia since the presidential election on 19 February 2008 send out themessage that Europe is incapable of supporting the fragile little democracies of the South Caucasus in theirstruggle to become established?

Following the crisis in Georgia, it is now Armenia’s turn to suffer major political upheaval. Despite the highlevel of attention directed at the country during the election campaign, the international community failedto promote the dialogue that might have prevented the clashes on 1 March. After 11 days of protest againstthe election results by the opposition movement under former head of state Levon Ter-Petrosian, policetried to disperse the demonstrators. The situation degenerated, resulting in the deaths of eight people, injuries

(1) See Minutes.


to many others and the imposition of a state of emergency with curbs on freedom of information and freedomof assembly, as well as restrictions on political parties. Since then, 400 people have been arrested. There isan evident mood of anxiety among the population, who fear that a policy of repression will be imposed. Wehave a duty today, in our contacts with all the parties involved in the Armenian conflict, to reflect that fear.

The question, however, is what we should propose as a method of bringing all sides to their senses and gettingthem to the negotiating table against the current backdrop of heightened tension? That is the challenge. Weneed to restore the confidence of ordinary Armenian men and women in their fledgling democracy. Essentialpreconditions for restoring confidence are the setting up of an inquiry into the recent events and the releaseof those imprisoned. The next step – in conjunction with the international community, our SpecialRepresentative to the South Caucasus and our partners in the Council of Europe and the OSCE – must be tofix a timescale for our Armenian friends to return to the negotiating table, and we must bring all the conflictingparties to the table, on both the official and the opposition sides. The rules of democracy depend upondialogue and non-violence and it is up to us to facilitate such an approach.

With your permission, Mr President, I should like to propose an oral amendment. I am not sure how toproceed for the fact is that we made a mistake in the resolution. In recital H we referred to the territory ofNagorno-Karabakh where we should have said the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. It would seem that mycolleagues agree with the oral amendment.

Alexandra Dobolyi, author. − Mr President, I was one of the four Members of the European Parliamentelection observation mission in Armenia and I fully agree with and endorse its findings concerning thepresidential elections, namely that the election was mostly in line with the OSCE and the Council of Europecommitments and standards. The state authorities made genuine efforts to address shortcomings noted inthe previous elections. Allow me to use this opportunity to thank the Commission’s delegation in Yerevanfor all the assistance provided to us.

The election was mostly in line with our standards, as I said, but further improvement and political will arerequired to address remaining challenges. I express my deep regret and concern at recent developments thathave taken place in Armenia, with violent clashes between police and opposition demonstrators that led tothe death of eight citizens and over 100 injured. It goes without saying that we expect a transparent andindependent investigation of the events that took place and the partial lifting of the state of emergency whichwas imposed after the event.

Even though it is a step in the right direction, it is not enough. I call on the Armenian authorities to carry outa full lifting of the state of emergency. On behalf of my group, I call upon all parties involved to show opennessand calmness, to tone down statements and to engage immediately in a constructive dialogue.

Last but not least, we regret and we are concerned at the recent unprecedented violation of the ceasefire onthe line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh and we strongly urge the parties to refrain from any actions thatcould undermine the negotiation process. We urge them to stay away from the loud and catastrophic powerof arms, and we call upon them to exercise the silent and peaceful power of dialogue.

Urszula Gacek, author. − Mr President, recent events in Armenia show how difficult it is for fledglingdemocracies in the former Soviet Union to trust the electoral process. Those who hold power are temptedto stack the cards in their favour, especially in the run-up to elections, whilst those who lose find the resultsdifficult to accept.

The problems we have seen in post-election Armenia have been compounded by violent clashes, resultingin eight fatalities, and by the imposition of an extraordinary measure in the form of a state of emergency.Bans on all political activities and strict censorship of the media were imposed on 1 March 2008 for a 20-dayperiod. The ban on political activities has subsequently been lifted. Media freedom, including unrestrictedinternet access, is to follow. Indeed, all normal constitutional freedoms should be restored next week.

Unfortunately, it cannot be ruled out that the state of emergency will be extended. For now, a lid has beenput on the pressure-cooker. I am concerned about what is being done to release the source of the pressure.

Building democracy is a complex process. It must be safeguarded by institutions in which all parties placetheir trust. It is, therefore, regrettable that the outgoing President has attacked his country’s human rightsombudsman, who criticised government actions. It is only by strengthening the role of the ombudsman andalso by ensuring impartiality of the constitutional court, which investigates allegations of electoral fraud,that democracy can be protected.


Until there is faith in Armenia’s own guardians of democracy, I strongly urge all parties in the dispute tomake use of the mediation offered by the EU and the OSCE envoys and to do so immediately.

Erik Meijer, author. − (NL) Mr President, in presidential elections we increasingly see continuing uncertaintyas to whether the preferred candidate of the ruling government has actually won a true majority of the votesas well as just a large number of votes. Even where that candidate does have a true majority, doubts remainabout the size of that majority, certainly where manifest attempts have been made to inflate it artificially.

When, in addition, some candidates are prevented from standing, when only the government-endorsedcandidate has access to press, radio and television, when the opposition or foreign observers are not able tomonitor the count properly, when peaceful protests against the officially declared results are broken up byarmy and police and opposition leaders are arrested, there is every reason for very serious doubt that the willof the electorate has been upheld.

We have seen controversial presidential elections of this kind outside Europe in Mexico and Kenya, andwithin Europe in Belarus, Russia, Georgia and Armenia. Even without these elections Armenia was in anextremely difficult position. Traditionally it has strong ties with Russia but is separated from it by neighbouringGeorgia, which has a serious conflict with Russia, and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which has for many yearshad a border dispute with Armenia.

When the Russian province of Transcaucasia was divided up along ethnic lines in the 1920s the enclave ofNagorno-Karabakh, populated by Armenians, was given to Azerbaijan by way of a compromise, with aguarantee of regional Armenian autonomy. That solution is no longer workable in the post-Soviet era, sincethe two states of Azerbaijan and Armenia are now enemies. In fact the territory is currently occupied byArmenia, and this has led to a protracted conflict with its eastern neighbour, though a ceasefire is in force.This kind of situation, with a permanent threat of war and blockades, provides fertile ground for authoritariangovernment to flourish and it is unremittingly difficult for democracy to function in the country.

The events since the 19 February elections come as no surprise. Even so we must make every effort to getdemocratic conditions restored and the rights of the opposition reinstated. The wishes of the EuropeanUnion or its Member States for good relations with the de facto rulers of countries like Russia, Belarus, Georgiaor Armenia must take second place behind this prime imperative.

Marios Matsakis, author. − Mr President, Armenia is essentially a relatively recently re-born country, strugglingto strengthen its democratic institutions and safeguard the well-being of its citizens whilst squashed betweentwo not-so-democratic but rather hostile neighbours, namely Russia and Turkey, and whilst being disturbinglyand unfairly involved in a territorial conflict with the totalitarian regime of Azerbaijan.

In this setting, the recently-held presidential elections were not perfect, but in the words of the internationalobservation mission, were ‘administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe [...] standards’.

Sadly, in post-election protests it would appear that the police used more than necessary force, which resultedin the death of eight people, including one policeman.

A thorough and fair investigation is called for into the events that led to these deaths. An investigation isalso warranted into allegations that external forces are instigating violence in Armenia in order to destabilisethe country.

I call for full support for this resolution.

Marcin Libicki, author. − (PL) Mr President, it goes without saying that we would like Armenia to be at peace,to have secure borders and to manage its external affairs successfully. May I remind you that the electionsin Armenia gave rise to no serious protests. What is happening there today must be seen in the specificcontext of the Caucasus, a highly inflammable region.

While I have the floor, Mr President, I would, with your permission, take this opportunity to voice my outrageat the news I have just received of the murder of Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul. He wasabducted on 29 February and three of his bodyguards were shot.

This is a further attack, a further crime, by men who lack the courage to show their faces to the world, whokidnap innocent victims, ordinary people pursuing religious activities – mostly Christians, mostly CatholicChristians. Today we are again witnesses of such a crime, and it seems to me this matter should be placed


on the agenda of our next meeting in Brussels as a special item. May the Lord grant eternal rest to the heroicmartyr who died today in Mosul.

Marian-Jean Marinescu, on behalf of the PPE-DE group. – (RO) What happened in Armenia must be vehementlycondemned but unfortunately it was not a surprise. There are other quite similar events in another countryin that area and they represent a continuation of the situation in place after 1990.

We are facing the consequence of several factors persisting from then to the present day: insufficient economicdevelopment, latent conflicts, and the influence of the Russian Federation. On top of all that we have thesituation in Kosovo which, despite all considerable but useless efforts of the authors, will form a precedentfor all those interested. For the population in the region, it can only result in insecurity, lack of confidencein the authorities, and vulnerability to manipulation.

There is only one solution to restore a state of normality: economic development that will generate a higherstandard of living. There are energy resources. The development of such resources and of their transit willsolve the problem of economic development, as well as that of independence from the Russian Federationand it will also solve Europe’s problem in general.

The European Union did not really take a stand and if we want to find solutions to the problems in theSouthern Caucasus, the Union must take active steps in the development of energy routes in the Black Searegion.

Justas Vincas Paleckis, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (LT) When a country that participates in the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy and is favourably disposed towards the EU holds a successful democratic election, itis a victory for us as well. If it goes wrong, it is a case of mutual defeat.

The Presidential election in Armenia was conducted in line with international standards, according to theinternational observation mission. Alas, subsequent developments cancel this unsteady step forward.Bloodshed and the imposition of a state of emergency have swept Armenia off the road to democracy,impeding its relations with the European Union. Human rights are suppressed in Armenia and there is nofreedom of speech.

Yerevan should lift the state of emergency entirely and the OSCE representative should assist in finding asolution to the crisis. Hopefully, both negotiating parties will show moderation and will base their work onEuropean values.

Janusz Onyszkiewicz, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (PL) Mr President, the present political crisis in Armeniais not the first.

During the presidency of Levon Ter-Petrosian the country began to depart sharply from liberal and democraticstandards. The main opposition parties were banned, freedom of the press was restricted, and parliamentaryelections were generally recognised as not meeting all democratic criteria. Mr Ter-Petrosian resigned aspresident under the pressure of demonstrations. That brought some stability to the country, but it was endedby the dramatic murder in parliament of nine leading Armenian politicians, including the prime minister,by unknown assassins.

We are now seeing a repeat of what happened some 10 years ago. The present crisis, however, may perhapsbe due to the weariness of Armenian society with the governments of the so-called Karabakh Clan, to whichboth the former and the present president belong. The government is widely accused of restoring authoritarianrule under the guise of democracy, with mafia-type control of business activities and a deteriorating economy.

There is also a growing fear of Armenia’s increasing isolation and the gradual weakening of its position inthe unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. When Mr Ter-Petrosian decided to return to politics andstand for election, his promise of greater flexibility in foreign policy won him considerable support.

The present crisis is very deep, however. Let us hope it will be resolved by political means, although that isnot at all certain. If not, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh may be stepped up in an attempt to unite societyaround the government. A recent incident in Karabakh in which 11 people died confirms this fear. Anotherresult may be a further strengthening of Armenia’s increasing dependence on Russia. The recent inaugurationof the Armenia-Iran pipeline will not weaken that dependence, since the gas, and the pipeline itself, will ofcourse be controlled by Gazprom.


Our attitude to the serious situation in Armenia should be friendly, but we should not refrain from criticismor from expressing concern where necessary. I believe the position proposed in this resolution meets thosecriteria.

Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the outcome of the presidential electionof 19 February 2008 was a factor in the political destabilisation of Armenia, although it should be emphasisedthat the conduct of the election was recognised by the OCSE as complying with democratic standards.

The demonstrations following the placing of Levon Ter-Petrosian under house arrest and their brutalrepression on 1 March ended with eight people dead, many others injured, and the declaration of a state ofemergency. Restrictions on the media and the arrest of more and more members of the opposition are causingserious concern.

We call on the Armenian authorities to restore civil rights without delay, end the state of emergency, respecthuman rights and determine who was responsible for the tragic events of 1 March 2008. Investigation ofthis matter must not be a pretext for further persecution of the opposition. The situation in Armenia is verydifficult indeed, and our representatives must pay great attention to it.

Evgeni Kirilov (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to add that the democratic standards in Armenia are notas we would like to see them. What aggravates the situation is the socioeconomic situation, and this, naturally,brings additional people to the street.

I would like to appeal both to the Armenian authorities and, of course, to Azerbaijan to endeavour to settlethis long-lasting conflict. There are areas occupied by Armenia which should be freed because there are noArmenians there. What is really worrying is that both countries are in the process of rearmament, which, ofcourse, reflects the situation as to the real social problems facing the countries, particularly Armenia.

Therefore, I support this joint motion for a resolution, but I think we should continue to follow the situationvery closely, because it is worrying.

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Armenia is one of a group of countries thatreceive support from the European Union for introducing political and economic reforms, establishing theinstitutions of a state governed by the rule of law, and combating corruption and organised crime. We aretherefore right to keep the political process and respect for democratic principles in that country underscrutiny. That is especially important in view of the changes taking place in Armenia since the collapse ofthe Soviet Union.

Governments very often seek to influence the media, but when they resort to violence and the use of forcethey must be opposed with exceptional determination. And when there are fatal victims, the situation isexceptionally difficult. We categorically demand the restoration of freedom, respect for other views, and themaintenance of democracy and civil rights. We condemn the use of force and the violent dispersal ofdemocratic meetings, protests and demonstrations.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission keepsa particularly close watch on the situation with regard to democracy and human rights in Armenia, which,as you know, is one of our partners under the European Neighbourhood Policy.

We follow developments there attentively through the intermediaries of our delegation in Yerevan, with theMember States, and in close cooperation with the European Union Special Representative, Peter Semneby.As part of the process, we are also in regular contact with local and international NGOs working in the fieldsof democracy and human rights.

In relation to the tragic events that occurred in Yerevan on 1 March in the aftermath of the election, theCommission shares the general concern over the violent clashes between police and opposition demonstrators,which resulted in a number of deaths. The Commission has therefore called for the immediate establishmentof a thorough investigation and for the prosecution of persons who broke the law. We have also called onthe Armenian Government to lift the state of emergency immediately. The Commission believes it is importantthat all sides should refrain from using force. We expect all parties in Armenia to commit to political dialogueas the means of overcoming their differences.

At the same time, the Commission also deplores the shadow cast by the recent events on Armenia’sincreasingly positive progress towards implementation of its ENP action plan, particularly in the areas ofhuman rights and democracy. The call to pursue political reform and to respect human rights is an integral


element of the partnership between the European Union and Armenia, and the Commission will thereforeuse every means at its disposal to encourage the Armenian authorities to forge ahead in those areas.

By adopting the joint EU-Armenia ENP Action Plan in 2006, we acquired a policy tool for promoting theobservance of principles based on our shared values. We are firmly convinced that an ongoing dialogue withArmenia, conducted in accordance with the policy provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreementand the ENP Action Plan, is indeed the most effective means of conveying the European Union’s messagesabout respect for human rights and international law. The annual meetings of the Cooperation Committeeand Cooperation Council, and of the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee are thus particularly important.

The Commission also remains determined to contribute to the reform process by providing Armenia withfinancial and technical assistance. Supporting political reform in the areas of human rights and democracycontinues to be a priority in the national indicative programme for 2007-2010. Approximately a third ofour bilateral aid – which will amount over that period to EUR 98.4 million – will be used to assist relevantprojects. More specifically, the 2007 bilateral aid programme with Armenia is targeting financial supportin the field of judicial reform, to the tune of EUR 18 million. I am sure that the European Parliament willback us in that effort and, indeed, will be our staunchest ally.


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

9.2. Russia

President. − The next item is the debate on five motions for a resolution on the arrest of demonstratorsfollowing the presidential election in Russia(2).

Bernd Posselt, author. − (DE) Mr President, in the run-up to drafting this resolution, some of us were accusedof being enemies or opponents of Russia. We are just the opposite! We are friends of Russia, we are concernedabout democracy and the rule of law in this important European country. We protest vehemently againstthe imprisonment of opposition activists who did no more than draw attention to a fact that has been notedby all international institutions, namely that the presidential elections in Russia were extremely unfair.

We call for the immediate release of the opposition activists and of others who have been held in prisonsand work camps for a long time, like the so-called Yukos prisoners Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, and I supportChancellor Merkel’s call for the two men finally to be released.

We must, however, be quite clear about one thing. The newly elected President of Russia has the uniqueopportunity to make a new beginning, to move towards democracy and the rule of law and towards a lessnationalistic and aggressive foreign policy. That means, however, that he will have to extricate himself fromthe coils of Gazprom and free himself from the Putin system; sadly, there is not the least indication of that.

That is why it is our duty to voice honest criticisms. It is not those who, like former German ChancellorSchröder, sing the praises of the Putin system and allow themselves to become involved in the propagandaand in the economic and nationalistic interests of that system, who are Russia’s friends; no, Russia’s friendssupport the human and civil rights of the Russian people, who have a chance of democratic development.

If we remain silent, the small seeds of democracy and the rule of law that President Yeltsin sowed and thatPresident Putin has endangered will finally be suffocated, and that cannot be in the interest of Europe or inthe interest of the Russian people.

(Applause)

Marios Matsakis, author. − Mr President, I am talking in a personal capacity on this matter.

In recent years significant changes have been occurring in Russia, from Stalinist Communism to the beginningsof liberal capitalism; from the nuclear threat of the Cold War to the initiation of friendly disarmament andmilitary cooperation talks with the West. At the same time, more democratic reforms in the country havebeen instituted and the standard of living of the Russian people has been increasing steadily.

(2) See Minutes


We welcome these changes and must support them. We do not always have to be critical of the bad things;we sometimes have to condone and support the good things. In this way, we will not only be objective butwe will encourage changes for the better to a faster and greater extent.

With these thoughts in mind, and looking at the recent presidential elections in Russia, we have to say thatthese were held in a more democratic fashion than previously, although there was still the problem of unequalaccess of candidates to the media. But, let us be honest, is this a problem we do not have ourselves in the EUMember States? Unfortunately, we do.

Following the elections, there were protests in the streets. It was reported that some of these protests weremet with disproportionate force by the Russian police. Can we honestly say that our own police forces inEU Member States or candidate member states are angels and do not sometimes – more often than we wouldlike – use disproportionate force?

Yes, we condemn the unfair treatment of candidates by the Russian state-run media; yes, we condemn theundue use of force by the Russian police against protesters, but we do so in exactly the same way and withthe same spirit as we would when dealing with similar happenings in any other country or union of countries,including our own.

Alexandra Dobolyi. − Mr President, I have to disappoint you. I am not the author of this resolution andmy group did not co-sign the resolution. The reason why my group did not do so is not to avoid having adiscussion today. It is not because we think that we do not need to discuss these matters and not because wethink there are no problems in Russia, nor is it because we think we do not need to address the implicationsof the Russian presidential elections, but rather it is because we strongly believe that, when we are dealingwith Russia – a world player, a member of the UN Security Council and one of the major partners of the EU– we need an extensive and well-prepared plenary debate to take place.

Russia is not only a close neighbour for us, it is also a strategic partner. We want to have a broad debate onour relationship where all significant issues will be addressed, from trade to investment – which is booming– and energy, democracy, and also human rights.

There are many different opinions on Russia, but I think everybody agrees that Russia is a key partner for usin tackling regional conflicts and global challenges, and that much remains to be done to develop the fullpotential of our relationship. We need to be able to have an extensive exchange of views in this House, butalso with the Commission and Council, on how to formulate a pragmatic approach cooperating in issueswhere we can, and disagreeing on issues where we cannot cooperate.

It is more than obvious that it is not possible or appropriate to deal with this significant and important issuein a time slot of 20 minutes on a Thursday afternoon, and this is the reason why my group cannot supportthe draft resolution and the reason why my group will abstain in the vote later on.

Marcin Libicki, author. − (PL) Mr President, there has been another election in Russia, and once again manycandidates were eliminated before the vote. Once again opposition activists protesting against the result ofthe election were forcibly dispersed. And once again the West is surprised, on three accounts. First, that inRussia civil rights are not respected. Second, why persecute the opposition since it is so weak anyway? Third,why do so if the public supports every government decision on principle?

We must realise that nobody who treats Russia and the Russians like a normal society and a normal civilisedwestern state can understand that country. The Russian mentality is completely different, as those who havealways been Russia’s neighbours, like many Central and Eastern European nations, can testify. We know fullwell that Russian society always supports the government and the authorities – elections or no elections.That is how it always was in Russia, and that is how it is and will be.

Of course, I entirely agree with Mr Posselt that true friends of Russia must do everything possible to changethat state of affairs. But in my opinion there is nothing to be surprised about.

Jana Hybášková, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, the Russian Federation is a country withwhich we desperately want to conclude strategic partnerships. If not democracy, then rule of law is the keypoint here.

27 February: an activist of The Other Russia coalition was released from a mental hospital in the Russiancity of Tver. Roman Nikolaychik was a victim of punitive psychiatry. Political pressure increased on himafter he was chosen as a local candidate on the party list of The Other Russia coalition. Larisa Arap was held


for 46 days after she published a critical article in the Murmansk Oblast. Artem Basyrov was hospitalisedfor over a month in the Mari-El Republic for supporting The Other Russia.

1 March: an open letter to the Federal Security Service of Russia. ‘We, journalists and colleagues of NatalyaMorar, a correspondent of The New Times magazine, demand that the leadership of the FSB ceases heranti-constitutional detention in the customs area of the Domodedovo airport, and opens the Russian borderfor her.’

4 March: thousands marched in Moscow and in the streets of St Petersburg. In Moscow, where authoritiesrefused to grant a permit of assembly, dozens were arrested as police rushed the crowd with batons. NikitaBelykh, the leader of the Union of Right Forces Party, was carried off by camouflaged OMON Special Forcestroops. Lev Ponomarev, the chairman of the For Human Rights movement, and Denis Bulinov, the executivedirector of the United Civil Front, were also among those arrested.

7 March: journalists silenced during Russian vote. In South Sakhalin, an army lieutenant attacked a reporterof the Yuzhno Sakhalinsk Tvoya Gazeta. In Novosibirsk, photographer Yevgeny Ivanov was accused of‘resisting the authorities’ and ‘failing to register’. In St Petersburg, a reporter of Grazhdansky Golos was detainedby the militsiya for ‘being in a polling station without authorisation’. Her newspaper is run by Golos, anindependent electoral monitoring group. A reporter of Vpered (Forward), a local daily from Khimki in theMoscow Oblast, was attacked by militsiya officers when he tried to put in his ballot.

This is the rule of law?

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, the EU’s agreementswith Russia concern not only increased cooperation in the economic, security and energy spheres but alsorespect for the rule of law, democracy and fundamental human rights.

Despite this, in the run-up to the election, opposition groups and non-governmental organisations weresubjected to much tighter rules on the right of assembly and peaceful demonstration. What is more, themain daily newspapers and radio and television stations were placed under close government control. Themarch organised by opposition parties on 3 May at first did not receive the approval of the Moscow authoritiesand then ended with the arrest of the participants, including the leaders of the opposition. Regrettably, therecent election showed that democracy and respect for the rule of law are not strong in Russia. I refer notonly to the use of disproportional force by the police during the demonstration but also to the hostile attitudeto the OSCE observation mission.

The international community is entitled to expect from Russia’s new president more than an assurance thatdemocracy will continue to be built in the world’s largest country, namely concrete measures such as a reviewof the situation of political activists who have been in prison for years.

Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, neither the Russian presidential electioncampaign nor the election itself complied with the rules of democracy. During the announcement ofcandidacies there was not even an attempt to keep up appearances. The media were under constant pressurenot to publish information critical of the candidate backed by the president-in-office. The opposition’s accessto the media was blocked, and observation of the conduct of the election was impeded.

That is difficult to accept, especially in view of Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe and the Russianauthorities’ earlier declarations on respect for human rights. I must admit that such declarations are credibleonly to people who do not know Russia. The infringement of democratic principles during the election wasfollowed by protests, brutal repression of a demonstration and the arrest of demonstrators. Russia hasdecidedly departed from democratic standards. We call for the rapid release of all prisoners of conscience.

Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to seethat the issue of developments in Russia has found its way into the debates in plenary.

There is no doubt that good mutual relations with the Russian Federation are a precondition for a strongEuropean Union in the future. I very much regret that the elections in Russia did not take place without anyinterference from the authorities. On the other hand what we are lacking, like so many times before, is asimple demonstration of basic respect, on our part, for the work that has been carried out and for the cultureof the nation and the country we are discussing today.

Without a shadow of a doubt Russia is still a long way from reaching the level of social justice and qualityof life that we would like to see all over the world. It has difficulty coping with its demographic crisis. On


the other hand, for the first time in Russian history the highest country’s representative is leaving the Kremlinvoluntarily and his successor has been chosen by the people. There is no doubt that political technologies,tools and management methods, including voting procedures, have been tuned to perfection in Russia. Thesetechnologies, however, have been imported from the West.

I want to ask those who today cry over the plight of democracy in Russia whether they are also upset aboutthe European Parliament’s somewhat cowardly refusal to ask how Mr Solana handles international law?

Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, the subject of today’s debate is theinfringement of human rights in Russia with regard to people protesting against the lack of democracy,especially during the recent presidential election. Not only was force used against demonstrators, as well asarrests, but the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe had to call off its observation missionbecause of the excessive restrictions imposed by the Russian Government. The Russian authorities exertedpressure on opposition groups, tolerated electoral fraud and subjugated the media. Non-governmentalorganisations were prevented from acting and restrictions were placed on the organisation of meetings.

We obviously cannot accept the lack of respect for human rights and democracy, the lack of free speech, thediscrimination against national minorities and the restrictions on independent organisations. We musthowever bear in mind that Russia does not have democratic traditions. The short period of democratisationthat begin in 1864 ended in 1917 with the establishment of Soviet Russia, a typical totalitarian state, ledfirst by Lenin and Stalin and then by their disciples, that was the very negation of democracy.

The situation in Russia should serve as a warning to other empires and totalitarian states that are afraid ofthe democratic process even when the opposition is a minority and threatens only to reveal the truth, whichthey want to conceal at all costs.

Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Just two points. I have no problem at all in supporting this resolution. But ofcourse we all know that Russia is too important a supplier of energy and so the European heads of state andgovernment will put this piece of paper quietly to one side.

We know from experience that once economic interests are at stake, whether in China, Russia or SaudiArabia, the passion for human rights of all these authors of fundamental rights charters must yield toRealpolitik. So let us be under no illusions.

Secondly, ladies and gentlemen, replace 'Russia' in this resolution with 'Belgium' and the text remains everybit as relevant. Because it is not so long ago that in Belgium too, police were incited to beat up peacefuldemonstrators on orders from the mayor of Brussels. In Belgium too, the opposition is to a large extentdenied access to the media. In Belgium too, politically appointed judges banned an opposition party at therequest of the government, at the request too of the party of which the Commissioner, here with us today,is a member. And the judges in question were promoted as a result. Let's see Europe clean up its own act firstand deal with these sham democrats.

Józef Pinior (PSE). – Mr President, Russia is a great country, a global player, a member of the UN SecurityCouncil and a strategic partner of the European Union.

Firstly, I would like to appeal for a serious, calm and objective debate in the European Parliament on theplight of Russian democracy and on human rights in that country.

The reality is that Russia made it difficult for international actors to monitor the last parliamentary election.The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Russia in 15 cases related to Chechnya to date.Torture and illegal detention by government forces under the leadership of the Chechen President RamzanKadyrov remain widespread and systematic. In the period leading up to the elections the Russian authoritiestightened their grip on freedom of assembly and used excessive force to break up peaceful demonstrations.The Russian laws relating to non-governmental organisations are particularly restrictive.

It is not possible to hold a proper debate on all these issues this afternoon. Once again, I would like to appealfor a serious plenary debate on the plight of democracy and human rights in Russia.

Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, as it turns out, the democratic changes in Russia are notbeing accompanied by an improvement in fundamental civil rights, especially the rights of the opposition.People in Russia have learned to think proudly but live in miserable servitude. The authorities will not paytoo much attention to us, whatever we say, but the Russian people should be made aware of Europe’s position.This is perhaps a long and slow process of contributing to the gradual realisation that, in Russia too, things


can be different, more normal, and people happier, since the country has that potential. We must supportthat consciousness-raising process.

Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I agree with the previous speakers that good neighbourly relations betweenthe European Union and Russia are crucial for the stability, safety and prosperity of Europe as a whole.

On the one hand, the European Union must endeavour to step up cooperation with Russia, notably onpolitical, security, economic and, above all, energy issues. On the other hand, we must not remain silentabout the breaches of democracy and political freedom in Russia. We have to express our dissatisfaction incases where we are given advanced notice of a breach of democracy, as happened in the case of disqualificationof presidential candidate Mr Mikhail Kasyanov.

I trust that the newly elected Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, will respect the rule of law and democracyand create the conditions for an early start to the negotiations on the new Partnership and CooperationAgreement between the European Union and Russia.

Janusz Onyszkiewicz (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to add one more thing to the list of abusesin this election, which made it not really an election at all since there was nobody to choose between. I referto the fact that a number of candidates could not afford to enter the lists because of financial difficultiesaffecting their parties.

Why financial difficulties? Because, in the preceding election to the Duma, political broadcasts made underan entitlement to free air time have to be paid for if the party fails to cross a certain poll threshold. As a result,some parties are in debt and cannot afford any political activity. Worse still, they risk being declared illegalon the grounds of bankruptcy. This bizarre situation must also be borne in mind.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin with a brief personalcomment. I heard the contribution from Mr Dillen, representing a Belgian party of the far right, who indulgedin a quite disgraceful comparison between circumstances in Belgium and those in Russia. Obviously I ambound to refute his assertions. I recognise in them the familiar methods to which his party habitually resortsand which merely amount to a form of insult. Let me state very clearly that such methods reflect no crediton those who employ them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is closely following developments in the wake of thedemonstrations in Moscow and St Petersburg on 3 March: we are doing so not only via our delegation inMoscow but also through direct contacts with Member States. In addition, we liaise regularly with Russianand international NGOs working in the field of human rights. The Commission shares your concern aboutthe apparent deterioration of the human rights situation in Russia and the incidence of reported humanrights violations, particularly with regard to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. We wereextremely disappointed when the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights was forcedto conclude that it was not feasible to send an election observation mission. In its bilateral contacts withRussia, including at the highest level, the European Union regularly underscores the importance of respectinghuman rights.

In a month’s time, we shall have one of our two annual consultations with Russia on the subject of humanrights. These consultations give us an opportunity to explore general trends in human rights in greater depthand to hear the Russian point of view on individual cases. In the forthcoming consultation we will conveyour concerns, particularly about the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, the problemsposed by the rise of racism and xenophobia, and cooperation with Russia in international organisations suchas the OSCE and the Council of Europe. The consultations also enable us to raise the cases of individuals.Before and after this consultation, we will meet a group representing Russian and international NGOs whichwork for human rights. Such meetings put the European Union in touch with the concerns of human rightsactivists and enable us to exchange views directly.

Looking somewhat further ahead, we should soon be in a position to embark on negotiations on a newagreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation. It will be a comprehensive agreement,embracing the growing number of policy areas in which we cooperate. As the European Union statementfollowing the Russian presidential election pointed out, we have a common interest in furthering our tiesand we hope that our partnership will be consolidated and developed constructively under the presidencyof Dmitri Medvedev. We will take care, when negotiating the new agreement, to ensure that it reflects thevalues to which both sides have committed themselves: a thriving civil society and independent media arethe natural and necessary allies of growth and stability in Russia. We have learned this from our own experience


in the European Union and it is a message that we shall doggedly continue – as neighbours and partners –to convey to our Russian friends both on a day-to-day basis and in discussions about the shape of our futurerelations. I know already that the European Parliament will lend us its unstinting support in these efforts.



Written statements (Rule 142)

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, I am always amazed at people who make highdemands on American democracy but often have very low expectations of Russia. That is humiliating forRussia and the Russians. From the great and powerful one should expect more, not less. Those who condemnthe methods applied in Guantanamo and the fight against terrorism, who look for the footprints of the CIAand CIA conspiracies in Europe, ought perhaps to scrutinise Russia more thoroughly. But such people, andthe politicians who share their philosophy, do not want to hear about human and civil rights in Russia. Onthe contrary, they find all sorts of reasons and excuses for not discussing the problems of Russian democracy.

We cannot be content with Russia's imagined achievements, such as the fact that President Putin did notbreach the Russian constitution and left office of his own accord. That is no achievement, it is a minimumrule of conduct. I am reminded of a joke about Stalin's benevolence. A child comes out of Stalin's office,bleeding but smiling. ‘What are you smiling about?’ someone asks. ‘I’m smiling because Stalin was so goodto me.’ ‘What do you mean, good?’ the questioner replies. ‘He beat you didn’t he?’ ‘Yes,’ says the child, ‘buthe could have killed me.’

Katrin Saks (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Mr President, I would just like to say that I do not, unfortunately, supportmy Group’s position of abstaining in the vote on the resolution on Russia.

We will indeed need a resolution when the President-elect, Mr Medvedev, is in office; it remains to be seenwhat his first steps will be and the role that Vladimir Putin will give himself under the new President.

I am also of the view that given the present situation, in which democratically-minded candidates were notallowed to participate in the elections or express their views on the situation in the street with people afterthe elections, it is important to express my own view. Otherwise, we will end up in the same situation as theCouncil of Europe, which has further postponed its own report on Russia until a more appropriate moment.

Although I shall be voting, and will be doing so in favour of the resolution, the text is not perhaps exactly asI would like it to be. I believe that as a democratic institution it is our duty to take a principled and courageousstand in expressing our opinions on an important issue such as this concerning free elections.

9.3. Afghan journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh - The case of the Iranian citizen SeyedMehdi Kazemi

President. − The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the case of the journalist PerwizKambakhsh and the debate on four motions for a resolution on the case of the Iranian citizen Seyed MehdiKazemi(3).

Nickolay Mladenov, author. − Mr President, I will link this discussion to the previous debate on Russiabecause I strongly believe that, if we believe in a core set of values, we cannot uphold them only in countriesthat are weak, and give countries that are strong an exemption.

I am proud that this Parliament debated the resolution on Russia, and we should all be proud of that. Weshould fear the day when the European Parliament stops debating these resolutions and stops standing firmlyfor the values that we believe in.

Because, today, democracy is not the right of everyone to be equal, it is the equal right of everyone to bedifferent. This is a core message that we need to pass on to our partners in Russia, and we need to pass it toour partners in Afghanistan.

(3) See Minutes


President Karzai and the Afghan Government have committed themselves to building a democratic, modernstate. In a democratic and modern state, the death sentence is unacceptable. There is not debate about that.No form of death punishment is acceptable in a democratic and modern state. This is the core of our Europeanvalue.

The case of the Afghan journalist Mr Kambakhsh is even more perplexing, because he has been sentencedto death because of exercising his right to free access to information.

We should encourage very strongly the authorities in Afghanistan, the Government and the President tointervene on his behalf and use their powers to spare his life and to make sure that he is pardoned at the endof the process which he needs to go through now, meaning the appeal process.

We should, however, also continue to help the authorities build the institutions that they need to functionas a democratic and modern state, support civil society and, most important of all, continue our commitmentto the security of Afghanistan.

Finally, we should never forget that education is the core value that we need to impress on a country likeAfghanistan. Girls have been able to go to school only in the last few years. There is so much work for us todo there. We should not shy away from that work, and we should impress very strongly, both on theCommission and the Council and all the Member States, the fact that we should invest in education inAfghanistan.

Marcin Libicki, author. − (PL) Mr President, the Afghan journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentencedto death. As usual, authoritarian governments are attacking those who speak out on human rights, and hencejournalists and religious activists.

I agree with previous speakers that we should not be more indulgent towards powerful countries like Russiaand China. As Mr Mladenov quite rightly said, the standards should be the same for all. I would also pointout that those who say we should be more indulgent towards China or Russia because they are powerfulstates are wrong on two accounts. First, because the standards must be the same. Secondly, because the factthat governments have to make certain compromises is a different matter. In the history of Europe, parliamentshave always been the conscience of the nation. And parliaments cannot make such compromises as weunfortunately must sometimes accept on the part of governments.

I therefore call on this Parliament not to apply different standards to the powerful and the weak.

Thijs Berman, author. − (NL) Capital punishment is barbaric and freedom of expression is set in stone inAfghanistan's constitution. And yet the journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death forblasphemy, far from the capital Kabul, because of an article on women's rights under Islam which he did noteven write himself. His brother writes critically about local leaders, so clearly that was not helpful to Perwiz'scase.

This death sentence came as an enormous shock, even in countries with a large Muslim population. Journalistsin Pakistan, in Iran, in Qatar, everyone is painfully aware of the importance of safeguarding freedom ofexpression everywhere, worldwide. In the teeth of considerable opposition, in spite of ultraconservativeclubs that hold no brief for freedoms, women's rights or open debate. Even though those conservatives needfreedom of expression too.

What should Europe do?

1. Offer more help than was promised in 2007 for reform of the judiciary in Afghanistan;

2. Appeal forcefully to President Karzai to take action and support him on this;

3. The European Union must make respect for human rights and the Afghan constitution a central pillar ofthe European Commission's policy.

There is absolutely no point in forcing this issue more than the ultraconservatives are willing to tolerate.That would be playing into their hands. But Perwiz Kambakhsh must be freed forthwith.

Marios Matsakis, author. − Mr President, some believe that Afghanistan is a country which in recent yearshas been in a state of continuous turmoil and chaotic tension. Poverty, illiteracy, tribal violent rivalry, drugbarons, warlords, Russian occupation, Taliban terrorism, followed by formidable US-UK military intervention,and on top of all this, strict Islamic sharia law. If ever there was to be hell on earth, Afghanistan would be a


very strong candidate indeed. Yet, in the face of this extreme adversity, there are weak acts of defiance, andhope for freedom of speech and democracy.

Such is the case concerning a young journalist, Perwez Kambakhsh, who dared to circulate an article aboutwomen’s rights in Islam, which he had downloaded from the internet. This brave act was considered blasphemyin accordance with Palaeolithic-era sharia law and he was sentenced to death by hemi-encephalic fanaticallyblinded so-called judges in a so-called regional court in northern Afghanistan. As we all know, women infanatic Islam terms are regarded as little more than pieces of furniture and any attempt to dispute this is metwith extreme action, such as the one under consideration in this resolution.

But things have to change for the better and we in the West have a duty to see that such a change happenssooner rather than later. Since the West, including the EU, has a formidable military presence in Afghanistanand since the West, including the EU, pours billions of euros in financial aid into that country, I think we areperfectly correct in demanding that not only the young man in question be immediately and unconditionallyreleased, but that similar occurrences in relation to backward Islamic sharia law do not occur again – ever!Otherwise we should seriously consider pulling both our troops and our money out of Afghanistan andletting that country follow the hellish course that it will be sentenced to by its fanatic religious destiny.

Jean Lambert, author. − Mr President, my group strongly supports the motion for a resolution concerningMr Kambakhsh, although I am not sure I would agree with everything the previous speaker has said.

However, I want to shift attention to another young man whose life is also in danger at the moment, MehdiKazemi, who is from Iran, and where the British Government, in this case, could make a difference. Manyof us hope that the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, will now intervene on the basis of new evidence.

This Parliament has passed many motions for resolutions which have condemned the human rights recordin Iran. We believe that it is a dangerous country for homosexuals. Indeed, we have seen the bodies hangingfrom cranes, so we know that it is, and many of us believe that it is dangerous for this young man in particular.

There are those who have said that it is safe for him to be returned if his behaviour is discreet. I would suggestthat what constitutes ‘discreet’ behaviour in Iran is rather different from what that might mean in our ownMember States. But the issue is that for many, in certain countries, whether they are in Iran, Jamaica orelsewhere, being gay is a crime and they are at risk.

My group has been very critical of the Dublin Regulation which is involved in this case, because we knowthere are still very large variations in the way in which asylum requests are treated between Member States,and that even access to the procedure can be extremely difficult. We have seen a climate where numbershave been regarded as more important than life.

This is the substance of a protection procedure: it is about saving somebody’s life when it is at risk. It is notabout the niceties of correct procedures: it is about the effect.

We want a functioning asylum policy which is able to correct errors and take account of new information,and which gives the same high standard across Member States. We hope that in this case the BritishGovernment will be demonstrating that this is possible.

Eva-Britt Svensson, rapporteur. − (SV) Mr President, let me first make two brief observations. To begin with,we can never, ever stay silent when the death penalty is applied, irrespective of where in the world it happens.Secondly, it is deeply regrettable that, every time we meet here in Strasbourg, we have a number of crimesagainst human rights on the table. Sometimes it feels as though it will never end.

In relation to this resolution, we note that Article 34 of the Afghan Constitution very clearly enunciates theright to freedom of expression, stipulating that freedom of expression must not be restricted and that everyAfghan must have the right to express his ideas in speech, image and the written word and through any othermedium. Despite this, the 23-year-old journalist, Perwiz Kambakhsh, has been sentenced to death in anunlawful trial, and his legal rights are being denied him. The trial is closed to journalists and organisationsworking for human rights. The so-called crime was that he had disseminated an article on the situation ofwomen under Islam.

So the background is well known. We now emphatically demand that Perwiz Kambakhsh be releasedimmediately. He has not done anything criminal whatsoever; he has acted entirely in accordance with thelaw and the Constitution. The EU and the entire world must now rally behind this demand: free PerwizKambakhsh.


Marco Cappato, author. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the case of Mehdi Kazemi we are havingto discuss something that really should not require a single second of debate.

If anyone was asked whether they thought it possible for a European country to consign someone into thehands of an executioner and a dictatorship such as Iran, the answer would undoubtedly be that it wasunimaginable. However, the unimaginable may well happen, and is about to happen, despite the reassurancesthat are being given. That means that something very serious is happening, that Europe is being gripped bya kind of madness.

Some say that there are various legal quibbles that may bring about Mehdi Kazemi’s deportation and death.That simply must not be possible. The founding principles of the European Union, of respect for humanrights and life, have not yet been abolished. If Mr Kazemi is put to death, no one will really be able to shiftthe blame onto bureaucratic procedures, unless they resign themselves to the view that that is solely whatEurope is about: bureaucratic procedures, nation states which are so powerful that they cannot even manageto save a life.

I would thank the 140 MEPs who have rallied round this cause and I hope that this House will voteunanimously for the resolution that has been tabled.

Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, on 22 January 2008 the primary courtin Afghanistan’s northern province of Balkh sentenced to death Perwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old journalismstudent writing in the local newspaper, for downloading an article on women’s rights from the internet anddistributing it electronically. The trial took place without any right of defence. The accused was beaten anda confession extracted by brutal treatment.

We demand that the Afghan authorities release Perwiz Kambakhsh and that the Afghan Government restorerespect for human rights, especially the right to life. May I be so bold as to hope that Afghanistan will rapidlyintroduce a moratorium on execution of the death penalty.

Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, a few months ago the IranianPresident, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, solemnly declared to the United Nations that there was no problem ofhomosexuality in Iran because, quite simply, there were no homosexuals there. What he failed to say wasthat they execute any homosexuals there are there.

The case of Mehdi Kazemi highlights once again the huge loopholes in the European Union asylum system:the fact that someone must seek asylum these days on the ground that he or she is being persecuted andthreatened with death because of being a homosexual is a matter of utmost concern and shows that thepromotion of LGBT rights must be moved up the international agenda.

More serious still is the fact that the European Union, the champion of rights and freedoms, does not considerpersecution on grounds of sexual orientation a sufficiently important factor for automatically grantingasylum in cases such as that of Mehdi Kazemi. Unfortunately, this is not the first case of this type, and it willundoubtedly not be the last. The fact is that there are still many countries where the LGBT populationcontinues to suffer persecution of all kinds and are even condemned to death, as in Iran.

I therefore hope that this House and all the political groups are aware of the circumstances and will join inthe just petitions made in the resolution we are submitting today, especially in relation to full implementationof the Qualification Directive, which recognises persecution on grounds of sexual orientation as a determiningfactor in the granting of asylum. Similarly, it provides for Member States to consider cases on an individualbasis, taking into account the circumstances in the country of origin, including its laws and regulations andthe manner in which they are applied.

It is also necessary for the Member States to find a common solution which ensures that Mehdi Kazemi isgranted refugee status and the protection he needs within the European Union and that he will not be returnedto Iran where he will very probably be executed as his partner was.

To that end all that needs to be done is to comply with Article 3 of the European Convention on HumanRights under which expulsion and extradition of persons to countries where there is a high risk of their beingsubjected to persecution, torture or even the death penalty, is prohibited.

Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I certainly support the resolution because the presentsituation in Afghanistan happens to be unacceptable and disappointing. Taliban rule has set the countryback many years.


Let us be honest, however. Who strengthened the Taliban? Was it not the Americans, with their arms andeconomic resources, who strengthened the Taliban to fight against the Soviets? Is it not also a fact that todayopium production in that country has increased five times? Why is this? Let each of us draw his ownconclusion.

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) I am pretty appalled by the Mehdi Kazemi case and the fact that we arenot all just saying without further ado that he should be given asylum: I urge the representatives of the Dutchand UK Governments, along with members of this House who plan to vote against this resolution, to stopand think: what exactly is the purpose of the rule of law? Is it to enforce rules and procedures correctly andto the letter, or is it to see justice done? So give serious thought to that before you vote.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, my Group is quite definitely in favour of protecting Mr Kazemiand, naturally, against his being deported to Iran. Yet we are against this resolution because it does notconcern, as intended, an urgent case, but asylum law in the European Union in general and the relationshipbetween two EU Member States, the Netherlands and the UK, in regard to that difficult question.

This is not what these urgent resolutions are about. Here they are being used as a means of raising domesticpolicy issues. We want Mr Kazemi to be given protection and we will support every initiative to that end,but not this resolution, whose title bears Mr Kazemi’s name but whose content is about something entirelydifferent.

John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I support both these resolutions. But it is my country that is proposingto send a young teenage man home to his death in Iran. A death already suffered by his friend. Not for anycrime, but because of his sexuality. It is my country which in the past has had the proud boast that it has anabsolute standard that we never send people back to face a penalty worse than they would suffer if they werefacing a penalty in Britain.

Here we have no crime and we have a penalty which we in Britain abolished many years ago. It is my countrywhich, if it does not relent in this case, should hang its head in shame. I hope that this Parliament will nothave to hang its head in shame. I hope they will support this resolution.

For God’s sake, this is a 19-year-old we are talking about!

(Loud applause)

Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, one of the values of the European Union is tocoordinate action and adopt positions in defence of human rights. That applies to the case of an Afghanjournalist sentenced to death by a court in a northern Afghanistan province for distributing an article onwomen’s rights in Islam. During his trial he was refused the right to defending counsel and was subjected tovarious forms of physical violence. Yet the Afghan constitution contains a clause on the right to freedom ofspeech.

As we see, law and reality do not coincide. Many governments guarantee respect for the Declaration ofHuman Rights but shut their eyes to the way it is applied in their own countries. That should make us evenmore determined to defend human rights, freedom and democracy.

Mario Mauro (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to stress that, despitemy Group’s concerns, to some extent founded, that some of the content of the resolution may be put towider use, there is no getting away from the fact that the information we are receiving from Iranian sourcesand authorities is unambiguous. Mehdi Kazemi’s fate, if he returns to Iran, is death and it is for that reasonthat I shall depart from the norm and vote in a different way to my Group.

Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving usthis opportunity to talk with you about the cases of Perwiz Kambakhsh in Afghanistan and the Iranian citizenMehdi Kazemi.

In relation to Mr Kambakhsh, we obviously share all your concerns and we are following the case closely onthe ground through our delegation to Afghanistan in cooperation with the head of mission and the EUSpecial Representative. We have raised the case repeatedly with the Afghan authorities, most recently withthe Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Spanta, at the troïka meeting in Ljubljana on 21 February.

I know that the European Parliament’s Afghanistan delegation also raised the issue directly with the AfghanParliament and that the Afghan MPs gave you an assurance that a satisfactory solution would be found.


I believe we should continue to take the approach followed thus far, relying at least for now on discreetdiplomatic activity. Judging by the current political climate in Afghanistan, it will be harder to secureMr Kambakhsh’s safe release if it appears that the Afghan authorities are bowing to international pressure.

I want to assure you, however, that we shall continue to follow this case very closely and that we shall beready to take further steps in the event of the death sentence being confirmed on appeal. Almost 30 yearsof armed conflict have wrecked Afghanistan’s judicial system. We have therefore made reform of the country’sjudicial institutions a priority in our programme of aid to Afghanistan. We already have experts workingthere with the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice, with a view toprofessionalising those institutions at both central and provincial level. The European Commission programmewill also help the authorities to put in place a new legal-aid system – something that is sorely needed inAfghanistan, as this case has shown. There is currently no firmly established, independent Bar and no accessto public legal aid. I am very hopeful that the Commission’s judicial reform programme – being implementedin close cooperation with the EUPOL Afghanistan police mission deployed under the ESDP – will help toimprove the human rights situation in the medium and long term.

Obviously, the Commission also shares your deep concern about Mehdi Kazemi and other similar cases. TheDutch and British authorities are currently considering Mr Kazemi’s case very carefully. With regard to theprotection of refugees, we would point out that international law stipulates, notably in the Geneva Conventionin relation to the status of refugees, that no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any mannerwhatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of hisrace, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Under the Iranian criminal code the act known as lavat is punishable by death. However, the term lavat makesno distinction between sexual relations freely entered into and forced sexual relations. In the latter case itwould seem that, where the penalty is pronounced for lavat in conjunction with other offences, the termnormally denotes rape. It goes without saying that the Commission is categorically opposed to the deathpenalty in all circumstances, and all the more so where no crime has been committed. The situation ofhomosexuals in Iran is a cause for concern. Violations of the right to private life and discrimination on thebasis of sexual orientation are entirely at odds with Iran’s obligations under International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, which it has ratified.

The European Union conveys these messages about human rights to Iran in a general way and also throughaction on a number of fronts. Unfortunately, Iran has not yet accepted our offer to resume bilateral dialogueabout human rights. Nonetheless, in our discussions with Iranian representatives, we emphasise that wewish to see progress on all the issues of concern to the European Union in the fields of politics, nuclear policy,trade and human rights. Without general improvement in the human rights situation there, our relationswith Iran cannot develop satisfactorily.

On a personal note, I should like to extend my own warmest thanks and congratulations to Mr Bowis on hiscontribution: I fully share the sentiments he expressed.



10. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

11. Voting time

President. − The next item is the vote.

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

11.1. Armenia (vote)

- Before voting commenced:

Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE group. – Mr President, this is just a simple amendment that has beenagreed with the main political groups. It is to replace in the PPE-DE Group amendment the word ‘by’ Turkeyto the word ‘with’ Turkey. I understand that this is acceptable to all the main groups.


Since I have the floor, there is a second amendment concerning recital H, which a colleague mentioned earlieron, which is to replace the word ‘territory’ with the word ‘status’. I understand that this is also acceptable tothe main groups. I am very grateful to the Secretariat because this was a very late oral amendment.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

11.2. Russia (vote)


Marcin Libicki, author, on behalf of the UEN Group. − (PL) I wish to propose a stylistic amendment. The words“European Court” should be replaced by “European Court of Human Rights”, otherwise the text will beunintelligible.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

11.3. Afghan journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh - The case of the Iranian citizen SeyedMehdi Kazemi (vote)


Marco Cappato, author. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to ask, under Rule 115of the Rules of Procedure, that the vote we are about to take should not be invalidated by what might betermed procedural questions.

The item on Mehdi Kazemi has been included among the items on breaches of human rights, democracyand the rule of law. While it is not a resolution on asylum policy, the Bureau nevertheless decided to includethis item under urgent resolutions. In my view, we would be giving a really negative and incomprehensiblesignal if a procedural reason were to undermine what I consider to be the underlying unanimity of thisChamber.

Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the information is so contradictory in this case. What theCommissioner said was also different from what it says in the motion for a resolution. He said the UK wouldnot hand him over. That is why I propose to my Group that we should not vote against, as we originallyintended, but should abstain and that in future we should look at cases of this kind in more detail in thisHouse. They really are not a matter for urgent debate.

President. − The vote is closed.

12. Documents received: see Minutes

13. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

14. Action taken on Parliament’s positions and resolutions: see Minutes

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

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

17. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

18. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 4.35 p.m.)


ANNEX (Written answers)

QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL (The Presidency-in-Office of theCouncil of the European Union bears sole responsibility for theseanswers)

Question no 13 by Bernd Posselt (H-0099/08)

Subject: Accession negotiations with Croatia

What is the Council's view on the current state of accession negotiations with Croatia, and what is thetimetable for their continuation?

Answer

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was notdelivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

On 10 December 2007 the Council praised Croatia for its overall progress in the past year which has enabledthe country to move into the next, significantly more important and more demanding phase. The accessiontalks are continuing on schedule.

To date two chapters have been opened and provisionally closed again: Chapter 25 – Science and research– and Chapter 26 – Education and culture, whilst 14 other chapters have been opened for the first time:Chapter 3 – Right of establishment and freedom to provide services; Chapter 6 – Company law; Chapter 7– Intellectual property law; Chapter 9 – Financial services; Chapter 10 – Information society and media;Chapter 17 – Economic and monetary policy; Chapter 18 – Statistics; Chapter 20 – Enterprise and industrialpolicy; Chapter 21 – Trans-European networks; Chapter 28 – Consumer and health protection; Chapter 29– Customs union; Chapter 30 – External relations; Chapter 32 – Financial control, and Chapter 33 – Financialand budgetary provisions.

Accession talks with Croatia at permanent representative and ministerial level are also planned for the firsthalf of 2008 with a view to opening further chapters.

There is much work still to be done. Greater attention must be paid to transposing and implementing theacquis communautaire efficiently, to ensure timely compliance with the obligations arising from membership.In the light of the Commission's 2007 progress report on Croatia the country needs to intensify its effortson transposition and specifically to achieve further progress in the areas of justice and administrative reform,anti-corruption measures, economic reform, minority rights and the return of refugees. Full cooperationwith the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) must continue, with furtherimprovements to ensure that war criminals in Croatia can be tried and sentenced without national bias.

The issue of the ecological fishery zone (ZERP) must also be addressed. On 18 February 2008 the Councilagain urged Croatia to meet its obligations regarding this, referring to its decisions of December 2007 whichcalled on Croatia to comply fully with the agreement of 4 June 2004 and on no account to enforce theecological fishery zone, within which a fishing ban applied to EU Member States too, until such time as acommon agreement had been reached within the spirit of the EU. The Council will raise this issue again atits next meeting and has thus asked the Commission to continue talking to the Croatian authorities and tobrief the Council accordingly.

** *

Question no 14 by Zita Pleštinská (H-0146/08)

Subject: Accession negotiations with Croatia

Unless the countries of south-east Europe join the EU it will not be possible for European integration to bedescribed as a success. Slovenia has been a full member of the EU since 1 May 2004, whereas the Croatiansare merely aiming for that status. Border relations between Slovenia and Croatia have been a familiar topic


for a number of years. The declaration of an ecological fishing area at the beginning of this year has furthercomplicated Croatia's accession negotiations with the EU.

What view does the Council take concerning the settlement of the dispute concerning the border betweenSlovenia (which currently holds the EU Presidency) and Croatia (which is striving for EU accession)? Doesthe Council think it appropriate for bilateral issues to become tangled up with the accession negotiatingprocess? How long does the Council think it will take for the situation to be resolved in a way which isacceptable to both sides? When will it be possible for Croatia's accession negotiations with the EU to beresumed?

Answer


The accession talks with Croatia have not at any point been suspended and so do not need to be resumed.More specifically, they are continuing on schedule. During the first half of 2008 two accession conferencesare planned, one at permanent representative level and another at ministerial level, to open new chapters.It should also be pointed out that on 10 December 2007 the Council praised Croatia for its overall progress,which had continued throughout the past year and enabled the country to move into the next, significantlymore important and more demanding phase

Notwithstanding this, however, the issue of the ecological fishery zone (ZERP) needs to be addressed. On18 February 2008 the Council again urged Croatia to meet its obligations regarding this, referring to itsdecisions of December 2007. The Council will address this issue at its next meeting and has asked theCommission to continue talking to the Croatian authorities and to brief the Council accordingly.

On 12 February the Council also entered into a new Accession Partnership with Croatia. The chief aims ofthis revised accession partnership will be to intensify efforts to find a definitive solution to outstandingbilateral issues, in particular the question of Croatia's borders with Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro andBosnia-Herzegovina, and to resolve the issue of the ecological fishery zone. Conduct of the accessionpartnership is of crucial importance to the continuing accession process.

** *

Question no 15 by Robert Evans (H-0101/08)

Subject: Prisons in the EU

The conditions and facilities in EU prisons vary considerably from one Member State to another. What canbe done to ensure that uniformity is reached across the EU, and what support could be offered to thosecountries needing to improve their facilities?

Answer


The matter of conditions in prisons is the responsibility of Member States, not of the EU. Neither the EUTreaty nor the current Treaty or Reform Treaty confers any powers in this regard. Consequently no directlegislation can be enacted. But the Treaty does confer responsibilities for justice cooperation between MemberStates. The Council of the EU has already taken a number of measures on this basis, and two documents areof relevance here: the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic with a view toadoption of a Council Framework Decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences,alternative sanctions and conditional sentences, and the Framework Decision on the European supervisionorder. The Council has already reached agreement on the former decision, and the Slovenian Presidency ofthe Council will work to secure agreement on the latter.

Independently of this the honourable Member might like to familiarise himself with the European conditionsof detention adopted by the Council of Europe, which lay down standards and rules for prison conditions.


** *

Question no 16 by Chris Davies (H-0103/08)

Subject: Scrutiny of implementation of EU legislation during the Slovenian Presidency

Will the Presidency-in-Office state whether it has arranged for the issue of inadequate implementation ofEU legislation by Member States to be placed on the agenda of any meetings of the Council of Ministersscheduled to take place during the current Presidency?

Answer


The honourable Member will undoubtedly be aware that the Council sets great store by the proper and timelytransposition and implementation of Community legislation in the Member States. This is also part of theextended agenda for improving legislation which is one of the Council's priorities.

At the meeting of 25 February 2008 the Commission briefed the Council on the latest edition of the InternalMarket Scoreboard, which reports marked progress on transposition of the internal market directives intonational law, demonstrating that in 22 Member States the transposition deficit is currently below the interimtarget of 1.5 per cent set by the European Council in 2001. At the same time the large number of proceedingsfor infringements of the Treaty, brought against Member States for inadequate or incorrect application ofthe internal market rules, is worrying. In view of this the Council, in its key issues paper for the springEuropean Council meeting, pointed to the importance of transposing and implementing the Services Directivein a comprehensive, coherent and timely manner. This was also emphasised in the relevant key issues paperadopted by the Council on 12 February 2008.

The Slovenian Presidency of the Council will continue to give priority in the months ahead to the agendafor improving the process of legislation and its various aspects. Improvements to the legislative process willbe discussed at the Council meeting scheduled for 29 and 30 May 2008, when the Council and Commissionwill have another opportunity of addressing this important issue which the honourable Member has raised.

** *

Question no 17 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0108/08)

Subject: Effective realisation of the EU's objectives

The European Union actively contributes to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).One of the MDGs is to eradicate hunger and poverty. Corn and other cereals, which provide food for largenumbers of poor people, are very important for reducing hunger in developing countries. After the EU setthe objective that biofuels should account for one tenth of all transport fuels by 2010, EU farmers began toinvest actively in growing rape because they saw significant financial interest and potential in doing so. Somefarmers have altered the mix of the crops they grow: instead of cereal crops, they are starting to grow rape.There is a danger that, if there is a significant reduction in cereal crops, the EU will no longer be able to meetthe ever-growing needs of people going hungry in third countries.

What preventive measures does the Council intend to take to ensure that EU growers of these crops are notput at a financial disadvantage and that levels of food aid to third countries are not reduced? What will bedone to ensure that efforts to realise one objective will not lead to other objectives being sacrificed?

Answer


The honourable Member's question alludes to the undertaking given by the European Union to make anactive contribution towards attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. In this context the Council's


view is that the EU's commitment on development and humanitarian aid, including food aid, should be aseffective as possible and consistent with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

The honourable Member will undoubtedly be aware that the EU has for some time now been giving foodaid without strings, not least to ensure that it is effective. In line with the recommendations of the OECD'sDevelopment Assistance Committee, the European Union believes that all forms of food aid should be givensolely on the terms that also apply to subsidies, that is to say they should be entirely unconditional, basedon a systematic assessment of need and paid in cash. The EU's implementing partners obtain food aid primarilyfrom local and regional markets. The World Food Programme (WFP), for example, one of the EU's mainimplementing partners, sources about 80% of its aid in the developing countries. So the Council does notconsider that extending rape cultivation in the EU diminishes the Union's ability to meet the requirementsof those who need food aid.

Recent reforms of the common agricultural policy have sought to make European agriculture more sustainableand more market-oriented. The Council is aware that food prices are rising worldwide. There are manyreasons for this rise, which cannot be attributed solely to changes in international crop cultivation. It shouldbe noted that the exceedingly high level of fuel prices has serious repercussions on food production andtransport costs. Increasing affluence in various regions of the world, such as Asia, is also a factor in thegrowing demand for foodstuffs.

Consequently the Council will work hard to ensure that Europe's agriculture meets this challenge, that is tosay finds the right balance between growing crops for food and crops for biofuel production.

** *

Question no 18 by Brian Crowley (H-0110/08)

Subject: Combating drugs in the EU

Can the Council make a comprehensive statement outlining any new initiatives it is pursuing to stop illegaldrug importations into the EU, much in line with the MAOC initiative which brings together the police,naval, customs and intelligence services from the eight Member States from the west coast of Europe whoare co-ordinating their activities to combat cocaine importations into Europe from Africa and from SouthAmerica?

Answer


Reducing the importation of illicit drugs into the European Union is a key priority of the EU Drugs Strategyfor the period 2005-2012, which was approved by the European Council and taken forward under the EUAction Plan on Drugs 2005-2008 adopted by the Council. The EU has, therefore, concluded action andcooperation plans with the major producer countries.

In 1999 the EU Member States and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) agreed underthe Panama Action Plan to cooperate on halting the production and trafficking of drugs. A coordinationand cooperation mechanism was subsequently set up which operates at several levels – from expert groupsto political summits. As part of this, a high-level meeting (the tenth of its kind) was held in Vienna duringthe Slovenian Council Presidency of the EU, which adopted a joint text – the 'Hofburg Declaration'. In it thecountries concerned repeated their undertaking to cooperate further on tackling the drugs problem. Amongstother things they welcomed the important analytical efforts being made against drug trafficking in theAtlantic by the Lisbon-based Maritime Analysis and Operational Centre (MAOC), which the honourableMember mentions in his question and which aims in particular to break the maritime cocaine routes toEurope via West Africa.

Numerous joint projects are also ongoing at present, including:

1. Partnership between European, Latin American and Caribbean cities;

2. Cooperation by police and intelligence services to combat the trafficking of cocaine from Latin Americaand the Caribbean via West Africa;


3. Exchange of intelligence by Latin American police forces and European liaison officials dealing with thedrugs problem in the region;

4. Halting the production of precursors and trafficking in these chemicals in Latin America and the Caribbean.

An audit of the resources earmarked for the LAC shows that up to 2005 the EU countries had co-financed76 projects to a total value of over EUR 230 million. Figures for funding since 2005 are still being assembled.The programmes are designed in such a way as to encourage sustainable development of the regions, povertyreduction and the growth of democratic institutions. At the same time measures to reduce drug productionare also subsidised – for example the cultivation of alternative crops to provide a living for farmers whopreviously grew coca.

The European Commission and European Parliament have also discussed these programmes and ways ofcoordinating them. The Commission has published a separate document in the form of a communication,and the European Parliament has adopted a resolution on cooperation between the EU and Latin America.

A meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs is being held at the moment in Vienna, at which theEU countries will propose the adoption of a resolution which could have major implications for theintroduction of illicit drugs into the EU via West Africa. The resolution envisages joint and better coordinatedaction by international organisations and UN member states to counter illicit drug trafficking and thetransportation of cocaine through these countries, and it pledges help and support to the governments ofstates in West Africa, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)in their introduction and implementation of measures to stem the illicit trade in cocaine.

** *

Question no 19 by Eoin Ryan (H-0112/08)

Subject: Political update of the political situation in Darfur

Can the Council make a comprehensive statement about the political situation in Darfur?

Answer


The political process in Darfur currently rests on the joint initiative by the AU and UN (mediation by theirspecial envoys), which seeks to bring all parties together to participate in a credible political process. Butthese efforts are beset by a multiplicity of problems. The rebel movements are increasingly fragmented, andany real ceasefire is out of the question. So it seems unlikely that talks between the parties will continuewithin the foreseeable future.

The EU is also part of the international initiative through an EU Special Representative for Sudan, who ensuresthat the EU's involvement in managing the crisis in Darfur is consistent with the EU's overall political relationswith Sudan. He visits the country regularly, talking to the Sudanese authorities and cooperating withrepresentatives of the international community on the ground.

The Council is deeply concerned at the worsening security and humanitarian situation in Darfur. It regardsit as most important that relief organisations should have constant, unimpeded and secure access to thepopulation. Notwithstanding the recent extension of the moratorium on restrictions on and obstacles tohumanitarian work in Darfur it has called on the Sudanese Government to respect the undertakings it gaveunder the moratorium and to allow humanitarian workers access to the region.

The latest attacks by Sudanese forces on villages in western Darfur have focused attention on the humanitariantragedy of over ten thousand refugees and displaced persons. Increasing tensions between the Governmentsof Chad and Sudan have made it harder still to speed up the political process in Darfur.

The Council has again urged the Governments of Chad and Sudan to refrain from any action which mightdestabilise the region further and in particular to end their support to armed groups operating in easternChad and Darfur. Both Governments must fulfil the obligations they gave to prevent incursions by armedgroups across their common frontier.


In the meantime all expectations are focused on deployment of the UNAMID mission in Darfur as an effectiveanswer to these problems. But the Sudanese Government continues to place administrative and technicalobstacles in the way of its effective deployment. This delay will affect the chances of re-launching a crediblepolitical process. Before negotiations can begin, fundamental security requirements must be met. Ultimatelythe UNAMID mission can only succeed if all sides in the Darfur conflict reach a comprehensive politicalconsensus.

** *

Question no 20 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0114/08)

Subject: Promoting safe water in the Third World

Can the Council make a comprehensive statement outlining in specific detail what support measures theEuropean Union has in place to make drinking water safe in the Third World, in accordance with theMillennium Development Goals?

Answer


Equitable and sustainable management of water resources is key to sustainable development and theeradication of poverty. No strategy for the reduction of poverty can ignore people’s vital requirements forwater. In this context the EU Council remains fully committed to attaining the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, including Millennium Development Goal No 7 (to ensure environmental sustainability) and target10 thereof (to reduce by 2015 half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinkingwater).

In the European Consensus on Development(4), which was signed by the European Parliament, the Counciland the Commission on 20 December 2005, the protection of natural resources such as water is defined asa key dimension of poverty eradication. The document also states that the aim of the Community integratedwater resources management policy framework is to ensure a supply of sufficient, good-quality drinkingwater, adequate sanitation and hygiene to every human being, in line with the Millennium DevelopmentGoals and targets laid down at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in2002. This policy tool is further aimed at defining a framework for long-term protection of all water resources,preventing further deterioration of water quality and promoting sustainable water use.

The EU Water Initiative, which was launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, is anexpression of the EU’s common desire for innovative approaches to water and sanitation. The initiativecontributes to the policy goals described earlier by means of the following: reinforcing political commitmentto action; focussing attention on water- and sanitation-related issues as part of efforts aimed at povertyreduction and sustainable development; encouraging improved water management; encouraging regionaland sub-regional cooperation on water management issues; and catalysing additional funding. At the sametime the initiative offers a framework for establishing strategic water- and sanitation-related partnershipswith Africa, Latin America, the Mediterranean countries and the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, andCentral Asia (EECCA). The initiative is supported by EUR 500 million from the 9th European DevelopmentFund earmarked for the ACP-EU Water Fund.

The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)(5), which was adopted by the European Parliament and theCouncil on 18 December 2006, includes support for sustainable integrated water resource management,with particular emphasis on universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation in line with the MillenniumDevelopment Goals and sustainable and efficient use of water resources, including for agricultural andindustrial purposes.

(4) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1.(5) OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41.


Access to safe water, water scarcity and drought are and will remain the principal EU priorities both internallyand externally. In its conclusions of 14 December 2007(6) the European Council welcomed the Councilconclusions of 30 October 2007 and invited the Commission to present a report in 2008 and, on that basis,to review and further develop the EU strategy by 2012, taking into account the international dimension.

Finally, the Council is aware of the specific needs in Africa in terms of access to safe water. The Africa-EUStrategic Partnership(7), which was approved at the Lisbon Summit on 9 December 2007, states that waterresource management and access to safe water and basic sanitation are crucial both for economic growthand poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Africa and the EU willtherefore work together to develop further the existing EU-Africa Partnership on Water Affairs and Sanitationwith the overall objective of meeting basic water and sanitation needs and contributing to improved waterresource management at local, river basin and catchment, national and trans-boundary level.

** *

Question no 21 by David Martin (H-0121/08)

Subject: Toward a consensus on Trade Defence Instruments

Can the Council outline its plans for reaching a consensus among Member States on the issue of TradeDefence Instruments?

Answer


As part of its implementation of the communication ‘Global Europe – Competing in the World’ theCommission decided in 2006 to launch a public consultation on the use of trade defence instruments (TDIs)in a changing global economy to establish whether it would be possible to bring about greater flexibility inthe TDI system.

One of the conclusions of this public consultation is that the proper functioning of the TDI system is notnecessary to defend industries in the Community from unfairly traded or subsidised imports and ensurepublic confidence in fair trade. At the same time it was established that it would be necessary to remodelcertain elements of that system.

Following earlier discussions, which were held in the Council’s preparatory bodies in 2007, CommissionerMandelson stated on 11 January 2008 that the Commission was not prepared to bring forward proposalsfor reform of the TDI rules ‘until greater consensus exists amongst the Member States about the sort of reformthey are prepared to embrace’. Since there is no formal Commission proposal, no additional discussions areplanned at this stage.

Discussion of amendments to the existing wording of the agreements on anti-dumping, subsidies andcountervailing measures, including subsidies in fisheries, were also held in the world trade negotiations inGeneva as part of the Doha Development Agenda. One of the EU goals is to strengthen the rules-basedinternational trading system and to bring about greater implementation of the agreed rules by all the tradingpartners.

The aim of reviewing the measures is to establish a consensus, but this will take longer, also having regardto the possible outcome of the discussions in Geneva, and therefore it is not yet possible to establish a timeframe for presenting Commission proposals to the Council.

** *

(6) Doc. 16616/1/07, paragraph 57.(7) Doc. 16344/07, paragraphs 79 and 80.


Question no 22 by Sarah Ludford (H-0123/08)

Subject: Profiling

In light of the Commission proposals to introduce an EU PNR system COM(2007)0654, an entry-exit systemand an electronic travel authorisation system, could the Council specify its understanding of the concept of'profiling' and in particular whether these systems would make use of it?

Answer


First of all, the Council would like to point out to the honourable Member that neither the EU, the Councilnor the Council of Europe has an established definition for profiling. In his opinion on the Commissionproposal for a European Passenger Name Record (PNR) system the European Data Protection Supervisorreferred to the definition of profiling taken from a study by the Council of Europe and at the same time statedthat he is aware of the ongoing discussions on the definition of profiling. Furthermore, the EDPS acknowledgedthat the main point is not about definitions but rather about the impact on individuals.

The proposal for a European PNR(8) system put forward by the Commission does not create profiling asdefined by the Council of Europe study. According to that study, profiling is essentially a computer-assistedmethod which uses data analysis to enable individual measures to be taken in relation to a person identifiedin this manner.

The proposal enables data from the PNR to be used only in combating organised crime and terrorism,primarily in gathering information and intelligence on persons who may be involved in a criminal offence.It also provides for an analysis of data from the PNR. These data are examined for what are known as ‘riskindicators’, in order to assess the risk that a passenger may pose. These risk indicators are based on theevidence obtained from reports, for example intelligence reports, and from previous examples. Risk indicatorswill be determined at the level of the Member States since a crime may differ from Member State to MemberState. The Commission proposal expressly rules out the possibility of basing risk indicators on sensitive datasuch as on ethnic origin and religious belief, where the PNR data contain such information. The Councilwould nevertheless like to stress that Article 3(5) of the Commission proposal expressly states that thepassenger information units and the competent authorities must not take any enforcement action solely onthe basis of the automated processing of PNR data. In other words, enforcement action on the basis of PNRdata, including decisions on individuals, may not be taken without a human factor, that is to say by the lawenforcement authorities.

On 13 February 2008 the Commission presented a communication on preparing the next steps in bordermanagement in the European Union.(9) This communication presents for discussion possible new bordermanagement instruments, including the possible setting up of a system of entry/exit registration for nationalsof non-member countries and the possible setting up of an electronic system of travel authorisation. However,thus far no specific legislative proposals have been brought forward on the subject. The communication,together with the Commission communications issued on 13 February 2008, namely ‘Examining the creationof a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)’(10) and the ‘Report on the evaluation and futuredevelopment of the FRONTEX Agency’,(11) will be discussed at the Ministerial Conference on the Challengesof EU External Border Management to be held in Brdo, Slovenia, on 11 and 12 March 2008.

** *

(8) 14922/07 – COM (2007) 654 final.(9) 6666/08 – COM (2008) 69 final.(10) 6665/08 – COM (2008) 68 final.(11) 6664/08 – COM (2008) 67 final.


Question no 23 by Cristiana Muscardini (H-0127/08)

Subject: Intimidation by the Slovene police

On Sunday, 10 February, in order to pay homage to the 97 tax officers deported by Yugoslav partisans(mainly from the Campo Marzio [Trieste] office) and thrown into a ditch close to the village of Roditti, agroup of Istrian exiles set out to lay a laurel wreath in their memory.

In view of the intimidating behaviour displayed by the Slovene police (who, in violation of the Schengenagreements, halted at the Pese border crossing the coach in which the exiles were travelling to Roditti andthen to Capodistria) and with due regard to the duties which EU accession imposes on Slovenia as well (thecountry which currently holds the EU Presidency), does the Council not think that it should investigate thisscandalous example of police behaviour? Does it not consider that it should condemn the intimidationpractised by the police?

Does the Council not think that it should take action in order to ensure that the Schengen agreements (whichhave been signed by Slovenia as well) are upheld, in view of the anti-democratic and unjustifiable treatmentinflicted on a group of European citizens (Italians, in this particular instance) who were undertaking a peacefulpilgrimage on EU territory?

Answer


The incident to which Mrs Muscardini refers falls within the competence of the authorities of the relevantMember State, that is to say the Slovenian authorities. Under Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union,the individual Member States are competent for the maintenance of law and order.

For this reason the Council did not discuss the question from Mrs Muscardini.

** *

Question no 24 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-0132/08)

Subject: Situation of five Cuban citizens imprisoned in the USA - the Miami Five

Unless the most elementary justice is done by the US authorities, it will be ten years this coming 12 Septemberthat António Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez, Gerardo Hernández, Ramon Sabañino and René González havebeen held unfairly imprisoned in US jails; these men are Cuban patriots who acted to defend their country,seeking to prevent Cuba from continuing to be the victim of terrorist activity promoted and carried out byorganisations with their headquarters in Miami. It should be stressed that the UN Working Party on thesefive Cuban citizens imprisoned in the USA was of the opinion, on 27 May 2005, that the sentence passedon them 'had not been reached in a climate of objectivity and impartiality', and that the Eleventh Circuitappeal court of Atlanta decided, on 9 August 2005, unanimously to annul the sentence handed down inMiami. For the last nine years, these five Cuban patriots have been the victims of countless illegal acts,unacceptable and inhuman punishment, pressures and blackmail, failure to comply with the most elementaryhuman rights, and the application by the US Administration of intolerable and cruel obstacles and restrictionswith regard to visits by members of their families, including their wives and daughters.

What does the Council intend to do to ensure that the most basic human rights of these five patriotic Cubancitizens imprisoned in US jails are respected, with specific reference to their right to receive visits from theirfamilies, the rescinding of their sentences, their right to a fair trial, and their release?

Answer


The Council is aware that the authorities in the USA have in some cases not permitted family members andother persons, including Members of the European Parliament, to have contact with the five Cuban nationals


whom the USA has imprisoned as spies. However, according to the UN Working Group on ArbitraryDetention, the great majority of family members have been granted visas to visit their relatives.

A judgment pronounced by a court in the USA is an internal matter within the competence of that country.Legal proceedings are under way in this case and the judgment is not yet final. The Council may not thereforecomment on the matter. The decision on granting a visa to enter the territory of a country also falls withinthe internal competence of that country. Since the majority of visa applications have been approved and itcannot be established that relatives are regularly denied visits, the Council cannot argue that there has beena violation of the human rights of the prisoners or their families. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention onConsular Relations provides that the individual State is responsible for defending the rights and interests ofits nationals abroad.

The Council confirms its complete commitment to respect for the human rights of all nationals.

** *

Question no 25 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0134/08)

Subject: Cybercrime

Does the Council give wholehearted support to the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime?

If not, why not?

Is so, what is the Council doing to encourage no less than fourteen of its Member States to ratify the convention- Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal,Spain, Sweden and the one which I know best, the United Kingdom?

Answer


The Council wholeheartedly supports the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime and has adopteda framework decision on attacks against information systems whose wording is similar to that of theConvention.(12) This framework decision, whose deadline for implementation expired on 16 March 2007,might also serve as an incentive to the Member States to ratify the Council of Europe’s Convention. However,the Member States are competent for ratification of the Convention.

** *

Question no 26 by Anna Hedh (H-0138/08)

Subject: Alcohol policy

The Commission announced its alcohol strategy in the autumn of 2006. This indicated that alcohol was apublic health problem. Despite this, the Commission has submitted proposals on wine-growing,COM(2007)0732, which run entirely counter to the spirit of the strategy. If my understanding is correct,the Council thought that the alcohol strategy should be far stricter and adopted a stronger tone in itsconclusions. What is the Council's view of the Commission communication on the alcohol strategy andhow it should be applied?

Answer


At a meeting on 30 November 2006 the Council welcomed the Commission’s Communication on an EUstrategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm, which represents a major step forward

(12) OJ L 69, 16. 3.2005, p. 67–71.


towards a comprehensive and coordinated Community approach to resolving the problem of the harmfulimpact of excessive alcohol use on health and well-being in Europe. An Alcohol and Health Forum, whoseoverall objective is to establish a common starting point for all stakeholders at EU level who undertake topromote measures to reduce alcohol-related harm, was established in 2007 as a basis for implementing thisstrategy.

The Council has urged the Member States to lend their full support to the Commission’s strategy and topromote its implementation at national and Community level.

Furthermore, the Council has stressed that it is necessary to provide comprehensive, consistent and coordinatedmeans of preventing alcohol-related harm to public health and safety in all relevant policy areas, such asresearch, consumer protection, transport, advertising, marketing, sponsorship, excise duties and otherinternal market fields.

The Council has urged the Commission to continue to support the Member States in their efforts to maintain,strengthen and develop their national alcohol policies in order to reduce alcohol-related harm and, as from2008, to report regularly on their progress in implementing the EU strategy and on the activities on whichthe Member States report in order to enable the Council to assess the results attained. The Council has alsoasked the Commission to develop measurable key indicators for monitoring progress in reducingalcohol-related harm at Community level.

As soon as the report is available the Presidency will inform the Council and take a decision on appropriatefurther measures.

** *

Question no 27 by Katrin Saks (H-0141/08)

Subject: Entry to Russia: possible restrictions to be imposed on citizens of Schengen States

On 21 December 2007 the Schengen legal area was expanded to include the Central and Eastern Europeancountries. The new members have completely fulfilled the Schengen requirements and thus proved themselvesworthy to be considered equal partners alongside the other European countries.

The Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, Konstantin Kossatšov, has publiclysaid that because several Russian citizens have been barred from entering Estonia, Russia could respond byrestricting entry to its territory, the restrictions being aimed at citizens of those Schengen states which‘blacklist’ Russian citizens on account of their beliefs. By way of example he cited the case of MarianaSkvortsova, a student. Her visa was cancelled because of an infringement of the visa regulations in Estonia.How does the Council view the Russian threat to restrict citizens of Schengen States from entering Russia?How will it respond to possible Russian countermoves if the rights enjoyed by a citizen of one SchengenState are curtailed on account of the lawful border and security policy of another Schengen State?

Answer


The conditions for the issue of visas by the Member States taking part in the Schengen cooperation are setout in the Common consular instructions on visas for the diplomatic missions and consular posts (CCI)(13);the conditions for entry of third-country nationals into the Schengen area are set out in the Schengen BordersCode.(14)

(13) OJ C 326, 22.12.2005, p. 1.(14) OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1.


The Council has been informed that Commission representatives notified the Russian authorities of thearrangements applicable to the issuing of visas at meetings of the visa facilitation Joint Committee(15) betweenthe Russian Federation and the European Community.

The Council is not aware of any restrictions on entry into the territory of the Russian Federation which theRussian authorities are to introduce for nationals of certain Member States.

Furthermore, the Council is not familiar with the circumstances of the case to which the question relates.

** *

Question no 28 by Georgios Georgiou (H-0142/08)

Subject: Gaza Strip

Does the Council of Ministers intend to use the same methods and mechanisms in the case of the Gaza Stripas those used to enable Kosovo to gain its independence?

Answer


In reply to the question from the Member who raised the issue of Gaza in connection with circumstances inKosovo, the Council takes the view that the issue of Gaza can in no way be compared with the situation inKosovo.

** *

Question no 30 by Danutė Budreikaitė (H-0148/08)

Subject: Reflection Group

On 14 December 2007, the European Council established an independent ‘Reflection Group’.

Can the country holding the Presidency provide information on the situation: has the Reflection Groupalready been established, who are its members, how were they chosen, what are the sources of funding forthe group’s activities, what are its areas of activity, and what outcome is expected? What will the ReflectionGroup do that the Convention could not and that the European Parliament, elected by all citizens of the EU,cannot?

Answer


The advisory group to which Mrs Budreikaitė refers was set up by the European Council at its meeting on14 December 2007. At the same time it appointed a chairman and two vice-chairs and invited them tosubmit a list of names of possible members to be considered by the European Council during the FrenchPresidency.

The group’s scope, organisation and timetable, which the European Council also agreed at the meeting on14 December 2007, are set out in the conclusions of that meeting.

The Presidency therefore suggests that the honourable Member should seek further information on theadvisory group in those conclusions.

** *

(15) The visa facilitation Joint Committee set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the RussianFederation on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (OJ L 129, 17.5.2007, p. 27).


Question no 31 by Hélène Goudin (H-0152/08)

Subject: EU fisheries agreements with third countries

The EU regularly concludes fisheries agreements with poor developing countries outside the Union. Theseagreements are criticised by the environmental movement and aid organisations alike. The fisheries agreementsare concluded primarily with African countries. The agreements give European fishing fleets the right to fishin those countries' waters. Critics consider that the fisheries agreements contribute to the depletion of worldfish stocks and deprive local fishermen in the developing countries of their source of income.

Does the Presidency have any sympathy with the criticism regularly levelled at the fisheries agreements whichare concluded with third countries? Does the Presidency intend to take any initiatives to modernise and, inthe long term, abolish such fisheries agreements?

Answer


The Council is aware of the criticisms of the fisheries agreements which the Community has concluded withthird countries and would like to stress that the Council Conclusions on Fisheries Partnership Agreements(16)

have provided the policy framework for the conclusion of these agreements since 19 July 2004.

The adoption of these agreements transformed all fisheries agreements into fisheries partnership agreements.The main points of this policy framework provide that Community vessels are to have access to surplusfishing stocks in the waters of the relevant third country and that part of the Community’s financialcontribution is to be allocated for measures to develop the local fisheries sector.

Under all fisheries partnership agreements, a joint committee is set up to monitor and assess the performanceof the agreement and to implement fisheries policy in the country to which the Community has allocatedfinancial support. The joint committee may also decide on possible amendments to the agreement whichmust then be ratified by the contracting parties. These joint committees are to meet at least once a year.

The Council does not know whether or not the Commission intends to present a new communicationproposing a change to the nature of the fisheries partnership agreements.

** *

QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION

Question no 38 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (H-0107/08)

Subject: Doctoral studies and the creation of highly qualified jobs

Recent statistics show that in 2004, at Union level, only 3.3% of students attended a doctoral course. TheCzech Republic, Austria and Finland ranked first, with 7%, with respect to the number of doctoral studentscompared to the total number of students and more than 50% of the EU doctoral students were from France,Great Britain and Spain.

In Europe we all know the important part played by doctoral studies for the creation of a knowledge-basedeconomy. The promotion of tertiary education and doctoral studies will enable companies to create highlyqualified and productive job positions.

I would like to ask the Commission what its strategy is in determining and supporting the Member States inincreasing the attractiveness of doctoral curricula and thus enabling them to develop their innovation andresearch capacity and what is the Commission’s strategy in determining the increase in the number of thedoctoral students in the engineering sciences?

(16) Doc. 11485/1/04 REV 1 PECHE 254.


Answer

The number of 3.3 %, to which the Honourable Member refers, concerns only doctoral students and otheradvanced research students. It does not include Master's level postgraduate students. Once they are included,the picture is much brighter with the number of postgraduate students growing rapidly.

Generally speaking, the participation rates at doctoral level in the EU are growing steadily and are higherthan those in the US or Japan. However, the percentages and absolute numbers of doctoral students varyconsiderably between EU countries. Some of the countries with a high percentage of doctoral students haverelatively few students in higher education overall, so that the total number of doctoral students is not veryhigh in relation to the population.

In order to boost the number of postgraduates in engineering, it is important, first, to increase the numbersof graduates in mathematics, science and technology (MST). That is why the Commission proposed abenchmark, adopted by the Education Council in May 2003, that aims to ‘increase by 15% the number ofgraduates in Maths, Science and Technology’ and ‘decrease gender imbalance’ by 2010. While the first targethas already been achieved, there has been very little progress on the gender balance aspect, with the shareof women rising slightly from 30.7% in 2000 to 31.2% in 2005.

The Commission coordinates the exchange of good practices and peer learning activities among countriesin the field of MST education in the framework of the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme. In2006, the Commission has set up a Cluster group, composed of 13 countries, to follow the European MSTbenchmark and to improve participation in MST studies and careers, especially regarding women. It shallalso contribute to preparing scientific specialists for the Barcelona objective of reaching 3% of Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) in research.

MST is also one of the eight key competences for lifelong learning (Recommendation from the Parliamentand the Council, December 2006) and represents a priority topic of the 2008 calls for proposals within theLifelong Learning Programme. Furthermore the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) will publishin March 2008 a call for proposals addressing innovative methods in science education at school level on alarge scale in Europe as follow-up of the Rocard report on science education.

** *

Question no 39 by Justas Vincas Paleckis (H-0109/08)

Subject: Promoting lifelong learning

The importance of lifelong learning is recognised in all EU countries. Adult education provides flexibilityand employment in the labour market, leading to positive social and economic changes in EU countries.Significant progress has been made in education and training reforms, but some EU countries are still notdeveloping innovative learning programmes or ensuring rapid, high-quality and effective implementationand funding of these programmes. Non-formal and informal learning are clearly not being implementedquickly enough.

What initiatives is the Commission taking, and what initiatives does it intend to take, to reduce the gapbetween countries actively and passively implementing this programme?

Answer

To influence the situation in adult learning in Europe the Commission establishes benchmarks, applies theopen method of coordination and develops reference tools and communications. In addition, the LifelongLearning Programme (LLP) provides financial support.

The EU has already set up a benchmark in 2003 to improve and monitor progress as regards the participationof adults in education and training. The aim of this benchmark is to measure the participation of adults (25to 64 year-old) in lifelong learning to 12.5% by 2010. Moreover, the same target of increasing participationof adults in lifelong learning has also been part of the European Employment Strategy since 2003.

On an EU level, participation in Education and Training increased from 7.1% in 2000 to 9.6% in 2006. In2006 an average of 9.6% of Europeans aged 25 to 64 participated in education and training activities. Progressmust be quicker in the future and additional efforts by many EU countries are needed to reach the benchmarkof a 12.5% participation rate in 2010.


The best performing countries are Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom (UK) and Finland, followed bythe Netherlands, Slovenia and Austria. All the remaining EU countries still have rates below the Europeanaverage of 12.5%.

There are considerable differences between countries reaching from participation rates above nearly 30 %in some countries to just over 1% in others.

On average women participated in education more than men (in 2006: 10.4%, females: 8.8% males:) andadults with high education participated much more in lifelong learning than low skilled adults. Participationalso decreases as age increases.

The Commission, in order to further promote adults' lifelong learning and reduce the gap between countriesactively and passively implementing this initiative, has adopted two Communications on Adult learning. Inthe first one in 2006 "It is never too late to learn" the Commission sets out a general approach on developmentsand needs in the adult learning sector. The second Communication in September 2007 "It is always a goodtime to learn" is the European Action plan on adult learning.

In implementing the Action plan with the cooperation of the Member States the Commission will analysethe effects of national reforms on adult learning. As the adult learning sector touches all the other fields ofeducation it is important to analyse the effects of developments in these areas and their interaction with theadult learning sector. Most Member States are developing a National Qualification Framework linked to theEuropean Qualification Framework. These developments are focussed on how to facilitate access, progressand transfer and are thus potentially important for opening up qualification systems to adults. The Commissionwill also develop standards for adult learning professionals and quality assurance mechanisms, based onexisting good practice. Member States will be encouraged to set targets for increasing the skills levels of adultsand to speed up the process of assessing and recognising non-formal and informal learning for groups atrisks. Last but not least the Commission will propose a set of core data to improve comparability in the adultlearning sector.

In addition to this policy, the LLP and, in particular, its sectoral programme "Grundtvig" provides financialsupport to transnational projects in the area of adult education.

Recently the Commission has published a brochure with 20 outstanding Grundtvig projects - "GrundtvigSuccess Stories. This brochure presents examples of best practice and encourages other stakeholders tofollow these good examples. The brochure can be downloaded from:

(http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/grundtvig/success-stories_en.pdf

Other sectoral programmes in the LLP may also cover adult education within their scope: the Leonardo daVinci programme, for example, has set as one of its priorities for multilateral projects for the period2008–2010 the "skills development of adults in the labour market".

** *

Question no 40 by Michl Ebner (H-0150/08)

Subject: Use of EU assistance funds in the area of culture

Article 151(1) of the EC Treaty requires the Community to 'contribute to the flowering of the cultures of theMember States, while respecting their national and regional diversity'. At present, however, support fromEU assistance programmes for cultural activities flows virtually exclusively to 'high arts' projects. Theatres,museums and concerts receive contributions, while associations devoted to preserving popular culture arelosing out. This is happening despite the fact that such associations not only are long-established protectorsof important aspects of European culture, but are also organised on a transnational basis, for the most part,and their annual events are very popular.

Is the Commission aware of what is, effectively, a rather one-sided patronage policy? How does it intend tocounter this in future?

Answer

The Culture Programme 2007-2013 was designed after consultations with the cultural sector. The culturaloperators' needs lie at the basis of this programme. On their advice the Culture Programme differs from its


predecessor in the fact that it is more flexible and open to Europe's great cultural diversity and to all the civilsociety organisations operating in this area.

The programme has been running for just over a year now and it is too early to be able to give a full pictureof the range of activities which will have been funded by the programme. However, an information systemis in place to provide in future an overview of the projects selected, their genres, quantities, aims and numbers.

During the previous programme, however, a number of projects already highlighted different folk traditionsin music and dance in particular. Such events bring various European cultures together and are, as theHonourable Member rightly mentions, in this sense transnational.

The Commission listens to cultural stakeholders closely and their views have been taken into account in thechanges made to the calls for proposals under the new programme. The Commission hopes that an evenwider range of projects will be successful in their applications for funding in future.

As to the support given under the Cohesion Policy to cultural investments etc., here the initiative lies withthe Member States and not with the Commission.

** *

Question no 48 by Mairead McGuinness (H-0096/08)

Subject: Impact of climate change on trade negotiations

It is clear that effectively tackling climate change is undoubtedly at the top of Europe's agenda at present,but could the Commission clarify how and to what extent Europe's particular concerns in relation to thismatter form part of international trade negotiations?

Moreover, how can the Commission ensure that the global consensus on a comprehensive and fair post-2012climate change framework, as outlined at the Bali Conference in December 2007, begins to form part of theglobal trade agenda?

Answer

Climate change is a global priority requiring urgent global action. The best way to achieve effective andcollective action is through a global climate change agreement. This is why the main objective of the EU isto make sure that negotiations initiated in Bali in December 2007 under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) towards a comprehensive and ambitious post 2012 climateagreement to be completed by the end of 2009 are successful.

This is not only necessary from an environmental point of view but equally so from a trade andcompetitiveness perspective since it is clear that the best way to avoid trade friction as well as competitivenessconcerns is through an internationally agreed framework on climate change.

Trade policy should respond to the needs and indications of global climate change negotiations and deliverresponses where relevant to maximize synergies and ensure the necessary mutual supportiveness betweentrade and environment. More particularly, it should further work on enhancing the positive contribution oftrade towards addressing climate change, both regarding mitigation and adaptation needs. Tariff and non-tariffliberalisation of environmental goods and services should be strongly supported since it will contribute tothe necessary deployment of and access to environmental technologies.

This is the focus of the recent EU-US proposal on liberalisation of environmental goods and services in thecurrent multilateral trade round in the World Trade Organization (WTO). It invites other countries to comeforward with specific suggestions for goods and services that should be tackled.

Furthermore, as also reflected in the Doha Ministerial Declaration of the current WTO round, environmentalassessments of trade policies (such as the EU Sustainability Impact Assessments) can and should play a rolein preventing or at least mitigating any negative impacts of enhanced trade.

It is also worth highlighting that the EU is pursuing a chapter on trade and sustainable development in thenew generation of Free Trade Agreement negotiations. We are trying to facilitate trade in environmentalgoods, services and technology and to promote the implementation of internationally agreed environmentalstandards. We are also trying to set up a forum to discuss sustainable development issues, including withcivil society.


More generally, in Bali, Indonesia launched an informal dialogue on Trade and Climate Change at Ministeriallevel in the margins of the UNFCCC conference. This should help to further build a common understandingon the link between trade policy and climate change efforts, taking due account of their developmentdimension.

** *

Question no 49 by Gay Mitchell (H-0098/08)

Subject: Sovereign wealth funds and trade policy

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have experienced spectacular growth as of late and have emerged as significantglobal investors, with an estimated $2.9 trillion under management. SWFs' operations are largely opaque,and investment decisions often take on a political or nationalist colour.

Given this, has the Commission formulated a clear policy with regard to the trade issues concerning SWFs?

Answer

The Commission is following the activities of sovereign wealth funds and is carefully monitoring recentdevelopments in this area.

The Commission adopted a communication on this matter on 27 February 2008(17).

The communication identifies and clarifies the issues raised by sovereign wealth funds. In so doing, theCommunication seeks to respond to concerns about sovereign wealth funds. It lays out elements for EUexpectations as to the governance and transparency of sovereign wealth funds. These elements shouldcontribute both to arriving at a common EU approach on this issue and to discussions taking place atinternational level, such as in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD). This communication does not propose any legislative initiative.

At a general level, the Commission recalls that encouraging openness to investments and free movement ofcapital has been a long standing goal of the EU and is key to the EU's success in an increasingly globalisedinternational system. Member States have legislative and regulatory instruments to monitor and interveneon grounds of national security considerations. Thus, any European response to the concerns raised bysovereign wealth fund investments should preserve this balance and avoid giving any signal that Europe isno longer open to legitimate investors.

** *

Question no 50 by Seán Ó Neachtain (H-0115/08)

Subject: World Trade Talks

Can the European Commission make a comprehensive statement outlining the state of play of the WorldTrade Talks at present?

Answer

As the Honourable Member knows, it was decided at the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial to front load a dealon so-called modalities for trade and industrial products (or "NAMA" in WTO jargon), which would precedea final deal covering all issues under negotiations. The objective of a modalities deal is to agree on the mainfigures as regards tariff cuts and, in the case of agriculture also subsidy cuts. The deadline for such a deal hasbeen pushed back several times. The stage has now been reached of trying to put in place the elements ofsuch a modalities deal in the weeks to come, but there are still uncertainties as to whether this is achievable.

In mid February 2008, the Chairmen of the respective WTO negotiating groups on agriculture and NAMAissued revised versions of negotiating texts. These texts should ultimately form the basis for Ministerialnegotiations leading towards a deal on modalities. However, a key concern as regards these two texts is thatthey do not yet provide sufficient certainty as to whether a sufficient balance could be achieved betweenagriculture and NAMA.

(17) COM(2008) 115 final


In the area of agriculture, we have engaged with 3rd countries, in a manner which responds to their ambitionsbut which remains within the framework of the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Theseobjectives can be met on the basis of current proposals by the Chair of the agricultural negotiating group,even if further issues remain to be clarified and agreed.

This approach was however undertaken solely on the basis that this negotiation is a single undertaking andthat concessions in one area should be balanced by gains in other areas. As regards industrial goods, theChair has unfortunately chosen to issue a revised text which could lower the level of ambition which can beachieved. The EU could not accept an agreement which fails to fulfil the Doha Development Agenda (DDA)mandate, i.e. to create real new trade opportunities in industrial goods. This position has been made clearto other WTO Members. Whilst we can live with the fact that the vast majority of developing countriesshould only take very light commitments in this Round, we believe that emerging economies like China,Brazil or India should make a meaningful contribution, in the form of new market access, in line with theirlevel of development.

It is the EU's view that a deal on modalities should be found in the course of this spring. It should be bornein mind that, a deal on modalities would not be a final deal yet. It would settle key issues on agriculture andtrade, but on the other negotiating issues, a final stage of negotiations would still be required until we canreach a final deal. But we will try to ensure that the modalities deal also provides sufficient comfort as to thefinal stretch of negotiations on other issues such as services, rules (anti-dumping and subsidies), geographicalindications, trade facilitation, environmental goods and development. If a final deal is not reached this year,the political situation in the US would make any conclusion before 2010 very unlikely.

** *

Question no 51 by Pedro Guerreiro (H-0133/08)

Subject: State reached in the current WTO negotiations

Various United Nations reports have warned of growing inequalities in recent years as regards income andsocial and economic conditions both between countries and in many cases within countries, in circumstanceswhere poverty and unemployment figures remain high or are rising while the big multinationals' profits andthe concentration of wealth increase - developments which are obviously not unconnected to the liberalisationof trade and capital at world level.

In the light of the recent revised proposals on agriculture and access to the market in non-agriculturalproducts, what revised proposals is the Commission putting forward for the WTO negotiations, with particularreference to agriculture, non-agricultural products (including textiles and clothing) and services? What isthe Commission's view on the need to revise the current negotiating mandate, given that the liberalisationof trade in agriculture, industry and services will aggravate economic and social inequalities, jeopardise foodsovereignty and public services and encourage relocations and social and environmental dumping?

Answer

Few economic studies dispute the view that trade openness is an important factor for growth and development.Arguments focus rather on the nature and the sequencing of that openness. Nevertheless, it is equally clearthat trade openness cannot operate in a vacuum: a whole range of other policies, good governance and astable economic environment, is necessary for this to occur. Trade openness is no panacea for development.

Many developing countries have used trade as a key component of their development policy mix and have,as a result, seen significant reductions in poverty and increases in welfare. The most impressive examples oftrade-led growth are probably found in Asia. China is an obvious pioneer in this sense. But similar trendscan be seen in smaller Asian countries, for example Viet Nam, or even amongst Least Developed Countriessuch as Bangladesh. At the same time China, as well as other emerging economies, pay increasing attentionto accompanying socio-economic challenges such as increasing income and wealth inequalities and socialcohesion and the effective implementation of labour law.

UNCTAD(18) has recently pointed out the positive impacts that growth in Asia has on other poor regions –particularly those dependent on commodity exports. South-South trade is an increasingly important element

(18) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development


of world trade and provides new opportunities for development, but trade barriers remain high in the south:over 60% of the duties paid by developing countries are due to other developing countries, while only 40%of their exports are directed to this group of countries.

The ongoing multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO(19) offer an opportunity to further use trade to fosterdevelopment, through increased market access opportunities for developing countries.

The current negotiating texts fully take into account the fact that not all developing countries have the samecapacities to absorb trade liberalisation. Substantial parts of the DDA negotiations are about Special andDifferential Treatment for developing countries so as to provide for a sliding scale of commitments to marketopening (be it on industrial or agricultural products or services), effectively depending on the level ofdevelopment of particular groups of countries. The vast majority of developing countries in the WTO willtake only very light commitments, in many cases in particular for least developing countries, not requiringany new market opening.

On the other hand, it is only normal that we expect the emerging economies, such as Brazil, India or China,to take responsibilities in line with their level of development, by creating new access to their markets,especially as regards industrial products. While the European market for industrial goods is open and tariffsare amongst the lowest in the world, emerging economies still have high average tariffs and often very highpeak tariffs. In any event, even these countries will have to open their markets to a lesser extent than developedcountries and they will maintain the right, to a certain extent, to shelter certain sensitive sectors.

It will be of critical importance to ensure that any final DDA Agreement is balanced in terms of thecontributions made by countries of different levels of development in the various pillars of the negotiation;this will also be an essential element for the promotion of South-South trade.

The WTO Members have continuously emphasized the central importance of the development dimensionin every aspect of the Doha Work Programme. The Commission further wants to remind the HonourableMember that agreement has already been reached on several measures to help the poorest developing countryMembers of the WTO to fully benefit from the opportunities that would be offered by a successful DDAoutcome, such as increased Aid for Trade or duty free quota free imports for Least developed countries. Also,the EU will ensure that the issue of preference erosion is addressed in an equitable way.

The EU further supports the WTO-ILO(20) cooperation on the relationship between employment/socialpolicy and trade, and the Commission provides active support on developing decent work indicators andassessing the link between trade, employment and decent work in the context of the thematic programme2007-2013 on human and social development ("investing in people").

** *

Question no 52 by Vural Öger (H-0136/08)

Subject: EU/Ukraine Free Trade Agreement

Following the accession of Ukraine to the WTO on 5 February 2008 there are no longer any obstacles to afree trade agreement between the EU and Ukraine. The first round of negotiations commenced on 17 February2008. What timetable is envisaged by the Commission regarding these negotiations?

In 2006, 25% of Ukraine exports went to the EU, which accounted for 42% of Ukraine's imports. Will theCommission in the course of negotiations ensure that the Ukraine is able to increase exports to the EU inthe long-term under the new free trade agreement? What will be the trade advantages for the Ukraine ingeneral under the free trade agreement? How will the Commission ensure that negotiations with Ukrainetake place on an equal footing and that no distortions are allowed to develop specifically with regard to trade?

Has the Commission envisaged a strategy for informing the public of the advantages of liberalisation atgrassroots level?

(19) World Trade Organisation(20) International Labour Organisation


Answer

The General Council of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) endorsed Ukraine's accession on 5 February2008 following which negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Ukraine, as a core part of theNew Enhanced Agreement were launched. Following the official opening on 18 February 2008 in Kiev byCommissioner Mandelson and Ukrainian President Yushchenko a short first round of negotiation betweenchief negotiators, concentrating on organisational matters, followed. We agreed with Ukraine to havenegotiating rounds, if possible, every 8 weeks. The first full round of negotiation is foreseen for the week of21 April 2008 in Brussels.

The European Union intends to negotiate a deep and comprehensive FTA with Ukraine, that will bringUkraine as close as possible to the internal market. The agreement should go beyond the classical FTAprovisions on market access for goods and services, and will also tackle obstacles to trade 'behind the border',for example Sanitary and Phytosanitary issues and technical norms and standards.

The Sustainable Impact Assessment that an independent consultant carried out confirmed that the FTA isexpected to lead to significant gains for Ukraine. The study also concluded that the FTA would reinforceexisting trends in Ukraine: sectors in Ukraine with a competitive advantage are to win and those with acompetitive disadvantage risk losing, unless they can improve their competitiveness. However, an overallpositive result is expected.

Concerning information of the public on the ongoing negotiations, a Civil Society Dialogue meeting on theEU-Ukraine FTA negotiations is planned to take place in the course of 2008.

The European Parliament will be regularly informed on the state of play of the negotiations.

** *

Question no 53 by Johan Van Hecke (H-0137/08)

Subject: Russian accession to WTO

Although Russia is an important member of the G8, it continues to lag behind in having an adequateintellectual property regime for business. It needs to undertake numerous legal reforms to modernise itscopyright system and improve enforcement thereof, before legitimate markets for both Russian and Europeanright holders can be established. Russia has still not ratified the WIPO Internet Treaties of 1996 and its actionsto fight Internet piracy are weak. Owing to EU pressure the notorious Allofmp3.com site has recently beenshut down, but similar sites are still operating in Russia and must be closed down in parallel with thecommencement of criminal investigations against the site operators.

It is essential that the EU continue to make the effective protection and enforcement of IPR a condition forRussia’s accession to the WTO. Will the Commission oppose Russia’s accession to the WTO until such timesas it proves to have an effective IPR regime by adequately implementing its TRIPS obligations, ratifying theWIPO Internet Treaties and fighting Internet piracy?

Question no 54 by Esko Seppänen (H-0140/08)

Subject: Russia's tariffs on timber

Russia has unilaterally increased its tariffs on unprocessed timber exports to a level which is gradually bringingto a halt the importation of Russian timber into EU Member States. How serious does the Commissionconsider this problem to be in relation to Russia's membership of the WTO and does the Commission intendto continue discussions with the Russian authorities to secure a reduction in these tariffs?

Joint answer

Russia's accession to the World Trade organisation (WTO) is, first of all, in Russia's own interest. If Russiawants to continue its economic modernisation course, to further diversify its economy and to attract muchneeded international investment, it will do so best as a member of the WTO.

But Russia's accession is also in the interest of Russia's trading partners. The bottom line is that WTOmembership will mean that Russia has to comply with international trade rules. The scope for arbitrarydiscretion of the state in trade will be reduced. The former President Putin has repeatedly said that he is


committed to WTO membership and I am convinced that his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, will see it thesame way.

What is still to be done in Russia's accession? In fact, we have only a few outstanding issues on the table. Thereality is that on the very large majority of issues, we have already found an agreement or are confident thatthe Russian legislation is in compliance with WTO rules.

As regards Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Russia still has many challenges in this area, most of themrelating to the effective implementation of IPR. However, as far as the legislative framework is concerned,the Commission is confident that Russia's recent legislative changes and commitments ensure its compliancewith the WTO requirements. For the Honourable Members' information, the new Chapter IV regarding IPRof the Civil Code entered into force on the 1 January 2008. We are working closely with Russia to furtherimprove the situation. This could be done in the context of the IPR dialogue.

The other issue the Commission would like to highlight relates to the issue of the Russian export duties fortimber. As the Honourable Members may be aware, this is currently the most important outstanding issuefor the EU in Russia's accession process. The Commission's view is that the decision to significantly raise theexport duties on wood was not justified. The Member of the Commission in charge of Trade met with DeputyPrime-Minister Kudrin recently to discuss this and is likely to meet again with him in the next few days. TheCommission is convinced that a solution can be found, provided that both sides have the political will toreach such an agreement.

** *

Question no 55 by Marian Harkin (H-0078/08)

Subject: WTO talks

In light of recent WTO talks and the publication of eight new working documents on market access, can theCommission comment on what concessions have been proposed in relation to European agriculture andfurthermore its intention on any further concessions on agriculture in the context of the crucial role thatagriculture plays in ensuring food security, traceability and a sustainable environment?

Answer

The latest development in the current talks on agriculture in the context of the World Trade Organization(WTO) Doha Round negotiations are the revised draft modalities circulated by Ambassador CrawfordFalconer, chairperson of the agriculture negotiations, on 8 February 2008.

In pursuing the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, the Commission continually monitors theEU position in relation to its mandate, including through an assessment of the proposed modalities especiallyin relation to market access concessions, notably cuts and treatment of sensitive products. In fact, comparedto what was contemplated under the October 2005 EU offer, what is being discussed today remains in thesame range and would have comparable macroeconomic effects.

Ensuring food safety, traceability and a sustainable environment are essential elements of the 2003 CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) reform. Accordingly, for the agricultural negotiations it is absolutely clear that the2003 CAP reform is Europe's important contribution to the DDA and constitutes the limits for its negotiatingbrief in the WTO round. The margin of manoeuvre provided by this reform can only be used on conditionof equivalent concessions from our WTO partners in agriculture and elsewhere. An overall outcome whichis not balanced would not be acceptable.

** *

Question no 56 by Giovanna Corda (H-0081/08)

Subject: Trade relations and social legislation in China

Besides the recent problems of quality control and traceability which have prompted the withdrawal ofhundreds of thousands of dangerous toys imported from China and which are the subject of a series ofmeasures adopted by the Commission, can the Commission tell me the terms of the agreements betweenitself and China whereby it can be ensured and, if need be, checked that the manufacture of imported productstakes place in accordance with standards regarding maximum working hours, the minimum age of workers,


the health and safety of workers and a minimum guaranteed wage, so as to avoid the unbridled expansionof these commercial activities taking place at the expense of health, safety and respect for human dignity?

Answer

The Commission strongly condemns any attempts of promoting economic development at the expense ofworkers' rights and human dignity, and defends that the respect of the International Labour Organization's(ILO) Core Labour Standards are fully supportive of sustainable development.

This policy is clearly established in the various initiatives taken by the Commission as regards the Promotionof the Social Dimension of Globalisation(21), the Social Agenda(22), and the promotion of Decent work(23).Furthermore, all EU Institutions have strongly supported this policy and adopted various Decisions andResolutions that provide a general framework for the development of our bilateral cooperation with Chinaon Employment and Social Affairs.

The EU cooperation with China on this particular issue has evolved very positively since 2005, when it signedthe first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Social and Employment issues with the Chinese Ministryof Labour and Social Security. The Commission fully supports every effort to improve labour conditions,encourage the implementation of existing labour laws and enhance corporate social responsibility in China.

Its dialogue with China has focused on aspects including the adequate provision of skills, the reform of thesocial security system, the adequate implementation and reform of Labour legislation, and health and safetyof workers. Although important improvements are necessary, it has been conducting a very constructivedialogue with the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has followed the recent developments and will monitor closely the new Chinese “LabourContract Law” that came into effect as of 1 January 2008. The new law is a major improvement to the Chineselabour contract system by defining the rights and the obligations of the parties. It welcomes the fact that thenew labour law, if properly applied, could and should lead to a considerable improvement of employmentconditions in China.

As a token of the importance that the Commission places on employment and social standards in its relationswith China, the Member of the Commission in charge of Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunitiesmade his second visit to this country in January 2008.

As the result of this mission, important new initiatives have been agreed with the Chinese Ministry of Labourand Social Security, the Chinese Academy of Social Science and the State Administration of Work Safety.With the latter, an MoU on Occupational Health and Safety is scheduled to be signed in 2008, complementingthe technical cooperation with the Chinese authorities in this important domain still absent from our bilateraldialogue. We are also currently discussing with the Chinese authorities the establishment of an ambitioustraining project to improve health and safety standards in the mining sector in China.

Beyond our bilateral cooperation with China in Employment and Social Affairs, we are also very committedto strengthening multilateral initiatives within the context of the ILO, and supporting all measures conduciveto promoting the Decent Work Agenda in China.

** *

Question no 57 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0083/08)

Subject: Restoration of traditional communities

In its resolution P6_TA(2006)0355 on the protection of the European natural, architectural and culturalheritage in rural and island regions, Parliament called on the Commission to draw up programmes for therestoration of traditional communities and to support cooperation between various bodies in connectionwith the implementation of programmes designed to restore their traditional forms of architecture in sucha way as to avoid detracting from their character, while restoring any subsequent incompatible features tothe original.

(21) COM(2004)383 final(22) COM (2005) 33 final(23) COM(2006)249


What measures has the Commission taken so far to achieve this specific objective?

Answer

The Commission attaches great importance to the protection of European natural, architectural and culturalheritage. Regional policy, rural development and support for cultural actions are among the leverages thatcan be used to further heritage protection and promotion.

In the context of Cohesion Policy investment in the protection of architectural and cultural heritage isexplicitly encouraged in the Community Strategic Guidelines (cf. Article 2.1 which calls for "measures thatseek to … preserve and develop the historical and cultural heritage with potential spin-offs for tourismdevelopment") since it contributes to the sustainable development of Member States. Moreover, historicheritage is an asset in the context of Member States' policies to stimulate tourism. The European RegionalDevelopment Fund (ERDF) Regulation for the period 2007-2013 provide, inter alia, support for the "Protectionand development of natural heritage" and for the "Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage" aswell as for the "Development of cultural infrastructure".

Furthermore, under the support for urban and rural regeneration, measures to support historic heritage arealso eligible. However, in the context of the shared management model of regional policy, the initiative toinclude or not heritage protection measures in the actual programmes supported by the ERDF, belongs toeach Member State.

Rural Development Programmes can also be used to support the protection of the European natural,architectural and cultural heritage in rural areas. Member States may in fact implement specific measures toconserve and upgrade rural heritage under certain circumstances(24). According to available data, MemberStates have planned to implement this measure in at least 70 Rural Development Programmes (out a maximumof 86 programmes), mobilising investments for a total budget of €1,280,000 EAFRD for the whole 2007-2013programming period. In addition, other rural development measures make a positive contribution to theprotection of the natural heritage, through well-known measures such as NATURA 2000 support,Agri-environment measures etc.

Within the framework of the new Culture programme 2007-2013, as was the case of its predecessor, theCulture 2000 programme, the Commission has supported initiatives related to the preservation of culturalheritage in the context of the European Cultural Heritage Prize, for which Europa Nostra has been selectedas the organising body. The selection for the 2007 edition of the Prize included the Mihai Eminescu Trustfor its integrated approach to heritage conservation. The Trust is based in London (UK), under the patronageof His Royal Highness (HRH), The Prince of Wales, and is dedicated to the conservation and regeneration ofvillages and communes in Transylvania and the Maramures (Romania). A top award was also given to thepreservation project of the fortified village "Santo Stefano di Sessanio", situated in the heart of the Abruzzihighlands, near l'Aquila in Italy for its work on preserving a typical medieval urban landscape. The CultureProgramme 2007-2013 is also able to fund cultural heritage networks (two were selected within the 2007call for proposals).

Finally, the Commission also cooperates actively with the Council of Europe with regard to the organisationof European Heritage Days. This includes financial support for the organisation of events and for ensuringthe visibility of the initiative.

** *

Question no 58 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0088/08)

Subject: Immigrant minors

In view of the significant number of immigrant minors who enter the EU in an irregular situation and thespecial protected status granted to them under international agreements, what action is the Commissionintending to propose in order to help the governments of the host countries to attend to their needs and tofacilitate their return to their countries of origin and their reintegration into family life?

(24) Article 57 of EC regulation 1698/2005, OJ L 277, 21 October 2005


Answer

Unaccompanied minors are in a very vulnerable situation and need constant support to meet their specificneeds.

Whenever applicable, the EU immigration and asylum legislation has always taken into account this realityand insisted on "the best interest of the child" to be the primary consideration of Member States when carryingout any action that concerns minors, both accompanied and unaccompanied.

Other fundamental rights that must be ensured are the right to education and to family unity, which havebeen included in the immigration and asylum acquis and in the Commission's proposals.

Support to Member States in respect of minors is provided from the financial instruments, in particular bymeans of the newly created general programme "Solidarity and management of migratory flows 2007-2013".

This programme is constituted of four funds managed in a very similar way to structural funds: the ExternalBorders Fund, the European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationalsand the European Return Fund. The overall amount for the programme is of € 4020.37 million for the period2007–2013, and actions aimed at minors are included.

The Strategic Guidelines of the European Fund for the Integration of Third Nationals foresee five specificpriorities, one of these being actions aimed at specific target groups (women, children, etc). The co-financingby the EU for such actions is increased from 50% to 75%.

The new European Refugee Fund (ERF III) explicitly takes into account the specific situation of vulnerablepersons such as unaccompanied minors. It has a budget of € 699.37 million for the period 2007-2013. Ontop of the annual allocation of resources for eligible action in Member States, this Fund will grant a flat rateof € 4 000 for each resettled unaccompanied minor (amongst other categories targeted).

The Return Fund, with a total budget of € 676 million over the period 2008-2013, will, amongst otherthings, support action providing specific assistance for vulnerable persons, such as unaccompanied minors,in cases of voluntary or forced return.

Finally, the Daphne Programme has the objective of preventing and combating violence against children,young people and women and protecting victims and groups at risk. Since 1997 Daphne has funded around420 projects to provide protection from, and to prevent, various forms of violence against children, youngpeople and women. Some were specifically targeted at unaccompanied minors.

** *

Question no 60 by Chris Davies (H-0104/08)

Subject: Scrutiny of implementation of EU legislation during the Slovenian Presidency

Will the Commission state whether it has requested that the issue of inadequate implementation of EUlegislation by Member States be placed on the agenda of any meetings of the Council of Ministers scheduledto take place during the Slovenian Presidency?

Answer

The Commission has not requested that the issue of implementation of EU legislation in the Member Statesbe placed on the agenda of any meetings of the Council of Ministers held during the Slovenian Presidency.

As indicated in the reply to oral question H-0816/07 of the Honourable Member(25), it should be recalledthat the Commission has adopted a Communication on the application of Community law(26), which wastransmitted to the Institutions. The Commission is actively working on the implementation of the actionsannounced in its Communication. A group of national experts has been convened by the Commission todiscuss the Communication during the Portuguese Presidency. This is the forum that has been chosen bythe Commission to take such discussion forward with Member States without excluding that the possibilitythat some issues identified in the Communication will be put on the agenda for a formation of a Council

(25) Written answer on 13.11.2007(26) COM(2007)502 final


meeting in 2008. A meeting of this expert group was organised in December 2007, the next one is plannedfor June 2008 during the Slovenian Presidency.

Moreover, a general debate could take place in one or other formation of the Council on other occasions,such as the presentation of an annual report on the implementation of a programme or an action plan.

The Commission presented the results of the December 2007 Internal Market Scoreboard at theCompetitiveness Council of 25 February 2008.

In the Justice, Freedom and Security area, a yearly Scoreboard is also presented by the Commission sinceJune 2005.

** *

Question no 61 by Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (H-0105/08)

Subject: Regulations governing hypermarkets in the European Union

By 31 January 2008, Written Declaration 0088/2007 on investigating and remedying the abuse of powerby large supermarkets operating in the European Union had been signed by 439 MEPs, making it an officialposition of the European Parliament. The declaration calls upon DG Competition to investigate the impactthat concentration of the supermarket sector is having on small businesses, suppliers, workers and consumersand, in particular, to assess any abuses of buying power on the part of supermarkets. It also calls on theCommission to propose suitable measures, including a regulation to protect consumers, workers andproducers from any abuse of a dominant market position and other adverse effects identified in the courseof the investigation.

In May 2007, the Polish parliament adopted a law on the establishment and operation of large supermarketswhich exactly meets these expectations, by requiring the authorities to maintain a balance between differentforms of commerce, while also ensuring compliance with the rules on fair competition in the field ofcommercial activity. On 31 January 2008, the Commission challenged these measures and demanded thatthey be amended, threatening that otherwise the case would be referred to the Court of Justice. How doesthe Commission plan to resolve the contradiction that clearly exists between the expectations of the EuropeanParliament and its own actions in the field of concentration of trade?

Answer

The Honourable Member makes reference to the Written Declaration No. 88/2007 of the Parliament adoptedon the 19 February 2008, on investigating and remedying the abuse of power by large supermarkets operatingin the European Union. The Written Declaration calls upon the Commission to investigate the impact thatconcentration of the supermarket sector may have on different market players and especially to assess anypossible abuses of buying power on the part of supermarkets. It also calls on the Commission to proposesuitable measures to protect consumers, workers and producers from any abuse of a dominant marketposition and from any other adverse effects should they be identified in the course of the requestedinvestigation.

The Commission will inform the Parliament of its response to the Written Declaration, in accordance withthe applicable rules governing the follow-up to be given by the Commission to the Parliament's non-legislativeresolutions and more specifically those adopted during the February 2008 part-session.

As regards the letter sent by the Commission(27) concerning the Polish legislation on establishment andoperation of retail facilities the Honourable Member is referring to, its aim is to raise the Polish authoritiesattention to the problems of compatibility of this new legislation with the freedom of establishment, afundamental freedom enshrined in Article 43 of the EC Treaty and with Directive 2006/123/CE on Servicesin the Internal Market(28). The Commission has concerns about the possibly discriminatory nature and therestrictive effects of the Polish legislation which requires an authorisation procedure for the establishmentof new retail facilities and the operation of existing retail facilities greater than 400 square metres. TheCommission notably will examine whether the new procedure is potentially excessively lengthy and costly,

(27) See press release of 31 January 2008 - IP/08/121.(28) Directive 2006/123/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.


based on criteria some of which are not precise enough, leave room to discretionary power for the authoritiesand/or consist of an economic test prohibited by the above mentioned Directive.

However, this procedure does not concern nor prevent the application of other articles of the Treaty or otherCommunity legislation. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that there is no contradiction with theexpectations of the Parliament.

** *

Question no 62 by Brian Crowley (H-0111/08)

Subject: Situation in Gaza

Can the European Commission outline what financial support measures it has in place to help the Palestinianpeople at this time?

Answer

The Commission is currently implementing the following measures to help the Palestinian people in Gaza:

Funding of fuel deliveries to the Gaza power plant (through the PEGASE mechanism);

Payment of social allowances to public sector employees and the poorest families, on a monthly and quarterlybasis respectively (through PEGASE);

Support to Palestine refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Since 2007,the Commission has stepped up its support to UNRWA’s General Fund. Total assistance to UNRWA in 2007amounted to over €100 million, covering the all five fields of operation of the Agency in the region;

Provision of humanitarian aid assistance through the Commission in the sectors of health, food, water andsanitation, psychosocial support, protection and emergency job creation via United Nations (UN) agencies,European non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Red Cross family;

Commission support to the North Gaza Emergency Sewage Treatment Project, in order to protect thecommunities living in Beit Lahia from a possible overflow of untreated water.

The Palestinian Reform and Development Plan, which the Commission supports through PEGASE, includesseveral projects in Gaza. The Commission stands ready to expand its development support in the Strip, assoon as the situation allows it.

** *

Question no 63 by Eoin Ryan (H-0113/08)

Subject: Combating the illegal downloading of pay-per-view sports matches from the internet

Can the European Commission start the process of introducing a European-wide law, much in line with theSarkozy-Olivenne initiative in France, which will criminalise the illegal downloading of pay-per-view sportingmatches from the internet and which will ensure that internet service providers, when notified by policeauthorities of illegal sites, will shut such sites down?

Answer

According to the Commission's information, no action has been taken recently in France to criminalize theillegal downloading of pay per view sporting matches from the Internet and to ensure that internet serviceproviders (ISPs) when notified by police authorities of illegal sites will shut such sites down.

A Memorandum of Understanding(29) between music and film producers, Internet service providers and theFrench Government was signed on 23 November 2007. Following this agreement France is preparing tochange its law and to set up a new Internet authority with powers, in extreme cases, to order the suspensionof access provision to the web for subscribers who illegally file-share copyrighted material. This will apply,

(29) "Accord pour le développement et la protection des œuvres et programmes culturels sur les nouveaux réseaux" –http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/index-olivennes231107.htm


however, to copyright infringements in the film and music areas only where criminal sanctions already existin France. It will not, as far as the Commission is aware, cover retransmission rights or sports image rights.In more detail, in the case the internet Authority is unable to mediate after sending via ISPs warning emailsto the infringer, it can adopt sanctions. In addition, a judicial action can follow and the judge can applysanctions pursuant to criminal law provisions. This mechanism establishes a graduation in the determinationand in the severity of the sanction to apply according to the seriousness of the infringement. The agreementalso aims at reinforcing cooperation among right holders, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) platforms and ISPs in order toimprove the legal use of the protected content.

At European level, the European Commission stressed, in its July 2007 White Paper on Sport(30), that theeconomic viability of exploiting sports rights depends on the availability of effective means of protectingagainst the activities of infringers at national and international levels. However, it should be noted that sportsimage rights are subject to different legal regimes across the Member States. The Commission will be examiningthis issue this year when it launches a study to evaluate the financing of sports which will obviously includethe sale of media and image rights.

The phenomenon of unauthorised internet streaming of live sporting events and P2P piracy is an exampleof the need to evaluate the existing arsenal of legal measures that allow rights owners to fight digital piracy.

The conditional access Directive(31) sought to create an internal market for all conditional access services(providers of conditional access services as well as services using conditional access to protect theirremuneration, for example pay-TV services) through the extension of the protection against piracy acrossall Member States, therefore closing off the previously identified "safe harbours" for pirates within the EU.It played a key role in the development of pay TV services within the Internal Market. Its protection extendsto television broadcasting as well as to on-demand audiovisual media services.

The Commission is preparing an evaluation report on this Directive which will assess its impact given thedevelopment of new subscription type services, for example, Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), and toevaluate whether it requires extension, clarification and/or simplification. It has launched a public consultationon this issue which includes a question as to whether its scope ought to be extended so that rights-holders(including sports rights owners) could more easily resort to it when seeking to defend their remuneration.

The Electronic Commerce Directive(32), adopted in 2000, sets down the liabilities of internet service providersdepending on the nature of the service(s) they offer (mere conduit, caching or hosting). The Directive alsoensures that, when they are made aware of an infringement, ISPs are obliged to assist in procedures to takedown the relevant site. It was hoped at the time of the adoption of the Directive that the relevant partieswould agree to develop so-called notice and take down procedures for illegal and harmful information bystake-holders. Article 16 and Recital 40 expressly encouraged self-regulation in this field. This approach hasalso been followed by all the Member States in their national laws transposing the Directive. For example,Finland and Hungary have opted for statutory notice and take down procedures but again these have focussedon copyright infringements. The Member States are monitoring developments in these fields through theE-commerce expert Group where they exchange best practice and consider options.

It should also be borne in mind that sites which are involved in unauthorised internet streaming of livesporting events are frequently hosted outside of the European Union. In these cases, the only option is forright holders to take action with the relevant national authorities to block access to these sites.

The strong response to the growing phenomenon of unauthorised internet streaming of live sporting eventsand P2P piracy should take into account both the need of rightholders to fight the piracy of their contentover the Internet and the need to protect the fundamental rights of individuals - such as the right to privacyand personal data - in the digital environment. Indeed, the rationale of the recent judgment of the EuropeanCourt of Justice in the "Promusicae" case (C-275/06) can be equally applied to a scenario involving the needto combat the illegal downloading of pay per view sport matches from the Internet.

(30) The European Commission White Paper on Sport, July 2007 (COM(2007) 391)(31) Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection

of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access, OJ L 320, 28.11.1998(32) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of

information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electroniccommerce')


In its Communication on Creative Content Online(33) adopted in January 2008, the Commission launcheda public consultation on legal offers and piracy. This topic will also be dealt with in the "Content OnlinePlatform", a framework for discussion at European level. A proposal for a Recommendation on CreativeContent Online is scheduled to be adopted by the Commission during the second half of 2008.

** *

Question no 64 by Liam Aylward (H-0117/08)

Subject: Combating child labour

Can the European Commission outline what initiatives it is pursuing internationally to combat the use ofchild labour around the world?

Answer

The Commission is of the opinion that child labour must be tackled at its roots: the Commission systematicallypursues the objective of the protection and promotion of all children’s rights in its relations with thirdcountries, through both political dialogue and the external assistance. In particular, the Commission aimsthrough its political dialogue to encourage countries to ratify and adequately implement the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child, its Optional Protocols and the relevant International LabourOrganisation Conventions on child labour. The primary intent, then, is not to improve children’s workingconditions but to get them out of the workplace altogether under the minimum age of work. Moreover,social protection coverage and in particular child benefits to parents or to those in charge of the children(such as grand parents) that are either unconditional or conditional related to attending school should bepromoted, as well as youth employment as an alternative to child labour.

Experience shows that the elimination of child labour calls for action with regard to the labour market, socialdialogue and social protection, for example through benefits to discourage or remove the need for childlabour and the promotion of education. Such a multi-dimensional approach is reflected in the Action Planon Children’s Rights in EU External Action, which complements the Communication “A Special Place forChildren in EU External Action”(34), adopted by the Commission last month. The Action Plan retains theissue of combating child labour as a priority for regional and global actions.

Safe and healthy conditions for children in a globalised world are of the greatest concern to us all. As youknow, the Commission promotes the effective application of core labour standards, including the fightagainst child labour, globally; the Commission can and should make a difference in improving labourstandards around the world.

** *

Question no 65 by Costas Botopoulos (H-0118/08)

Subject: Conduct of Israeli security authorities towards European citizens

The Israeli authorities at Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv, recently subjected Dr Karim Hilal, a Greek nationalof Palestinian origin and holder of a Schengen enhanced security passport, to a humiliating interrogationand subsequently banned him, unjustifiably, from entering the country. Given that other Greek passportholders living in Palestine face similar problems, will the Commission say whether it is aware of the difficultiesand abusive treatment encountered by European Union citizens on their arrival in or departure from Israel?

Has the Commission raised this subject in its bilateral contacts with Israel and what explanation has it receivedfrom the Israeli authorities?

Will it ask the Israeli Government to ensure that the State security authorities respect the human dignity ofEuropean citizens visiting the country?

(33) COM(2007) 836 final(34) COM (2008) 55 final


Answer

The Commission is aware of difficulties experienced by EU nationals in obtaining visa for entry into theOccupied Palestinian Territories, in particular since the visa policy was changed in the second half of 2006.

EU Member States and the Commission asked the Israeli authorities on a number of occasions during 2006and early 2007 to remedy these problems and to clarify the procedures to follow for the obtainment of avisa in order to live, visit or work in the West Bank or Gaza. The Israeli authorities explained to the Commissionand the Presidency that the details of the new procedures were still to be worked out.

It seems that the situation has improved since representations were made in early 2007. However, thePresidency, Commission, and Member States on the ground continue to monitor the situation closely. TheCommission Delegation in Tel Aviv is in contact with the Greek Embassy to Israel on the specific case theHonourable Member is referring to.

In case the Greek embassy does not receive a satisfactory response to its questions, the Commission intendsto pursue the case further, and might raise it in the appropriate forum with the Israeli authorities.

** *

Question no 66 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0120/08)

Subject: Ban on educational establishments operating on the basis of the certification method

Article 149 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that '1. The Community shall contributeto the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary,by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member Statesfor the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguisticdiversity.'

Do Member States have the right to ban educational establishments operating on the basis of certificationby educational establishments which award higher educational diplomas and are based in another MemberState?

Answer

Article 149 of the Treaty does not give a right to Member States to ban educational establishments operatingon the basis of certification by educational establishments based in another Member State. Education providedby establishments operating on the basis of certification by educational establishments located in otherMember States is not part of the education system of the Member State where the education is provided.This kind of education is part of the education system of the Member State in which the educationalestablishment certifying the education and delivering the higher education diploma is established.

The freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services are two of the fundamental freedomsguaranteed by the Treaty, in particular in Article 43 and 49 of the Treaty. Any restriction on educationalestablishments has therefore to be examined in the light of these Articles of the Treaty and the jurisprudenceof the Court. For example, the Court has stated in its judgment C-153/02, Neri, that the organisation ofuniversity courses against remuneration is an economic activity falling within the chapter of the Treatydealing with the right of establishment when that activity is carried on by a national of one Member State inanother Member State on a stable and continuous basis from a principal or secondary establishment in thelatter Member State. According to the Court's case law, in order to justify a restriction of a fundamentalfreedom, a restrictive measure has to pursue a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and justified byreasons of public interest. Moreover, this measure must not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective.A ban on educational establishments, being the most severe form of a restriction of the fundamental freedom,will have to be examined along those lines.

** *


Question no 67 by Koenraad Dillen (H-0125/08)

Subject: Wallonia and the European Structural Funds

From the answer to Written Question P-0498/06, it emerges that, for the period 2000-2006, Walloniareceived as much as €672,430,656 under Objective 1 of the European Structural Funds and €164,445,783under Objective 2.

In an interview with the 'Metro' newspaper of 4 February 2008, Mr Gérard Deprez (a French speaking liberalMEP and Chairman of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee indicated that European subsidieshad not produced the hoped-for results in Wallonia compared with other regions. He referred to 'bad projectchoices' for which not only the Wallonian authorities but also the Commission were responsible, the latterhaving approved them.

How much funding has been earmarked for the period 2006-2013? What are the Commission's projectevaluation and result assessment procedures? How does the Commission respond to the criticisms expressedby Mr Deprez?

Answer

With regard to monies allocated to Wallonia for the period 2000-2006, the Commission confirms the figurescited by the honourable Member, but it would also direct your attention to the following table, showing thebreakdown by programme for the region at the end of 2007.

2000-2006 period:

a) Phasing out Objective 1 Hainaut: EUR 671.15 million (of which ERDF 427.6 million, ESF 200.2 million,EAGGF 41.8 million and FIFG 1.55 million)

b) Objective 2 Meuse-Vesdre: EUR 164.44 million (of which ERDF 138.7 million and ESF 25.73 million)

c) Objective 2 Rural: EUR 60.48 million (of which ERDF 54.85 million and ESF 5.63 million)

d) Objective 3: EUR 297.87 million from the ESF

e) Leader+: EUR 10.33 million from the EAGGF

f) Urban II Sambreville: EUR 7.17 million from the ERDF

g) Equal: EUR 42.31 million from the ESF

h) Fisheries: EUR 23.57 million from the FIFG

It should be noted that the Objective 3 funding also includes the programme for the Brussels-Capital region.

Under the Fisheries programme, apart from Objective 1 funding, Wallonia’s allocation was 1.5%.

2007-2013 period:

a) Convergence: EUR 638.32 million (of which ERDF 449.22 million and ESF 189.10 million)

b) Competitiveness: EUR 665.35 million (of which ERDF 282.51 million and ESF 382.83 million(35))

Total: EUR 1 303.67 million (of which ERDF 731.74 million and ESF 571.93 million)

Selecting operations for financing is the responsibility of the managing authorities appointed by the MemberStates in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. In Wallonia, a task force made up of academics,administrators and prominent business people establishes a list of types of project that will receive cofinancing,with reference to Structural Fund regulations, to European law and to other EU policies. The managingauthority then uses the list to decide which projects to cofinance. Determining the eligibility of projects inthe period 2007-2013 is also part of the remit of the managing authorities appointed by the Member States.

The task of supervising programmes is carried out in partnership by the Commission and the managingauthority for each programme. Programmes may be amended throughout the period of implementation

(35) This figure includes financing for the Brussels-Capital regional programme.


and there is provision for ongoing evaluation (either on a continuous basis or on specific dates). TheCommission also carries out an annual review, with each managing authority, of progress in implementationof the programme for which that authority is responsible. On the basis of the most recent annual reports,the Commission has confirmed that the programmes implemented in Wallonia between 2000 and 2006(the time limit for implementation being 31 December 2008) will collectively achieve their aims. Moreover,a mid-term review in 2004-2005 provided an opportunity to adjust activities under each programme asnecessary.

With regard to the reported opinion of Mr Deprez, the Commission has no knowledge of the informationon which Mr Deprez based his assessment.

** *

Question no 68 by Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (H-0126/08)

Subject: Publication of European legislation in the official languages of the EU

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE) is responsible for the translationof European legal acts and their subsequent publication in all the official languages of the European Union.

Is there a legally stipulated deadline by which an act must have been published in all languages? Does a legalact that has not been published in a given national language have binding force in the country in question?In some cases, courts in the Member States pass judgment pursuant to national legislation because notranslation of Community legislation is available.

Answer

Neither the EC Treaty nor the Treaty on European Union stipulate a deadline for publication of texts thatshould be made available in relation to the accession of a country to the European Union. However, Article58 of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania stipulates that "The texts of the acts of the institutions... adopted before accession and drawn up ... in the Bulgarian and Romanian languages shall, from the dateof accession, be authentic under the same conditions as the texts drawn up in the present official languages.They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union if the texts in the present languageswere so published."

Interpreting the same provision in the Act of Accession Treaty for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus,Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, the Court of Justice in a recentcase C-161/06, Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc, held that the obligations contained in Communitylegislation which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of anew Member State, where that language is an official language of the European Union, could not be imposedon individuals in that State. This is consistent with previous case law which stated that obligations containedin legislation of general application cannot be imposed on individuals in a Member State where it has notbeen published in the language of that State.

It is worthwhile to mention that the Publications Office is not responsible for the translation of legislativeacts in case of enlargement. The obligation to translate texts that had been adopted prior to accession liesrather with the country in question, while texts being adopted following accession are being translated bythe Institutions, which have adopted the legislative act. The Office is responsible for the publication.

** *

Question no 69 by Johannes Blokland (H-0128/08)

Subject: Civil engineering standards to be met by work on the Phare projects

What project management and civil engineering standards must be met by Phare construction projects inRomania, and to what extent is work on the projects authorised under adverse weather conditions?Construction work on frozen ground may soon need repairs, for example if the concrete fails to set properlyor the cement topping freezes. Is the sinking of concrete piles and the application of topping authorisedunder freezing conditions?


Answer

The civil engineering standards for works contracts financed under Phare are specified in the internationallyrecognised contract framework (FIDIC(36)). Since accession, works contracts are implemented under nationalprocurement rules of Romania.

The provisions of the Financing Memoranda for Phare typically specify FIDIC Contracts and an engineer tosupervise the contracts. Works contracts under Phare financing have been awarded using FIDIC conditionsof contract. Works contracts are managed and supervised by FIDIC engineers. In addition, the engineer hasto comply with the applicable provisions of Romanian law on the quality of construction. According to thislaw, the control of the construction's quality is done by the State Inspectorate on the unitary application oflegal provisions within the construction sector(37).

The standards to be used in bad weather conditions are defined by the same national legal frameworksummarised above and by construction standards, regardless of the financing source for a works contract,be it EU or national financing.

All tenderers are informed about these specific requirements as per tender and contract conditions. Moreover,the tenderers are informed, that because of winter season, work on the construction sites is allowed inRomania until 15 November or 1 December. After these dates work can continue only if the weather allows.All these provisions help the tenderer in properly preparing the timing of the execution and the respectivebudget.

According to the standards referred to above, setting the concrete ceases when temperatures drops under+5 degrees Celsius, or might continue provided that special additives are part of the concrete recipe (thelatter is not recommended unless exceptionally, setting the concrete has started when low temperatures haveoccurred)(38).

** *

Question no 70 by Francesco Enrico Speroni (H-0129/08)

Subject: Beijing Olympics

The British Olympic Committee has included a clause in the contracts to be signed by athletes selected tocompete in next August's Beijing Olympics under which only those athletes who sign an undertaking notto criticise China in any way, particularly as regards human rights and the annexation of Tibet, will be allowedto attend.

Does the Commission not consider that this is a blatant violation of freedom of thought and expression, notin keeping with the spirit of the Treaties?

Answer

It is under the responsibility of United Kingdom authorities to examine the case in question, which has norelation with Community legislation, in order to ensure full respect of freedom of expression in line with itsobligations under the European Convention of Human Rights.

** *

Question no 71 by Frank Vanhecke (H-0130/08)

Subject: Illegal drug shipments to Europe

Can the Commission state what practical European Community initiatives exist for intercepting drugshipments from North Africa to Europe?

(36) International Federation of Consulting Engineers(37) Document used for reference: Romanian Law no 10/1995 (M.Of.nr.12/24 ian.1995)(38) Document used for reference: The Practical Guide for the Execution of Concrete (Indicative NE 012:1-2007) issued

by the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing,(http://www.mie.ro/_documente/constructii/reglementari_tehnice/ne012_1.pdf), chapter 5.2.8, page 25-26


Answer

The interception of drugs from North Africa to Europe is an operational law enforcement measure that does,as such, not fall under the competences of the European Community. However, the Commission is awareof the evolving drugs trafficking patterns in the Mediterranean basin and the related challenges for lawenforcement.

In this context, seven EU Member States have signed an international agreement on 30 September 2007 inorder to set up the Lisbon based Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre - Narcotics (MAOC-N). MAOC-Nmatches up-to-the-minute intelligence with military and law enforcement assets to provide a rapid responseto drug traffickers attempting to supply the EU with cocaine. It establishes a coordination point to counterdrug trafficking by sea and air in an operational area extending from the Cape of Good Hope in SouthernAfrica to as far north as the Norwegian Sea. Its core focus is on non commercial vessels and aircraft, primarilyfrom the South American and West African regions. The agreement also provides for the possibility ofextending the operational area into the Western Mediterranean Sea.

The Commission is following developments closely and supports parts of its initial capacity building measuresfinancially and has an observer status since 1 January 2008. The European Police Office, Europol, plays asignificant role in the fight against drugs trafficking by providing the national law enforcement authoritieswith an efficient support.

Moreover, its Organized Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), to which the MAOC-N contributes, develops athreat assessment of current and expected new trends in organized crime across the EU, including of coursethat of drug trafficking.

In parallel, some similar regional initiatives are evolving in other regions, including the Mediterranean basin.

** *

Question no 72 by Bill Newton Dunn (H-0135/08)

Subject: Study on the feasibility of and obstacles to the creation of a federal police force for theEuropean Union

In Item XX 01 02 11 04 of the Commission's 2008 budget, the Council and Parliament together asked theCommission to carry out 'a study on the feasibility of and obstacles to the creation of a federal police forcefor the European Union'.

What progress has the Commission made with this study? When is the target completion date?

Answer

In the course of the 2008 budget procedure, Parliament called for a study to be conducted on obstacles tothe creation of a federal police force for the European Union, to be charged to Budget Item XX 01 02 11 –‘Other management expenditure of the institution’ (Amendment 0995). The Commission immediatelyannounced that it would not support such a study because the Commission’s policy aimed to improvecooperation among the different police forces of the Member States initially through implementation of theinstrument transposing the Prüm Treaty provisions into European law, and not through the creation of a‘European Union federal police force’.

** *

Question no 73 by Anna Hedh (H-0139/08)

Subject: Alcohol policy

The Commission announced its alcohol strategy in the autumn of 2006. This indicated that alcohol was apublic health problem. Despite this, the Commission has submitted proposals on wine-growing,COM(2007)0732, which run entirely counter to the spirit of the strategy. Will the alcohol strategy be appliedin future in the Commission's work, or will it merely be one document among many?


Answer

The Communication on a European strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol related harmadopted in October 2006 sets out clearly the Commission's approach to alcohol and health. It addresses allthese areas of concern in a balanced manner, focusing on alcohol misuse and harm – rather than demonisingalcohol consumption in general.

Alcohol-related harm is a major public health, social and economic concern across the EU. It kills almost200,000 people a year in the EU, mainly from diseases related to excessive alcohol consumption, but alsodue to alcohol-related road accidents and acts of homicide and violence perpetrated under the influence ofalcohol, triggering massive costs to health care systems, economies and society in general.

Implementation of the strategy is now well underway, by taking action in the public health context andacross EU policy fields, and by working in close partnership with Member States to help co-ordinate nationalalcohol policies and foster further policy development, with the relevant stakeholders.

Within the framework of the European Alcohol and Health Forum, the Commission aims to trigger concreteactions at all levels, targeted at protecting European citizens from the harmful use of alcohol. A first roundof commitments of actors has been completed, and an impressive array of actions has now been pledged.Among these actions is the commitment of the wine sector to launch an awareness-raising campaign onalcohol-related harm.

In the last decade wine consumption has been decreasing in the EU while wine stocks have been increasing.This has created a serious imbalance on the wine market. For this reason, around 500 million € out of the1.3 billion € annual budget have been spent simply to get rid of wine that has no market. A profound reformof the wine Common Market Organisation (CMO) was therefore necessary.

The recent wine CMO reform takes due account of health and consumer protection, mainly by envisagingthe gradual removal of market measures that have led to the production of low quality wine. This aims atencouraging Europeans to "drink less but drink better" while discouraging the production of cheap and lowquality wines, which will no longer be supported.

The new Regulation will also reduce the possibility to increase wine alcohol content through enrichment.The principle that high alcohol content is synonymous with the quality of wine is not supported anymore.Moreover, consumers are starting to ask for and enjoy low alcohol wines. This new attitude will be supportedand does not justify an excessive enrichment of wines.

The new wine CMO also addresses promotion and information aspects. Wine is an agricultural productincluded in Annex I of the Treaty and the promotion of agricultural products, including wine, is regulatedby Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotionmeasures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries. The new wine CMO givesthe possibility to Member States to reinforce this kind of promotion actions in third countries and to encourageinformation campaigns on moderate and responsible consumption by co-financing them at 60%.

** *

Question no 74 by Inger Segelström (H-0143/08)

Subject: European Refugee Fund

The EU has now reached the second stage in the development of the common asylum system. The purposeof this stage is to attain a higher common standard of protection and greater uniformity of Member States'asylum systems. Besides further judicial harmonisation in the field of asylum, the Hague Programme alsohas the aim of increasing practical cooperation between Member States. This includes cooperation withregard to information on asylum-seekers' countries of origin (referred to as 'country information').

Country information plays a central part in the asylum process. In order to be able to guarantee just andcorrect asylum procedures, it is necessary to have access to country information which is of a high standardand provides an accurate and balanced picture of the country of origin. Country information is a key toolnot only for immigration authorities and judicial bodies but also for asylum-seekers and their representatives.

The involvement of non-State actors has played an important part in the development of and access tocountry information, as the general public does not have access to certain parts of the information held by


Member States' authorities. In contrast with this, the Commission's most recent call for proposals for theEuropean Refugee Fund limited applications for country information projects to national authorities.

Why were non-State actors denied the opportunity to seek funding from the European Refugee Fund forcountry information projects? And what plans does the Commission have for the next call for proposals in2008?

Answer

The collection, examination and presentation of data on countries of origin are essential aspects of MemberStates’ decision-making on applications for asylum. Country information enables the competent nationalauthorities to verify statements made by asylum seekers concerning their need for international protection.It is therefore essential to have an objective, transparent and accurate system for information on countriesof origin, capable of supplying official, reliable data quickly. Greater convergence among national authorities’systems for collecting and analysing country information would help to level the playing field across Europe.

That is why cooperation on country information is a key part of the Commission’s activities and central tothe work of the EURASIL network of experts.(39) Since 2006, in cooperation with the competent nationalauthorities in the Member States, the Commission has been working on the creation of a common portal,giving national authorities a single point of access to all official databases on countries of origin. The commonportal would be a useful additional resource, particularly for those Member States where country-informationsystems are less developed.

A technical feasibility study was concluded in 2007 and a pilot project linking two national databases is torun in 2008. At the end of this test phase, the Commission will bring forward proposals to establish a portallinking all existing national databases. Questions about access to information will have to be addressed here,and specifically about access for non-governmental organisations (NGOs), given that the databases in questioncontain classified information.

The budget for transnational activities initiated by the Commission and financed from the European RefugeeFund is limited. For that reason, when programming the activities each year, the Commission takes a strategicapproach, aiming for the most efficient outcomes in terms of development of the common asylum policy.In 2004, 2005 and 2006 a very large consortium of NGOs, working in a dozen Member States and coordinatedby the Austrian Red Cross, obtained finance from the European Refugee Fund to develop a durable networkof NGOs and bodies representing asylum seekers, addressing the matter of information on countries oforigin. The implementation process gave rise to constructive dialogue between the voluntary sector andnational authorities. The Commission also opened meetings of the EURASIL network, which it chairs, tothe consortium so that the latter could present the results of its projects to the national bodies responsiblefor handling asylum applications.

The 2007 call for proposals focused firstly on consolidation of projects – and particularly projects run byNGOs – to tackle the problems of vulnerable groups and individuals and, secondly, on specifically encouragingMember States’ national authorities to develop transnational cooperation projects on the management ofcountry information. This second strand of the call was therefore limited to national authorities.

The Commission is currently engaged in the consultations necessary for determining its priorities in the2008 European Refugee Fund call for proposals for European activities.

** *

Question no 75 by Leopold Józef Rutowicz (H-0144/08)

Subject: Energy problem in the new Member States in eastern Europe

Does the Commission have a specific plan to assist the new Member States in eastern Europe with theirgrowing shortfall in electricity supply?

These countries have seen the closure of dangerous nuclear power stations and face the dismantling of severaloutdated coal-fired power stations because of much stricter environmental protection requirements. Thesituation threatens to bring economic growth in many eastern parts of the European Union to a standstill.

(39) European Network of Asylum Practitioners


Does rich Europe, which has, to a large degree, already dealt with the problems of environmental protectionand modernisation of its energy base, wish to remove potential competitors from the market? Or will wesupport fair internal competition as a means of aiding the development of the European market and itscompetitiveness in the global economy by helping to solve this problem affecting large parts of Europe?

Answer

In European legislation, it is each Member State's responsibility to monitor generation adequacy in thecountry. The Commission in its turn monitors generation adequacy at European level.

New Member States but also many old Member States are in the process of restructuring their energy mix.This requires significant extension of the transmission grid and a stronger harmonisation of regulation. Suchproblems are part of the mission of the European Coordinators in regard to the integration of offshore windpower and the integration of Lithuania and Poland to the western grid.

Furthermore, one of the most cost effective solutions is to limit demand. Therefore, the action plan for energyefficiency proposed by the Commission in October 2006, when implemented, should limit the demandgrowth, improve generation capacity and reduce transmission losses.

Concerning the development of a competitive market, the Commission is working actively to ensure thatfair and level market conditions are established and followed inside the EU, which is believed to be the bestway to address electricity generation adequacy. This is why the Commission, in September 2007, proposedthe third legislative package for the internal market in electricity and gas(40). A properly functioning internalmarket providing the correct investment signals is the best answer to facilitate the security of electricitysupply. Individual investment decisions into new generation capacity are up to market players.

** *

Question no 76 by Niels Busk (H-0145/08)

Subject: Export refunds for pigmeat

Under Commission Regulation (EC) No. 303/2007(41) of 21 March 2007 fixing the export refunds onpigmeat, the Commission offsets the difference between world market and internal market prices by meansof an export refund to assist the pigmeat sector in the current market situation where high feed costs areentailing high production costs.

The list of products eligible for export refunds does not include frozen, boneless belly pork and pork loin.In the light of the latest developments, exchange rates and the situation on the Japanese market, will theCommission explain why these products are not eligible for refunds

and say when they will be included on the list?

Answer

The possible extension of the export refunds to pigmeat to cover certain frozen cuts appears not to be justified.The Commission is not convinced about the need for such action, or about its possible impact on the volumeshipped to Japan.

For many years, EU pigmeat exports have accounted for around 30% of the global trade. Most of thoseexports are made without the help of refunds. The provisional data indicates that the EU's share was maintainedalso in 2007 in spite of the unfavourable Euro/United States (US) Dollar exchange rate. The EU exporterswere able to expand considerably on some Asian markets (Hong-Kong, China) in 2007.

EU exports of frozen pigmeat to the high-value Japanese market also remained relatively stable in recentyears. The Commission expects this will continue to be so, without subsidizing. During the last pig marketcrisis, in 2004, exports to Japan increased even though the specific Japanese cuts were not eligible for refunds.

The Commission will obviously continue monitoring the situation regarding certain markets of particularinterest for our exporters and if appropriate, will not hesitate to propose an adjustment in the refunds.

(40) COM (2007) 528, 529, 530, 531, 532(41) OJ L 81, 22.3.2007, p. 15.


** *

Question no 77 by Danutė Budreikaitė (H-0149/08)

Subject: Rights of consumers to connect to electricity networks

In Lithuania, when a private individual builds accommodation, the electricity company Rytų skirstomiejitinklai (Eastern Distribution Networks) refuses to connect the property to the existing electricity main, citinginsufficient capacity. The individual has to cover 40% of the cost of constructing a new main from thesubstation to the property and, often, of building a new substation as well. The company has the right toconnect more consumers to the newly constructed main.

Having financed the enlargement of the infrastructure of, and the acquisition of property by, a (state orprivate) energy company, the consumer has no rights of ownership over the property and receives noreductions on the energy supplied.

Can the Commission comment on this state of affairs? Is this not an infringement of consumer and propertyrights? Are energy companies not abusing their monopoly position? How can this consumer rights problembe resolved? What is the experience of the EU Member States?

Answer

The Universal Service is a concept, developed by EU legislation, which states that all consumers should beguaranteed the right to connection and supply of energy at reasonable, easily and clearly comparable andtransparent prices. This obliges a utility to provide electricity to any customer who is willing to pay the priceset for that service.

The implementation of the Universal Service obligation is subject to subsidiarity and thus falls under thejurisdiction of Member States. There is nothing in EU legislation that prohibits reasonable and justified costsfor connection being charged to the consumer.

The extent to which the connection company, the distribution company or the consumer share these costsor decide on ownership fully depends on the national connection policy, and in some instances this mayresult in considerable charges on individual consumers.

National energy regulators play a central role in determining that the attribution of the connection costs andthe respective tariffs are transparent and non-discriminatory: neither on the individual consumers, nor onthe companies.

In exceptional cases, competition law may apply and, in the present circumstances, national competitionauthorities may then be best placed to deal with the matter.

The Commission would like also to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that EC consumerprotection legislation is limited to certain aspects of business-to-consumers commercial relationships.

Issues related to the acquisition of property rights on electricity immovable infrastructure fall outside thescope of such legislation and should be investigated by national authorities and courts on the basis of therelevant national legislation.

** *

Question no 78 by Anne E. Jensen (H-0151/08)

Subject: Digital tachograph and rules on driving time and rest periods

Regulation (EC) No. 2135/98(42) and Directive 2006/22/EC(43) were not subject to the impact analyses whichnow form part of sound legislative procedure in the EU and there are now enormous problems with theirpractical implementation, as evidenced by questions from Members of the European Parliament and thediscussion held in Parliament's Committee on Transport in September 2007.

(42) OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.(43) OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35.


Will the Commission ensure that more research and development are carried out in this field at EU level?Will the Commission take the initiative to set up a dialogue between all interested parties with a view todeveloping more satisfactory legislation on driving time and rest periods and monitoring thereof?

What initiatives will the Commission take to tackle the acute problems involved and to find a solution inthe longer term which is more satisfactory and effective in terms of road safety and drivers' working conditions?

Answer

Implementation of the new rules on driving time and rest periods,(44) the rules concerning the digitaltachograph(45) and the provisions for enforcing road transport law(46) has given rise to some difficulties ofthe type that occur with all complex legislation, concerning namely:

interpretation of the texts, particularly the regulation on driving time and rest periods;

implementation of new enforcement practices targeting the worst-offending companies, in accordance withthe enforcement directive;

adaptation to technical advances, and the fight against fraud in use of the digital tachograph.

The difficulties were immediately referred to the Commission, with a view to resolving all the issues raised.The Commission has taken a number of initiatives and considerable progress has already been made.

In relation to the rules on driving time and rest periods, the committee of Member States’ representatives(47)

which helps the Commission to implement the legislation, and to which representatives of the social partnersare also invited as observers, set up a working group chaired by the Commission to consider questions aboutinterpretation of the relevant regulation.

On the basis of the group’s work the Commission drafted five guidelines, which have been posted on itswebsite.(48) The guidelines were the subject of general consensus and they make for greater consistency inapplication of the legal provisions.

With regard to the directive on enforcement, a second working group within the same committee is helpingthe Commission to compile an exhaustive list of all relevant offences in order of seriousness, as the directiverequires. This work will also assist with the introduction of a common system for targeting the companiesthat are the worst offenders. The aims are to make enforcement more efficient and to reduce the administrativeburden both on national authorities – which will be able to direct their attention more effectively where therisk is greatest – and on transport companies, which will be subject to checks only if their situation demandsit.

In relation to the digital tachograph, in April 2007 the Commission launched a project entitled SMART,which is to run for 24 months and to produce proposals for adapting the technical specifications on thedigital tachograph in the light of technical advances (this will entail amendments to the technical annex ofRegulation 3821/85), so that risks of fraud can be countered more effectively.

** *

(44) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisationof certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and(EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85

(45) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport(46) Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions

for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislationrelating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC

(47) Set up under the terms of Regulation No 3821/85 (see above)(48) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/policy/social_provision/social_driving_time_en.htm
