Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 13 March 2008 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

(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 protest in December. What I want to know is: was it in order for the President to make that announcement without doing those Members the basic courtesy of telling them that such an announcement would be made and when it would be made? The President talked much about showing courtesy to Members in this House, so why, I ask, were those of us affected by his announcement not done the basic courtesy of being told that he would 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 the rules, 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 of Procedure, you just said that it is your duty to apply the Rules. I cannot understand why sittings keep starting late, sometimes by several minutes or even a quarter of an hour. That wastes a lot of taxpayers’ money. You are very strict about observing the Rules vis à vis political opponents, who simply want a referendum or fairness 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 proceedings against the Presidency for countless incidents of serious fraud, because that is precisely what I would call it when 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 Parliament that acts arbitrarily, that deliberately sidelines political opponents on the grounds of technicalities while constantly 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 European Union has seen the accession of 12 countries, 10 of which have special experience. They have moved from a 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 development cooperation aid. Most of them had no previous experience of pursuing EU cooperation policy. By signing the Treaty of Accession they have committed themselves to implementing this policy.

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

I would like to point out that the report covers only the 10 Member States that share land borders with Eastern neighbours and benefit from the Neighbourhood Policy. These 10 countries have always had long-term trade, economic and cultural relations with their neighbours and shared a common history as well as the aspiration to achieve the objectives of development and consolidation of democracy and to increase security in Eastern and Central Europe. The results of a special study show that most of the new Member States usually allocate official development aid to their neighbours – the countries of the Western Balkans and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

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

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

Documents defining development cooperation policy give no directions on which countries should receive the aid. In view of the limited financial and human resources available to the new Member States, it would be best for them to concentrate their aid on a specific number of countries, offering assistance in the areas in 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, I would 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 cooperation policy.

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

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

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

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasise that the last two EU enlargement rounds have created a new outlook towards 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 neighbourhood policy 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 the implementation of the objectives mentioned. It would also enhance the efficiency of the European Neighbourhood Policy alongside that of official development aid and would favourably influence the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

To achieve this we should create an assembly of EU and neighbouring countries, which would cover the Eastern dimension and help to implement the development cooperation and neighbourhood policies. I would 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 begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Budreikaitė, for this excellent report detailing the challenge that development 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 in various quarters that enlargement would dilute our solidarity with the developing world, pushing Africa down the European Union’s order of priorities. In the event the fears were groundless. The predictions and anxieties were shown to have been unjustified. European development policy has never been as ambitious in its aims or as cohesive in its methods as it is today, and Africa has never ranked higher on the Union’s foreign policy agenda. Your report confirms that this has been achieved not in spite of engagement but by virtue of it, and by virtue of the new Member States’ willingness to shoulder the full weight of their responsibilities.

Let us look first at the question of financing. Of course the new Member States still have some way to go to meet the targets for 2010; of course it is essential that more countries should produce multiannual plans for stepping up their aid – only four of the 12 countries concerned have so far carried out that exercise – but we simply 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 undertaken to 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 of conduct setting out a number of principles for a better division of labour within the Union. I am pleased to report 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 – an approach 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 under cofinancing arrangements, thus reducing their own and their partner states’ administrative costs. I am thinking here, for example, of support provided jointly by Slovakia and Austria for infrastructure in Kenya and of aid in the water sector delivered by the Czech Republic in partnership with Luxembourg. These are telling examples and they are not isolated.

Another illustration of efficiency is the fact that the majority of the new Member States support developing countries on the basis of adding value in specific sectors – an approach informed by their own experience of 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 the Division of Labour in Development Policy, are absolutely vital. In April I am to present the first assessment of how the code is being implemented, a year after its adoption, with analyses and proposals for increasing aid and making it more consistent. I intend to use the assessment as a basis for serious discussions with all the Member States about how to proceed from here. Just a few months away from the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, in Accra, the developing world is counting on Europe to point the way ahead, and rightly so because – let me remind you again – Europe is by far the world’s major source of development aid, so it is 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 in the new Member States. It is true that most of these countries do not have a long tradition of development aid, particularly to Africa. It is therefore part of our responsibility to keep working on public opinion, getting the message across that this is not just a matter of charity, it is also a matter of mutual interest – and I am thinking 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-building programme for the new Member States. Under the programme, the Commission will supply the expertise needed to develop communication strategies that will enable administrative authorities to tell the public more effectively about what they are doing and to raise levels of awareness, particularly in the media and among 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 no second 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 evolution of development policy over the years since the latest enlargement is proof in itself that the European Union can 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 of new EU donors, held in the European Parliament in January last year, the participants expressed the hope that the discussion on the development policy of the new EU Member States would continue in the national parliaments and in the further work of the European Parliament itself. I am therefore very pleased to welcome Mrs 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 involves for them.

It is not easy to summarise all the challenges facing the new European donors in formulating national development policies and modernising development policy at Community level. I shall therefore confine myself to a few key issues. First, the role of national parliaments in shaping development aid in the new Member States needs to be strengthened. Without the establishment of a firm legal basis by the national parliaments it will be impossible to pursue an effective development policy and arrive at proper coordination of the planning and management of aid to the developing countries. In some countries work on the necessary legislation 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 public sensitivity in the new Member States with regard to the importance of development policy. In a transition period of this kind, education for development, wide-ranging social consultation, mass communications and 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 more readily will society accept the financial burden.

I also agree with the Commissioner on the need for European solidarity in development policy. We must coordinate our cooperation and learn from each other. On the one hand, the commitment and knowledge derived from history and the transition period in the new Member States can help the whole European Union to develop and strengthen democracy in countries in transition. On the other, the knowledge derived from the 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 mutual education and mutual assistance can make the development policy of the whole European Union more effective.

  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 new mechanisms 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 our countries are a party, the new states are now redefining their policies on the development cooperation granted to the counties that need it, diversifying their cooperation instruments and the areas covered. What the rapporteur said in her foreword is perfectly true, in the sense that priorities are not defined clearly enough and good intentions are often limited by lack of financial resources. It looks like the new Member States still need a period of adaptation to the decision-making systems in the Council and to its priorities in the field of development cooperation.

Romaniahas a national strategy on international development cooperation, providing that it supports the development of the states in the geographical areas identified as priority areas for external relations, namely Eastern Europe, the Western Balkans and the Southern Caucasus. Another effort refers to the gradual extension of 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 Bucharest and I want to thank -here and now- my socialist colleagues for unanimously voting in favour of my proposal to organise this event in a new Member State of the European Union, namely Romania. I praise this report which represnents a useful framework of field-related conceptualisation for the new Member States of the European Union.

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

In 1970 the United Nations agreed upon the target of 0.7% of GDP for development assistance to eradicate extreme poverty – the most humiliating state for human beings. Dear colleagues, do not forget that this concerns approximately one third of the world’s population. Unfortunately, the efforts made so far are clearly not enough. No new Member State has reached the target. The same applies to the old Member States, with the exception of Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. Norway, although not a member of the 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 report and 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 great detail in those countries, including Estonia.

Finally, the European Consensus on Development is committed to a further increase of the designated funds and I encourage all the Member States to take it seriously. This report is a praiseworthy document that once again 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 on this excellent report. The document makes reference to the Eastern dimension of EU external relations and the need for a new assembly on the lines of EUROLAT or EUROMED – an assembly that could build on the historical 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 extending through the Balkans and the Black Sea region to the southern Caucasus. EU policy with regard to these regions is outdated. The very name ‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ is inappropriate and insulting for countries like Ukraine, which is undoubtedly part of Europe. The name should be changed to ‘European Union Neighbourhood Policy’, as the former Ukrainian foreign minister, Borys Tarasiuk, rightly pointed out at 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 of influence. Those countries need our commitment even more than the countries of Central Europe did before the 2004 enlargement. They need an individual approach on the part of the European Union, not a general neighbourhood policy that de facto treats Ukraine in the same way as countries that historically do not belong to Europe. Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus too, are poorer, economically weaker and in greater political difficulty 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 to use its energy reserves for political blackmail deters the European Union from opposing the Kremlin’s shameful practices, which have nothing in common with democracy. In Georgia and Ukraine, Moscow is attempting to reverse the democratic transition. The European Union Neighbourhood Policy, as we ought to call it, must offer immediate political and economic aid to our nearest neighbours. Poland already has projects 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 subject of the report, let me give Mrs Budreikaitė very warm thanks for her report, which I regard as very balanced and competent. It is also a particularly important one at this point in time because we can now take provisional stock and also draw conclusions in regard to greater development cooperation on the part of the new Member States, with particular reference to the ACP states.

Accession to the EU clearly also means an obligation under the Treaty to accept the achievements of the acquis communautaire. It is also clear, however, that the Treaty is one thing and public awareness of a major area 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 a particularly 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 continue to pursue it, looking back also at the development cooperation that certainly existed in the past with some states, in particular African countries.

Many ties that existed prior to 1989 were dissolved very quickly yet almost without a murmur. There were also some very regrettable episodes. A number of projects that had been started up in those countries now lie 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 European Member States are concentrating their development cooperation on cooperation with the former Soviet republics, which sidelines the real objective of development cooperation, namely to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Even if the new Member States were to succeed in raising their ODA to 0.17% by 2010 as agreed, it is to be feared that only a fraction of that amount would go to development and support for the poorest 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 of the 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 new Member States to pursue the traditional objectives of European development aid, Parliament would actually do better to debate those same objectives and think about whether it makes sense nowadays just to continue with the traditional form of development aid.

Time and time again this House elevates the financial objectives into a kind of dogma, without any proper debate, and time and time again we refuse to acknowledge the fundamental causes which are at the root of most 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 the fact 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. I am in favour of that, but should we not also inform people of the fact that African nations spend more on arms 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 be giving out, it is that only democracies where the rule of law applies guarantee people a real chance of improving their 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 new Member States in the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken with respect development development cooperation policy.

I support the recommendations made in the report and I wish to point out two of them, first of all the necessity of a strategy for the education of citizens. It does not mean making citizens of a Member State with a gross domestic income per inhabitant of only 38% of the EU average, such as Romania, understand that they must allot part of the budget resources for the development of other countries, but it is a fundamental value 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 older Member States to the newer Member States to avoid such failures in development cooperation, such as failure in 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 education and training of human resources. In this context Romania has an extremely positive experience as it awards scholarships to pupils and students from the Republic of Moldova and the South-Western Ukraine. There is a direct relationship between the Romanian universities and schools and the pupils and students of the said 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 period of time the new Member States have transformed themselves from being assistance recipients to assistance donors. However, most – if not all – of these countries might struggle to achieve the objective of allocating 0.17% 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 by ethnocentrism. 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 eliminate narrow-mindedness.

Today in Lithuania, where development assistance projects were met with scepticism until recently, the majority of the population believe that such assistance is welcome and necessary. The new Member States are in the advantageous position of being able to share the experience of the transitional period with other regions of the world. We are familiar with the difficulties that our close neighbours in Central Europe, the Caucasus 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 poverty in African and Asian countries from the viewpoint of Vilnius, Warsaw, Budapest or Bucharest, but we have to realise that by assisting those in need today we are actually helping ourselves. Every country on this planet is connected with others, as in the ‘law of connected vessels’. The increasing gap between the richest and poorest 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 and goods collected through non-governmental organisations, schools and the Church is not very great but is highly appreciated.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, my own country received aid for many years because of the prevailing poverty. Today, after four years’ membership of the European Union, Poland is joining more and more actively in aid to the developing countries. Recently, for example, we wrote off Angola’s very large debt. We are also putting money into support for the elite in the developing countries, by funding scholarships for study in Poland. Our basic assumption is that investing in knowledge and the creation of an elite is no less important than distributing charity.

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

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

My first point is about the idea that people’s attitude in the new Member States towards development cooperation and humanitarian aid is lukewarm. I think that awareness-raising has a very important role to play in that respect. A study has been carried out in Estonia comparing attitudes today with those of three years ago and even the figures from three years ago show that awareness of development cooperation had improved to such an extent, not only in the institutions but among the general population, that it enabled considerable 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 countries for specific projects. Estonia’s development cooperation is based on the principle that responsibility for development lies primarily with the developing countries themselves: nothing can be achieved by force. For that reason close cooperation is especially important and a very good example of this is provided by the cooperation between Estonia and Georgia.

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

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

  Liam Aylward (UEN). – Mr President, it is amazing that 200 million children around the world can be described as child labourers. This is totally unacceptable practice. The international community must work in a more concerted manner to ensure that international codes of practice to combat child labour are rigorously enforced 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 more closely with the United Nations, UNICEF, the World Bank, the International Labour Organisation, donors and NGOs to introduce the correct strategies to ensure that uniform laws are in place to stop this inhumane practice of child labour.

A multidimensional approach is needed if child labour is to be effectively tackled around the world. Enforced social protection measures and changes to the labour market rules are needed. Child labour and education issues are inextricably linked. Children denied access to education are more likely to be engaged in child labour. The European Union, as the largest donor in the world of development aid, must continue to work aggressively to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals are met by 2015, including the targets set by 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 in need of help is indeed proof of solidarity. It is demonstrated by the actions of the 12 states that recently joined the European Union, and it should be appreciated. Last November I showed what Poland was doing in this respect through an exhibition entitled Polish aid to the world. So I am very grateful to Mrs Budreikaitė for 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 in poverty, including millions of undernourished children. Such help, however, should consist in providing a fishing 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 generosity on the part of donors in writing off debts and for widespread sharing of scientific achievements, especially in medicine. Let us support schools and universities in these countries, so that their graduates can work to meet the needs of their fellow countrymen. Let us help resolve the shortage of drinking water. We inhabitants of the European Union make up barely 7.5% of the world population but we take up 23% of world GNI. Of course, we in Europe have problems of our own, including economic problems. But we must keep them in perspective. Let us not be indifferent to the suffering of those who are hungry, sick or uneducated, who live in poverty, deprivation or mortal danger.

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

  Jan Zahradil (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, of course the report is very useful. Development in this area is very dynamic and even ahead of the report. For example, the report does not reflect the fact that some new Member 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 new Member States have no experience in this area. We have this experience, although we gained it when Europe was divided, behind the Iron Curtain, in a different regime when everything was ideologically and politically motivated. The fact remains that we used to build power stations and breweries, and provide agricultural aid 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 as wet 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 Zahradil left off. He is perfectly right. In the past Czechoslovakia, just like other countries of the Soviet bloc, was active in developing countries. Our country successfully participated in helping the economies of these countries and now we can tap into this potential.

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

Some time ago, actually quite a long time ago, Gunnar Myrdal published his book ‘Asian Drama’. In this book he contrasts the optimism felt after World War II for example in Africa with the pessimism prevailing in Asian countries. Today the situation is quite different. Many Asian countries show strong growth while Africa 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 sharp contrast. One French study compares the behaviour of these elites and shows that while the Asian elite invested in the economy, the African elite hoarded resources that had been created and removed them from their own territories.

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

With regard to the comments made about levels of aid – that is, about the amounts of money needed – I fully understand the difficulty facing the new Member States. I would remind you however – indeed, you yourselves have already made the point in a general way – that there are many alternative methods of getting involved and using transfers of expertise, which cost very little. I heard one speaker, for example, referring to projects for cooperation in education. Obviously, sending instructors or teachers to African countries costs relatively little 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 invest in their own neighbourhood – neighbourhood is not, perhaps, the best word and I may yet think of a better one – as opposed to investing in Africa, is, in my opinion, the wrong question. I fully realise that investment in the neighbourhood is more obviously attractive and easier to justify and that it is more appealing both to public 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 a nation deciding to extend its aid commitment to Africa, to open up to Africa, because it expresses values that are both European in the deepest sense and also universal. Let me say, further, that the basis on which I have made my case for the new Member States having a presence in Africa is the fact that some of your countries 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 real expertise that has been retained.

My second point, ladies and gentlemen, is that Africa is not on target to achieve the Millennium Goals. The goals will be realised in all the developing countries except in Africa. So I would argue, on that basis, that it is part of our responsibility, or our co-responsibility, not to reduce investment in Africa, and I would stress again, echoing one of the speakers, that investment can be sustained through exchanges of expertise. Giving our universities, colleges, municipalities and local authorities encouragement or incentives to get involved in 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 come with me on some of my missions. I believe it is extremely important that they should see for themselves not only 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 potential than 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 major sovereign functions and to provide its people with a basic level of social services. I believe you have a tremendous 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 period of 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 of serving 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’ Member States 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 European Development 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 available certain experts. For instance, some of the new Member States have expertise in the field of e-government and this type of expertise is much in demand in certain African countries. That is why I am making my proposal. I think it has been important to have this discussion and I recognise there are some very useful avenues to pursue. That said, I would suggest that if we really want to be effective and to move matters forward we should plan to meet representatives from the 12 countries concerned very soon and actively address the issues so that we can actually produce joint programmes in the weeks ahead. I believe this is a chance that we cannot afford to miss.

Finally, you have talked about conditionality and I can fully understand that point of view. Everything concerning 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 of requirement is not respected will hurt, in the first place, the ordinary people of those countries. Our response to the problem, in countries where good governance is not respected, is to work in conjunction with specific operators, either indirect local operators or NGOs or agencies representing the United Nations. We offer budget support only to countries that can guarantee a minimum level of good governance. So I think there can be no doubt that we are on the same wavelength insofar as that approach is concerned. As for the values that I referred to – they are the values that we consistently convey. We constantly attempt to promote and push these values through political dialogue. Implementing strict conditionality is difficult, however, if we genuinely 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 discussion and supported my report. I would also like to thank all the members of the Committee on Development for having voted unanimously in favour of it.

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

I want to mention the experience of development cooperation policy. This policy initially started to be applied in 1958. Central European countries – the Czech Republic, Slovakia and others – have had more experience of participating in development cooperation. Participation by the Baltic States was much more limited. 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 neighbours of ours. It is pointless to try to demarcate the neighbourhood and development cooperation policies or to have politicians debate their details. These notions are interconnected. In Belarus, our neighbour, some people 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. We all want our neighbours to have a decent quality of life. We therefore appear to be pursuing the same global objectives.

We are involved in assisting African countries in fighting poverty, lowering the level of migration, increasing quality of life, boosting their economy, enabling them to battle diseases and become self-reliant. While we are assisting neighbouring countries to fight poverty, giving a helping hand whenever we can and where we have the relevant experience, we are helping to bring about stabilisation all over Europe and in the Balkan Region. 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 has ambitious goals, I believe it will be hard to achieve a common policy in the near future, even from as a matter of 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 unlikely that this pattern can change significantly. The recent incident related to the declaration of independence by Kosovo showed a lack of unity among the Member States in terms of opinion and, on the same grounds, it is likely that the same diversity of opinion will be shown when the matter under discussion is the situation of our extra-community neighbours. It is true that a major step was taken with the appointment, under the Lisbon Treaty, of an EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs. However, thanks to lack of clear rules on the determination of community priorities, each Member State will try to promote and focus on development policies, including financial (allotments from the Union budget) on such extra-community regions that coincide with their own priorities.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-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, on Gender 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 we celebrated the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. Much has been achieved, yet there is still no evidence of equal opportunities in the poorest countries of this world. The human rights of women and of 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 also looked at ways in which European development cooperation can improve the lives of these women. Let me briefly 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 attended primary school. In Africa, women make up 52% of the total population but perform 75% of the agricultural work and produce and market 60-80% of the food.

The Commission’s updated strategy for women’s equality and participation in development cooperation addresses important areas and proposes concrete measures to promote equality. The dual approach of the strategy, making gender mainstreaming more efficient and also proposing separate measures to promote equality, 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 have criticised 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 combat violence against women. Secondly, I must say I am rather taken aback that the strategy fails to mention the Economic Partnership Agreements. At no point is reference made to the link between strengthening the role of women and the economic agreements between the EU and the ACP States. As for the specific situation of women in conflicts, I regret the fact that the strategy fails to comment on the specific role that women play in what are called weak states and in the least developed countries. Special attention should also be paid to 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 passages from the report that call for the right of women freely and independently to decide about their body and their life. I do not want to sound boastful, but my report should not be reduced to that issue. In this connection I welcome the amendments proposed by Mrs Buitenweg on behalf of the Greens and thank her for her important contributions.

On reproductive health, I just want to say the following at this point: every woman has the right to decide freely and independently about her body and her life. Women’s full access to sexual and reproductive health is 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 humanist tradition, 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 by congratulating the rapporteur on this extremely thorough examination of a very important cross-cutting subject. Greater participation by women in the economy and the fair sharing of power between men and women are actually prerequisites for development. If we cannot ensure gender equality in development we will 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? Why do these women’s earnings represent only 10% of total income and why do women own only 1% of the assets? Obviously these questions are extremely important. And why, as your report points out, do women make up 70% of the 1.3 billion people living in absolute poverty? What is illustrated here is a very particular kind of tragedy intrinsically associated with being female. Sadly there are too many such questions that we need to answer. Even in Europe, even in our Member States’ national parliaments with their reasonably high levels 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 thoroughgoing political 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 that budgeting should take more account of the social sector, for in many cases education and health are not real priorities, 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 Empowerment in Development Cooperation, adopted by the Commission on 8 March 2007. The policy set out there constitutes a response to commitments made in the European Consensus on Development with regard to gender equality in all our cooperation policies and practices. The aim of the communication is to develop a European vision and to offer consistent support for the promotion of gender equality in all developing regions and countries.

The communication is also a guide to new aid modalities, notably budget support. I take issue here with the criticisms expressed in your report, for I believe that budget support offers new opportunities for effectively furthering 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 us incomparably 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 promotion of women’s potential in a country’s economic and social development. Moreover, in such cases, we base our support on the verification of tangible results presented or revealed via indicators that are always gender-specific and therefore clearly highlight gender gaps where they exist. The objectives that we use to measure a country’s results are in line with the Millennium Goals and, for the most part, are highly relevant to the improvement of women’s living conditions. They include, to name but a few, increasing the proportion of girls attending school and increasing the number of ante-natal check-ups. The progress that a country makes towards meeting such targets is the basis on which the European Commission disburses variable tranches of budget support.

One of the speakers in the debate mentioned a form of conditionality. When you engage in budget support you are clearly able, to some extent, to oblige the partner to respect criteria and observe certain types of conditionality. In terms of positive influence, there is a stronger effect than there would be without the mechanism of budget support. Be that as it may, I am prepared to pursue this debate in other contexts. I am deeply 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 our policies and actions, including as part of budget-support arrangements and in political dialogue with our partners. One of the consequences of this approach is a need to train our colleagues who take part in delegations 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 are also thematic programmes that complement geographically-based cooperation. For example, ‘Investing in human resources’ and ‘Human rights and democracy’ programmes incorporate specific elements for furthering gender 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 spending up to 2006. Of course, gender equality is also incorporated into other thematic programmes whether for education, 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 promoting gender equality and, most importantly, in cooperation with women in the developing countries, we will be capable of fighting poverty and building fairer societies.

  Gabriela Creţu, Draftswoman, Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. − (RO) Dear colleagues, I see 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 support women’s role in development cooperation. Apart from arguments related to equality, there is enough proof that 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 from the 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, formal commitments 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 negatively affect the final beneficiaries, and women would end up paying for the incompetence of governments, and we do not want that.

Under these conditions, we chose to insist on compliance with those requirements that we control and for which we have the action means. For this reason, we ask the Commission and the Member States to ensure consistency between other Community policies and development policy. Otherwise, certain aspects of domestic 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 the drafting of the European Commission roadmap on gender equality within the Union is a pre-condition for true and efficient use of women in developing development cooperation, which is a policy primarily managed by the Member States. The new means for granting support seem to have weakened the attention given to women.

We request an assessment of their gender impact and adequate correction measures, subject to the responsibilities 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’s empowerment 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 congratulate her on the consistency and accuracy of her approach to this topic. When debating this matter we should underscore 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, often work in poor conditions and for low salaries, lack basic health care, work too many hours and face humiliation and physical abuse. That is the reason for inadequate development. All these factors also have an impact on the quality of their family life. Boosting development and enhancing equality in order to promote peace in the 21st century: these are the concrete steps that can help to improve the situation if we take them. We have to condemn repeatedly, uncompromisingly and at every opportunity the sexual violence often suffered by women and young girls. We must encourage developing countries to adopt laws that will offer women effective protection.

In the name of respect for each individual we also have to condemn a very widespread quasi-culture, leading to systematic sexual exploitation and destroying the dignity of even very young girls by forcing them to offer their bodies and so contribute to the billions in profits raked in by the sex industry. Unfortunately, their clients come mostly from the civilised parts of the world, including the European Union. Women in areas of 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 looking at the issue of helping women in developing countries we must not forget that apart from financial aid from development funds there is an effective net of religious and charity organisations. This initiative has for many years 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. This also 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 to education at all levels, access to health care and equality in family affairs. Women’s involvement in politics needs 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 emphatically support Mrs Uca's report and we congratulate the Commissioner on this gender strategy. Virtually all countries signed up to the Millennium Development Goals eight years ago. Half the time has already passed and it looks 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 is widespread. At the same time, most of our partner countries' strategic programmes simply ignore women altogether. So the gender dimension really must be placed centre-stage in the political dialogue with our partner 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 speaking on sexual and reproductive health, because if women are able to make decisions about their own bodies and whether and when they have children, not only will this save millions of women's lives; children too will have more opportunities and communities will be made stronger. Anyone who denies that undermines the consensus on population and development which the international community endorsed in 1994, and we will 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 for Women's Rights. A women's envoy will give the world's women a face and a voice in Europe and its governments 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 empowerment are values and principles that we all praise in the European Union. As such, they definitely need to be shared with the developing countries within the framework of existing cooperation. We all have a huge responsibility when addressing them because promoting double standards would morally outlaw us, and we certainly lose credibility. I am referring specifically now to the amendments tabled for voting today, the same amendments that 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 development partners and when, on the other hand, we use them inside the European Union. We cannot afford to exclude references to reproductive rights from this report because this is a core topic when we target the promotion of women’s rights and their empowerment.

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

We cannot go only halfway towards our partners and claim at the same time that our goal is to have healthier and stronger women who are able to participate actively and equally in society. Please excuse my tough words but to me this is mere hypocrisy. We will fail to achieve these goals if we start by excluding core issues or 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 not an easy task. Reaching these targets implies a genuine commitment and action and, most of all, it implies our 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 in poverty, and these women are fighting for their own survival as well as that of their families. As Europeans we 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. It should be one of the principal tasks of the EU to ensure that women are placed at the centre of development work involving the EU. As things stand, our policies all too often end up lowering the already low status of women, 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 (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group are attempting to do through 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 their own and thus their families’ lives. This is often a matter of life or death for them. Women must have the right and opportunity to say ‘no’, in order to avoid violence and to obtain an education and the opportunity to set up on their own. This is crucial if development is to result from our development aid, and it is both immoral 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 support a proposal for the appointment of an EU High Representative for women. He or she should ensure that women are involved in political and social work worldwide, bringing to bear the influence they ought to have as half of the world’s population. Women must not become victims or poor wretches. We all need them to 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 I say? All credit to the Commission for a well-structured communication which for the first time sets out a European strategy for gender equality in development cooperation, in keeping, moreover, with the demands put forward by vast groups of women who refuse to be victims. On the contrary, we refuse to be victims and are protagonists of our lives and our sexuality and it is we who decide on the type of society in which we want to live: a society able to tackle and put an end to discrimination, injustice, violence and the militarisation of states and minds.

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

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

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

I should like to say something about the amendments aiming to remove the references to the various international strategies – from Cairo to Maputo – on women’s reproductive health and free reproductive rights. Defending life is sacrosanct. The right to life means, however, that there can be no hesitation in implementing 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 and Women’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation deals with problems affecting women in African and Asian countries, for example. It sets out a strategy involving measures in various categories: gender equality, 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 our European civilisation in basic regulations on respect for human rights and all people. But equal rights and non-discrimination against women are not the only condition for social development. There are a whole series 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 of manipulation, 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 natural resources and of speculation by international companies that enrich themselves at the cost of the life and health of the local population. Budget support and other EU programmes will not compensate for the losses inflicted by a robber economy. Ethical relativism, too, favours sexual exploitation and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. Sexual freedom as propagated robs women of their dignity by reducing them to sex objects and encourages violence. The situation of women will be improved not by more funding for contraception and abortion, but by financial support for families, especially those with many children, so as to make education and development possible and to improve health care and social protection, especially for pregnant women. Educated women with a predisposition for leadership or a desire to engage in politics should of course be able to stand for election and use their psycho-physical difference to broaden the spectrum of 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 preferring elk hunting or reading the newspaper to looking after children. The tyranny of sexual aggression spread by the mass media influences ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Mrs Uca’s report deals with the important issue of gender equality in development cooperation. Unfortunately, the rapporteur’s undoubtedly positive intentions are undermined by an excessive and controversial presentation of the issue of health and sexual and reproductive rights. This subject ought not to be treated controversially, but the report uses the paradoxical language so frequently employed in the European Union. It is precisely this strange use of language that is distancing the EU from its citizens and turning it into a unintelligible, alienated bureaucratic machine. That is also how we are 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 “health and reproductive rights” the author and promoters of this report mean the opposite of what those words actually say. “Reproductive rights” does not mean the restriction of reproduction. What we are doing is giving a positive name to something that has negative consequences, namely the restriction of reproduction. That is outright deception.

Those who advocate restricting the population in poor countries and promoting contraception or abortion should not hide behind terms like health and reproductive rights. We should call a spade a spade. It seems to me they don’t want to do so because they suspect the European Union should not really be concerning itself with such matters. Is there not something dubious about Europeans promoting and funding contraception and abortion outside Europe? In Africa and Asia, just as in the EU, it is individual states that should decide what policy to pursue in this area. The report says women should decide. But it is we who are telling 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 not intend to speak about the report itself – on which I congratulate the rapporteur – but rather on the amendments soon to be put to the vote, and I wish to say that I find the amendments proposed by our UEN colleagues 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 decent life. It is more than scandalous, it is irresponsible and hypocritical, when we know that the absence of proper family 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 own wishes.

The amendments proposed by the PPE-DE Group are no less regrettable. They merely formulate the ideas differently, 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 suffer significant forms of discrimination and quite intolerable violence. Anyone rejecting the view that each individual woman in those countries should be entitled to full control of her own destiny is obviously refusing to 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 women the freedom to choose to have children if and when they want children. This concept of health depends on women 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 too long a discussion which should be dealing with human rights has been poisoned by various political considerations. It goes without saying that a woman has a right to her own body. This is why I did not dodge the question, in the debate on genital mutilation, whether the application of Sharia law amounts to not recognising the equal value of human beings. No one would think of refusing a man the right to decide on his own reproduction or say that it was a question of cultural values to refuse a man the possibility of earning his 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 be clear. Human rights – by which I understand equality not just in theory but also in practice – must be the watchword. We must make it clearly understood that the market economy is good for poor women and men, not bad. That is demonstrated not least by the successful campaign for micro-credit, which has created both 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, as I think it is important to point out, a responsibility to render possible choices where there are no choices today. Like many of my colleagues here, therefore, I am truly disappointed to see some of the amendments tabled 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, I stayed home with my son for six months on paternity leave. I think that I actually became a better parent than I had been before. Certainly, I read the papers, but my main responsibility was to look after my children and to do it together with my wife. I can only say that it is a good thing. I think more people should do it and see 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 enthusiastic welcome 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 vulnerable victims with an image of women as a highly differentiated group of social actors, who possess valuable resources and capacities and who have their own agendas; this involves among other things, recognising and 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 is often perceived as an excuse for not outlining specific proposals and objectives in, for example, country strategy papers.

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

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

An amendment in my name and that of Mr Deva and Ms Belohorská calls on the Commission to ask all of the Union’s partners around the world, both governments and NGOs, to undertake a permanent gender analysis of all abortions and to regularly report the findings to Parliament. Perhaps Mr Hutchinson might tell 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 the elimination of millions of girls through parental sex selection. Baby girls also die through deliberate neglect and starvation. According to the UNFPA, in Asia alone, at least 60 million girls are ‘missing’. In some countries it is reported that sex selection is more common in cities, where technologies such as amniocentesis and ultrasound 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 economic liability and, according to UNFPAs, the sex ratio at birth, although it is slightly higher, becomes more accentuated because of this. The shortage of women and girls in some Asian countries has potentially alarming social repercussions, including increased demand for trafficking in women, whether for marriage or for sex work, 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, for example in Austria and Germany in the 1930s. How could a supposedly reflective body like the European Parliament 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 and I welcome the two-track approach, endorsed by the Commission in its communication, focusing on both gender mainstreaming and specific actions to empower women. I deplore, however, that many DCI country strategy papers merely refer to gender as a cross-cutting issue, failing to specify concrete activities, targets or financial allocations. This means that, despite the strategic framework, gender efforts in development cooperation could be reduced to rhetoric in the years to come.

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

Finally, I am shocked by several medieval conceptions reflected in some amendments to this report put forward 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 excellent report 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 the Commission on the Status of Women, at the invitation of the European Parliamentary Forum. It is interesting to find that countries that are our ACP partners say one thing when they are talking to Brussels and the various capitals and then say something quite different in New York, when it comes to discussing the matter at global level.

That is why I call on the Commissioner to be consistent, to advise his delegations that there is also talk in the respective capitals about the attitude taken in New York, because our goals in regard to women’s policy and 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 raise the 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 liberating women. There are some relatively obscure arrangements...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

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

For women’s rights to be fully implemented in development cooperation as well, the European Union needs an 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 their sexual rights, education, opportunities for employment and so on. Although people know this from experience and 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 hope that 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 totally disagree 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, countless women are denied the right even to exist.’ It might surprise the rapporteur of this report to know that it was said by Ban Ki-moon in his opening address to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, in New York.

Furthermore, according to the UNFPA, in its state of the world population report last year, there is a global deficit of 60 million women in the world – that is the whole population of the United Kingdom! These missing females have been prenatally sex-selected, aborted and ‘infanticised’ out of existence, and this is happening on the continent on which I was born; I know what I am talking about. How is it that a report of the European Parliament on gender equality can be silent on the deliberate elimination on the basis of gender alone? 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 how women 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 most significant cause of injustice against women in the world today – their basic right to life – and, instead, insist on perpetuating through championing the so-called rights of sexual...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

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

In many countries women continue to lack access to basic health services, education and participation in decision-making processes. Two thirds of all the world’s illiterates are women. In the developing countries the likelihood of attending secondary school is 11% less for girls than for boys. The statistics also show a tragic 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 into the programme of cooperation with partner countries as a major instrument in the eradication of poverty and support for human rights, which includes combating violence against women. I congratulate the rapporteur on a very well prepared report, and in conclusion ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – (RO) Today we are discussing another report that analyses the situation of women, the second one this week, but this time from the perspective of equal opportunities concerning the 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 contextualised proposals 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 believe that it is high time we had a consistent policy at European level in the field of education, with clear steps that should 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 field of human rights protection. 2008, the Year of Intercultural Dialogue, must be used to encourage inter-university exchanges and exchanges of experience between European women and women in developing countries with a view to stating women’s role all over the world. From this perspective, the promotion of young 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 within the 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 helps the economy to grow and social protection to improve. Mortality amongst women in developing countries is still tragically and unacceptably high. Families are destroyed as a result. There is a direct link here with child labour. Investing in equal opportunities and freedom means investing in the future, in Europe and in the 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. These are not really about choices in pregnancy, that is pure hypocrisy. They are about scrapping all references to even the most moderate UN texts on women's rights. But sexual freedom and reproductive rights guarantee freedom of choice for every woman. Even the Vatican will recognise that freedom one day. But women cannot afford to wait; the world cannot afford to wait.

  Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I sincerely believe that having access to information and services relating to sexual and reproductive health protects women from AIDS, if anything. I am therefore totally opposed to our refusal to allow it on the grounds that the hidden agenda here is abortion. I am also opposed to the fact that for the same reason we are deleting the Kyoto Protocol from the well-known Maputo Protocol 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 what we believe. I respect the beliefs of others, but I also ask them to do the same for mine. We ought, then, to respect both the rights of women and the right of each woman who chooses whether or not to have an abortion, be it for economic, social, family or even health reasons. I personally will therefore vote in favour of the report.

  Rovana Plumb (PSE). – (RO) There are many good aspects in this report and I will support it, but I will vote against 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 reconsidering the role of women in the economy, society, politics, environmental protection and family. We determined and discussed today that education is a key field in development. Given that equality is first of all an issue of stereotypes and education, I propose that the Commission support the Member States in including gender equality issues in school curricula.

We now need concrete and firm actions, such as an increase in budget resources to improvethe economic and 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 active in the area of education and teach women how to become successful. I support microcredit as a tool for meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

However, I do not agree with the rapporteur’s position on the issues of reproductive health in the report. If we want to give women the right to make decisions concerning their bodies, why do we not give their unborn children the same opportunity to decide between life or death? I support the amendments tabled by my colleagues from the PPE-DE and UEN political groups in this regard and I thank my colleagues for their courage 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 sorry this debate has focused so strongly on sexual and reproductive rights, because there are many other important issues in this context.

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

In view of the statistics we hear from the United Nations and the World Population Monitoring Report every year, 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 and development cooperation. I am increasingly saddened by the fact that every time we have a debate around these 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 about the 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 not concerned. It is not that I am not concerned about the rate of sex selection that disposes of female foetuses in 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 amendment actually says.

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

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) I would like to commend the rapporteur for the comprehensive report on the gender issue and the Commission for its Communication. However, a document is as powerful as 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 to emphasize 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 development of entrepreneurship and the fine-tuned use of their entire potential. It is particularly important to speak of shared responsibilites at all levels, national and international alike, shared responsibilities between men and women. 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 the committee 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. These definitely 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 United States of America, 40% of young teenage girls have sexually transmitted diseases. Mere education and responsibility 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 sexual violence against women. The provision of sexual and reproductive services in the developing countries is not about abortion either; it is about women knowing what options they have and knowing that they have a right to make their own choices.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, thank you for allowing me to speak on this because, in the heat of the debate, I think I want to bring matters down to a more practical level. The reality is stated in the explanatory statement, for example in Africa, where women make up 52% of the population but perform 75% of the agricultural work and produce and market up to 80% of food. I think the role of women in development 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 Arms agreement and we will soon, perhaps, have a world trade agreement. But I think we need, as the World Bank says, 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 is not 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 few specific actions on the issue of gender? The answer is simple: the country strategies are worked out and decided by the partner countries themselves because they have to choose two sectors on which to focus and we do not dictate what sectors they should select. I would, however, emphasise that we insist on gender questions 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’s position in New York, but I think you need to take that up with the Council rather than the Commission, for it is not something that the Commission can rectify. That said, I would obviously echo your desire for a more cohesive position.

Very briefly – and there may be those among you who find my words provocative – I should like to share with you my own conviction: I fully agree with those who regard reproductive health as a precondition for women’s equality. Personally, I do not see how we can address the subject and tackle this question without agreeing 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 in which 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 circumstances in certain developing countries to come and see for themselves and to hear the stories that some women could 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 speakers for their interesting contributions. My special thanks go to Mrs Creţu who drafted the opinion on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Her clear analysis and proposals for greater coherence have enriched the report in many important areas. For reasons of time I cannot, unfortunately, discuss all her 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 health in the developing countries has absolute priority and it is important to fight for it boldly and consistently. I vehemently disagree with Mrs Krupa’s view that the sexual freedom of women provokes violence. That is an 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. My dear Luisa Morgantini and Mr Romeva i Rueda have, as ever, found strong words to make it clear that women do 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 and women’s rights have given a most positive assessment of the report. I am very grateful for all the cooperation and support I have received.

(Applause)

  President. − The debate is closed.

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 men to resources and participation in public life are of decisive importance not only outside the EU, in the framework of sustainable development, they are also extremely important for many women in the European Union itself. I will give you an example: in Poland, in my own region, Silesia, women working day-to-day in favour of equality between women and men are worried that gender mainstreaming, i.e. gender policy, is not 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 local authorities 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 ‘Democracy without women is only half democracy’.

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

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-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, Claude Turmes) (vote)

4.2. The challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the new Member States (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 as follows: ‘having regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, together with Additional Protocols I and II thereto, and particularly concerned at the violence suffered by humanitarian, medical and religious personnel in the performance of their duties’. That is the text of the amendment. I have consulted widely with colleagues from the various groups 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 imprisonment of 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 say that along with the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos, and the other rapporteurs, I have an oral amendment to 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 and abortion’; (ES) this would obviate the need for voting on the second part of the amendment in question.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

– 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.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

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-up thinking on this. I will give an example: our whole policy on energy-saving light bulbs. Yes, we want to phase out existing light bulbs, but yet we impose tariffs on the import of energy-saving light bulbs. Yes, we talk about banning mercury in barometers (even though it actually constitutes a very small risk), yet at the same time we are encouraging energy-saving light bulbs which contain, yes, you guessed it, more mercury. Not only that, but we are talking about energy efficiency, yet we continue to come to Strasbourg, which emits tonnes and tonnes of needless extra CO2.

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

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

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

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of Community participation in a research and development programme aimed at enhancing the quality of life of older people through the use of new information and communication technologies. The project provides development opportunities not only for older people but also for the handicapped, women bringing up children at home and people living in rural areas. In my view, this initiative will prevent social stratification in Europe in the area of access to digital services, as well as the marginalisation of social groups threatened by less access to modern technology. However, it is very important to bear in mind that the cost of these technologies must be kept as low as possible.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) I voted in favour of the report on “enhancing the quality of life of older people”, which deals with issues of major importance for many European citizens, especially the older 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 are limited since the number of contributors is falling. Thus we are heading for a situation in which a large group of older people will be applying for various social benefits. Many of them, however, are still capable of various kinds of work and can remain active on the labour market. The growing number of older people, plus the need 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 a number of doubts. I do not support the provisions of the directive on the harmonisation of excise duty rates on gas oil and petrol. Diversity of excise duty rates creates the possibility of competition among transport firms from different EU countries, which undoubtedly works to the benefit of the consumer. I also oppose the 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 economic growth in countries with a low GNP. An increase in fuel prices means an increase in the price of goods and services. 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 increase in excise duty on gas oil will give rise to an increase in customs duty on goods and services in countries which are supposed to charge a rate of excise duty that is lower than the proposed Community minimum but is in any 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 is relatively low, the proposed increase in excise duty is too great. Its effects will be felt especially by the poorest families, since the present rise in fuel prices already weighs heavily on their domestic budgets. The least developed countries, with their low income levels, should therefore be granted much longer transition periods than those proposed by the European Commission, to give them time to adapt. I consider the proposed increase unjustified and excessive.

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

I voted against this particular report for a whole bunch of reasons. Firstly, I believe in tax competition. I do not 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 British car and freight drivers without understanding the consequences of his actions. I should like to raise a separate problem. I am running a campaign with the Northampton Chronicle and Echo for the people who live in that vicinity 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 with tax.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to echo the comments of my colleague in thanking you, 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 is the great contrast in this place.

Now, let us talk about tax competition. We talk about creating the world’s largest single market here, and we talk about making the EU the most competitive economy in the world, and we talk about the world competition, yet what do we do when it comes to tax competition? Well, as it actually says in the explanatory statement, 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 more competitive economy. This should not be a competence of the EU. It is a competence of Member States, and we should leave it as such, because the best way to ensure a competitive economy is to make sure that we have 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 no interest in funding Iraq. There are other countries in Europe itself that would benefit much more from such aid. The Caritas Europa report shows that in 14 European countries – including Poland, Austria, Germany and 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 all the EU countries. One Pole in five (19%) lives below the poverty line. And 22% of Polish children with at least one working parent are threatened by poverty. That is the highest figure for Europe. Thirteen percent of Poles in employment are threatened by poverty. In Austria, 47% of unemployed single parents live in chronic 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 emphasised how much I always enjoy reading the reports by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in this place and wonder why it exists. To prove this point today we have a report whose findings are more coherent with somebody who watched too much Prisoner: Cell Block H as a child than on the actual facts of the 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 the worsening economic conditions of women’. I think, and I have checked with the statistics from a number of countries in the European Union, the number is going up simply because the population is going up. In fact, 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 have the same benefits of health-care provision that are provided to women inmates in prisons throughout the UK. So that is why I have abstained on the report.

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

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) I pointed yesterday to Turkey's unassailable position as an aspiring Member State and this report merely confirms that special status. For weeks Turkey has been bombing the north of Iraq and ten thousand Turkish troops have invaded the country. And instead of clearly condemning this aggression what 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 Copenhagen criteria to international law and its ban on the use of aggression. Turkey regards itself as above the law, any law, and is constantly reinforced in that belief by Europe. One day the European Union will have cause to regret its stance.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I was a sharp and clear critic and opponent of the Iraq war and I still am. I believe, however, that we must also make up for the mistakes we committed there. We in the western world – both Europe and the USA – therefore have a duty to do our utmost to secure peace and stability, 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 kidnapped archbishop. I am sorry that as a result of a management mistake on the part of this House the resolution on the subject is not on this afternoon’s agenda. It is our duty to do our utmost to help this representative of a minority whose existence is under threat, which has lived together in peace with its Muslim neighbours for centuries, and which is threatened with genocide precisely at a time when we are responsible in Iraq. That is not acceptable and that is why we must take strong action here.

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

  Bernard Wojciechowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, I agree with much of Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou’s report on the situation of women in prison. Prison administrations must ensure 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 the 30 000 prison officers are women. Prison officers’ remuneration does not exceed EUR 500 a month. Given the role of prison staff in ensuring that sentences are properly served, it important that most officers dealing with women prisoners should be of the same sex. That lessens the discomfort of women prisoners and ensures better protection of their rights. Without a significant increase in remuneration and better working conditions in the prison services, we shall not achieve the aims of the report.

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

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I voted with my party’s whip on this particular report 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 the communities viewed to be trustworthy by them’. This is the people of Iraq, the national force created by, I guess, people from within Iraq.

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

I really do think that this resolution shows how trying to have a harmonised EU foreign and security policy in 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, not because of the subject-matter but because this important issue keeps being exploited for ideological battles about 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 detrimental to the matter in hand. We must make it clear that reproductive health is important, but that it has nothing to do with abortion, because that does not come within the European Union’s remit and each state has the right to decide its own laws in that area. That is in line with the principle of subsidiarity, which is why the European citizens’ money may not be used for purposes that some EU Member States do not find acceptable on ethical, moral and legal grounds.

We should, therefore, very definitely leave this subject out of our deliberations and concentrate on neutral concepts that actually have something to do with the question of health and nothing to do with the question of abortion, on which opinions differ in this House and where I am strongly in favour of protecting the unborn 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 investment in 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 my support and I voted in favour of it.

  Rovana Plumb (PSE), − in writing. − (RO) The resolution refers to the creation of an innovative financial instrument to support the implementation of certain projects financed by this fund in view of the transition to 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 of new jobs, equal conditions for social development and elimination of discrepancies. In this sense, the special support 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 greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to the effects of climate change, must be developed in parallel, by means of coherent and convergent policies with a positive impact on the development of labour market/creation of new 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 report is to encourage the integration of the ‘new’ Member States into EU external policy, particularly ‘development cooperation policy’ and ‘European neighbourhood policy’.

The report also considers that the ‘new’ Member States represent an opportunity for the EU ‘to reinforce its strategic presence in eastern Europe, central Asia and the Caucasus’, regions with which the ‘new’ Member States 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 joined the EU in 2004 as an EU intervention instrument (taking into account the interests of the major powers and their large economic and financial groups, particularly in the energy sector) in the countries of the Community of 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 in NATO and the EU as a model to be followed in these regions. This is ultimately what is at issue: a policy that disguises the interests of capitalism with ‘development’.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support Danutė Budreikaitė’s report on the challenge of EU development cooperation 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 countries to the East, we must actively encourage their involvement with Sub-Saharan Africa and other LDCs. Our new Members strengthen the EU’s role as a world partner and should be fully encouraged in that role. The report 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 Member States in European Union cooperation and development policies, particularly with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, is clear evidence of the success of the process of enlargement and of the integration of the countries that have joined in recent years.

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

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I am voting in favour of Mrs Budreikaitė’s report on the challenge of 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 development cooperation by the new Member States, the institutions and programmes involved, the recipient countries and the relevant financial contributions.

The issues dealt with in the report put the emphasis on relations between the EU Member States and their new 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 donors in favour of less developed countries, taking advantage of the predominant influence of the new Member States 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation by the Community in a research and development programme. This programme seeks to enhance the quality of life of older people through the use of new Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). European Union participation in this programme 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 enhance their quality of life.

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

The report, which the European Parliament has now approved, draws attention to and makes concrete proposals for promoting the role of women in science and research, and places stress on the involvement of SMEs and on fair access for all Members States to cost-effective solutions so as to avoid widening the digital 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 quality and 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 is essentially about organising research programmes with a view to making older people more independent through 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 Union would bring to a project initiated, quite legitimately, by a number of Member States – aside from making the process more bureaucratic and setting up a new Community body. The Union’s financial largesse, to the tune of EUR 150 million over a number of years minus the operating costs of the aforesaid new body, does not seem like a clinching argument.

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

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report proposing European Union participation in the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) research and development programme that has been undertaken 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 expectancy today 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 mobility and 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’s seventh Framework Research and Development Programme. The European Union will provide EUR 150 million to cofinance projects that will have a leverage effect worth at least EUR 600 million between 2008 and 2013.

The countries taking part in the AAL programme are also to help finance it by making an equivalent or greater contribution, which means that each country will invest at least 20% of its national research budget in 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 of modern 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. The EU average is now 80 years, and the proportion of people in the 65+ age bracket will shortly reach 40%. The technologies in question can significantly help such people in various situations, including the prolongation of professional and social activity and improvement of the quality of life. Naturally, the specific needs of handicapped people must also be taken into account, and access to these services and technologies must be ensured mainly through the provision of broadband internet connections in both urban and rural areas so as to avoid geographical discrimination.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am in favour of cofinancing by the European Union of the ‘Ambient Assisted 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 European population and the rising life expectancy over recent decades that we must support new information and communication technologies that would make it considerably easier for older people to cope with the everyday hurdles facing them. In regard to the general cost reduction in the health sector as a result of the use 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 the private 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 respect for 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’. In pooling resources and coordinating research and development on a European level we are more adequately able to assess how to improve the lives of our older citizens. By setting a minimum contribution we ensure the participation of all Member States in this cause. I would like to commend the rapporteur on her report and 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 on unhealthy tax competition in the fuel sector, in particular with a view to enabling the EU to achieve its climate objectives.

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 price differences on fuel among the various Member States that lead to distortions in terms of competition and the environment in road transport activity. The difference in prices of gas oil used as motor fuel and unleaded petrol are indeed significant.

Hence its importance for Portugal, one of the countries in which this situation is making itself felt, bearing in mind the price differences between our country and Spain: Portuguese enterprises suffer competition from 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, with serious consequences for the labour force.

The European Parliament's proposal is more positive because it eliminates the transitional periods under Article 18, a very important aspect in the current situation, in the hope that it will make it possible to reduce the difference between Portugal and Spain in 2010, since the latter will have to increase its fuel tax from EUR 302 to EUR 330 in the case of gas oil. The approximation will continue in 2012 and 2015. In the case of 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 European Parliament has engaged in here, instead of supporting the Commission initiative, is a sort of conjuring trick playing off the old against the new Member States. In any event the decision will ultimately rest with the Ministers alone and it will have to be unanimous.

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

Do I need to remind you that measures like this prevent Member States from reducing, for example, VAT in the catering industry, even though that is a sector where the case for distorting cross-border competition is particularly flimsy and where lowering VAT could help to create thousands of jobs? Do I need to remind you 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 a desire to protect the environment and an alleged need to combat ‘taxation tourism’ – by which we mean ordinary people taking advantage of competition! It is all the more scandalous because drivers in a country like France have been encouraged to buy diesel-powered vehicles – presumably so that we can now clobber them harder than ever!

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This explanation of vote seeks to stress that we are once again wasting an opportunity at EU level – since the mechanism exists – to take action to protect small-scale coastal 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 important and 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, the European Parliament, considering that increased fuel prices have a particularly negative effect on the fishing industry – significantly aggravating the existing socioeconomic crisis and drastically reducing fishermen's incomes – and stressing that there is a serious risk of the disappearance of thousands of fisheries enterprises and the loss of thousands of jobs, adopted a range of proposals to support the sector so that it can cope with increased fuel prices. A year and a half later, apart from the increase in the ‘de minimis’ aid, virtually nothing has been done at EU level.

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

  Pierre Pribetich (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of the Commission proposal was to introduce measures for 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 to develop a fuel capable of making a real difference in the fight against CO2 emissions. The disparity of the planned 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 and support measures that will allow us to tackle climate disruption effectively. The taxation-change approach proposed by the Commission and by Olle Schmidt’s report fails to promote either research or the concept of 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 voted against what is simply a compromise that subverts the declared aim.

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

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), in writing. − (IT) The Gomes report takes stock of the dramatic and difficult situation in which Iraq finds itself. The non-governmental organisations and the various bodies responsible for 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 which increases direct EU support for technical assistance to promote the rule of law, justice and sound financial management 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 market can 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 Iraq including appropriate use of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and support for a pluralist and independent information system.

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

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The resolution adopted achieves the ‘astonishing’ feat of not making a single reference to the brutal and illegal aggression and occupation of Iraq by the USA and its allies.

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

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

In essence, the resolution endorses the status quo, presenting it as a fait accompli and seeking to promote greater EU participation in the intervention in Iraq, seeing this country as another ‘state supervised’ by the USA/NATO/EU, like Afghanistan and Kosovo. This is astounding, in that at the same time it considers that neighbouring 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 constitutional and 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 the recitals that sees all problems in Iraq as being down to the previous regime. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a vicious dictator and caused the deaths of many of his people, not least in the systematic attempt to wipe out the Kurds. However, the total lack of any strategy by the occupying forces to deal with rebuilding the country has also resulted in untold misery.

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

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

Now the damage is done and it is up to the Member States to act, either alone or collectively, to rescue and re-establish whatever can be salvaged. Before the US intervention, Iraq was the only Muslim country that was home to a large and prosperous Christian community – a community that had lived there even before the 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 impoverishment and threatens the entire region’s stability and prosperity.

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

Iraqi Christian communities were once open and welcoming to Islam, and together with their Muslim neighbours 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 looks forward and formulates a strategy to build a robust democratic Iraqi state that respects human rights and the country’s rich ethnic and confessional make-up. Iraq needs Europe to help build upon the recent security improvements that will go a long way in encouraging investment and increased NGO involvement in reconstructing the country. All of Europe has an interest in a stable and secure Iraq and I feel the report’s recommendations recognise this.

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

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

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 and police forces to form part of the occupying armies, all that is needed is for different hats to be worn and for the name to be changed to ‘UN forces’.

Therefore, while cynically recognising the catastrophic consequences of the war and the slaughter of the Iraqi 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 the private 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 Iraqis and the struggle of the peoples of the region for liberation from the imperialist yoke of occupation and for their 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 the European Union’s role in Iraq, rather than insisting on a pointless debate on past issues, is positive. The five years 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 ground has improved significantly, though it is still very serious. What that improvement reveals in particular is that there is a viable way forward in the objective of building a democratic and secure state. Our objective can be achieved. Experience in recent years, however, also shows that it will only be achieved with greater commitment, 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, besides oil. In the European Union’s specific case, this involves investing heavily in the economic reconstruction of Iraq and in building democracy in the country. A democratic and safe Iraq that respects human rights is vital for 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 my colleague 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 fact that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic and humanitarian disaster and that Iraqi society was traumatised afresh 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 explicitly to 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 produced no analysis at all of the war in Iraq. In recent years Parliament has in fact maintained a deafening silence and not even challenged the lies put out by the Bush Administration. For a democratic body like Parliament that matters very much! It will be hard for us to retain credibility if we do not even act against UN Members which flout the UN Charter.

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

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

It is vital that we support the case of Monsignor Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop born and 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 on Parliament’s behalf:

- one to Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who has condemned the attacks on Christian clergy and has offered, on behalf of the Iraqi Government, ‘protection and justice’ for Christians, with an assurance that 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 also denounced terrorist attacks on Christian communities in no uncertain terms and who, following the kidnapping, 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 and unconditional 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 from more 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 production so as to enable it to compete with mass-produced armaments from the US with only batch production domestic demand.

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

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) Some Member States have a vested interest in the promotion of arms exports. Hence, if a common code of conduct for arms exports is drawn up, 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 through its national legislation. Sweden must continue to have the right to pursue a restrictive policy on arms exports if it so wishes. Cooperation is desirable in order to secure further progress in global disarmament work, but this is best achieved on an international basis within the context of the United Nations, having regard to the UN’s experience, expertise and global coverage.

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

Not without a certain irony, the resolution itself specifically refers to ‘the evolving European Security and Defence 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 arms procurement 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 and necessary. As we stated previously, however, arms trade regulation will be much more significant if it is accompanied by a process of multilateral and reciprocal disarmament, beginning in particular by dismantling the huge nuclear arsenals.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − The British Conservative Delegation voted against the resolution on the basis that it does not accept the references to the Lisbon Treaty or to the evolving ESDP, both of which it 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 internationally binding Arms Trade Treaty.

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

  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 improved in 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 prison conditions in Europe and we have strong misgivings over references in the report to special criminal sanctions or alternative penalties for women, pregnant women and women with young children. As regards a child’s contact with its parents during periods of custody and thereafter, account should be taken, with the focus on 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 always be looked at to improve the situation of women in prison. The report suggests a number of possibilities that could 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 States to decide on the details of prison policy. In particular, we are unable to agree with the premise of Recital C and 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 the particular situation of women in prison and the impact of the imprisonment of parents on social and family life, since there is evidence that European prisons are geared largely towards male prisoners and overlook women’s specific needs.

I therefore believe that measures should be adopted to promote the improvement of the situation of women prisoners, 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 prison population in the European Union, prisons continue to be geared basically towards male prisoners and tend to overlook the specific problem of the small but growing percentage of women prisoners. The principal areas of concern are health care, the situation of imprisoned women with children and professional and social reintegration.

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

Children who remain with their imprisoned mothers require adequate protection and care and should not suffer from any form of discrimination. Imprisonment of women can have particularly grave implications when 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 social services 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 the work being done in the Member States to modernise and adapt penal policy in order to make better provision for 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 the report. Measures concerned with visiting regulations, the operation of institutions, training of staff in the penal system, prisoners’ leisure activities or social assistance are and should remain a matter for the Member States, 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 the report’s views concerning respect for human rights, better conditions in prisons, respect for equality between women and men and the importance of the resettlement of offenders in society. Clearly it is also immensely important 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 dealing with these matters. In particular, we stress the right of every Member State to formulate its own criminal law and hence also to pronounce appropriate sentences. Also, the European Union should not involve itself in the detailed regulation of whether a prison should have a gym or not, visiting regulations or work during custody. These things should be subject to the direction of the Member States and their voters and be determined by the public debate in society.

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

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We support the work being done in the Member States to modernise and adapt penal policy in order to make better provision for 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 the report. Measures concerned with visiting regulations, the operation of institutions, training of staff in the penal system, prisoners’ leisure activities or social assistance are and should remain a matter for the Member States, 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’s report on the situation of women in prison and the impact of the imprisonment of parents on social and family life. Prison remains orientated towards the needs of male prisoners and I welcome the report’s aim to 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 to adapt conditions of imprisonment to address women’s specific needs. Even today, prison conditions in many Member States remain very poor and are certainly not geared to providing the particular types of support that women require.

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

That is why I supported the amendment tabled by the Socialist Group calling for women prisoners to have the same access as other women to screening programmes for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The fact is that early diagnosis of these conditions improves the chances of curing them, so the denial of access to such screening 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 no threat 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. Despite some 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 and health of the mother and the unborn. We do not accept any other definition that infers abortion to be within this term; and furthermore we understand that any care, information, policies or any other services pertaining to sexual and reproductive health similarly exclude abortion. We will work to have this definition accepted at every forum and body we can influence.

We note the reply given by the Council Presidency in Parliament on 4 December 2003 that the term reproductive health does not include the promotion of abortion and, inter alia, that abortion should never be presented as 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.

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

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

However, several of the amendments which have been tabled by certain Members are of a less congenial nature. The right of women to sexual and reproductive health is an important element in promoting development. In this case, we have chosen to support the original proposals as a counterbalance to the disagreeable 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 which is to draw attention to a major problem, both in the EU and in developing countries: the need to ensure access to information on sexual and reproductive health, to ensure freedom of decision, and to create and promote 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 and women’s empowerment in development cooperation’ will come not from policies that promote relationships of 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 afflict millions and millions of children and women in particular, but from a policy of effective cooperation based on equal rights between states, respect for national sovereignty and the right of each country to define and implement a development model that meets its people’s needs and concerns, i.e. a policy that interprets the word ‘solidarity’ accurately.

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

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

The way women in developing countries are disadvantaged by religious rules, cultural practices and poverty is usually further worsened by the lack of education. In that regard I want in particular to draw attention to the potentially enormous social pressure that could come from raising public awareness of women’s basic rights, 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 of also 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-based violence 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 of information. To be poorly informed in this respect can have lethal consequences in developing countries in which health provision and standards of hygiene are often appalling. I need only refer to the alarmingly high percentage 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, which would 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 and reproductive health’ I understand this to mean the protection and enhancement of the life and health of the mother and the unborn. I do not accept any other definition that infers abortion to be within this term; and furthermore I understand that any care, information, policies or any other services pertaining to sexual and reproductive health similarly exclude abortion. We should work to have this definition accepted at every forum and body we can influence.

I note the reply given by the Council Presidency in Parliament on 4 December 2003 that the term reproductive health does not include the promotion of abortion and, inter alia, that abortion should never be presented as 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 the life and health of the mother and the unborn, including supporting the provision of resources to achieve these objectives.

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

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) While gender equality has been an integral part of the European Union’s development cooperation programmes for many years now, actual progress is still too slow. The European Commission therefore needs to set itself targets, in terms of figures and deadlines, so that 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: fundamental freedoms, 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’s physical integrity and human dignity (in the form of torture, traditional practices of mutilation and forced marriage). At the same time, cooperation must entail recognition of women’s place in society, which affects everything from access to knowledge through to financial independence. In addition, commitments are needed 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’s circumstances.

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

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

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

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

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

It is important to expand the micro-financing networks, because micro-credits can help improve women’s economic situation. I cannot understand why people are trying to table various draft amendments that weaken 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 empowering women 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 sexual and reproductive rights. As the majority of my colleagues have voted to include a number of amendments on 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 is an expression of European moral imperialism vis-à-vis the developing countries. It exports the sick social model of the rich European countries to the countries of Africa and Asia. The repeated references to reproductive rights denote support for generalised abortion. I was therefore unable to vote in favour of the report.

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

Nonetheless, I voted against the report because the substance of certain paragraphs in the final version, which refer to sexual and reproductive health in imprecise terms, remains ambiguous. Conflicting interpretations persist 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, for all women have the right to an environment that allows them to enjoy continuing good health. That means paying particular attention to supplies of safe drinking water, proteins and basic medication, alongside traditional medicines.

Since Gertrude Mongella’s visit on 6 March 2008, marking International Women’s Day, I would also say that we have a lot to learn from African wisdom with regard to gender equality: it is something that is lived there and is passed on in oral traditions among women and men who are blessed with good spiritual and mental 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 BIELAN
Vice-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 tragic events that have occurred in Armenia since the presidential election on 19 February 2008 send out the message that Europe is incapable of supporting the fragile little democracies of the South Caucasus in their struggle to become established?

Following the crisis in Georgia, it is now Armenia’s turn to suffer major political upheaval. Despite the high level of attention directed at the country during the election campaign, the international community failed to promote the dialogue that might have prevented the clashes on 1 March. After 11 days of protest against the election results by the opposition movement under former head of state Levon Ter-Petrosian, police tried to disperse the demonstrators. The situation degenerated, resulting in the deaths of eight people, injuries to many others and the imposition of a state of emergency with curbs on freedom of information and freedom of assembly, as well as restrictions on political parties. Since then, 400 people have been arrested. There is an evident mood of anxiety among the population, who fear that a policy of repression will be imposed. We have 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 getting them to the negotiating table against the current backdrop of heightened tension? That is the challenge. We need to restore the confidence of ordinary Armenian men and women in their fledgling democracy. Essential preconditions for restoring confidence are the setting up of an inquiry into the recent events and the release of those imprisoned. The next step – in conjunction with the international community, our Special Representative to the South Caucasus and our partners in the Council of Europe and the OSCE – must be to fix a timescale for our Armenian friends to return to the negotiating table, and we must bring all the conflicting parties to the table, on both the official and the opposition sides. The rules of democracy depend upon dialogue 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 to proceed for the fact is that we made a mistake in the resolution. In recital H we referred to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh where we should have said the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. It would seem that my colleagues agree with the oral amendment.

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

The election was mostly in line with our standards, as I said, but further improvement and political will are required to address remaining challenges. I express my deep regret and concern at recent developments that have taken place in Armenia, with violent clashes between police and opposition demonstrators that led to the death of eight citizens and over 100 injured. It goes without saying that we expect a transparent and independent investigation of the events that took place and the partial lifting of the state of emergency which was 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 out a full lifting of the state of emergency. On behalf of my group, I call upon all parties involved to show openness and 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 on the line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh and we strongly urge the parties to refrain from any actions that could undermine the negotiation process. We urge them to stay away from the loud and catastrophic power of 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 fledgling democracies in the former Soviet Union to trust the electoral process. Those who hold power are tempted to stack the cards in their favour, especially in the run-up to elections, whilst those who lose find the results difficult to accept.

The problems we have seen in post-election Armenia have been compounded by violent clashes, resulting in 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-day period. The ban on political activities has subsequently been lifted. Media freedom, including unrestricted internet 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 been put 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 place their trust. It is, therefore, regrettable that the outgoing President has attacked his country’s human rights ombudsman, who criticised government actions. It is only by strengthening the role of the ombudsman and also 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 to make 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 uncertainty as to whether the preferred candidate of the ruling government has actually won a true majority of the votes as well as just a large number of votes. Even where that candidate does have a true majority, doubts remain about 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-endorsed candidate has access to press, radio and television, when the opposition or foreign observers are not able to monitor the count properly, when peaceful protests against the officially declared results are broken up by army and police and opposition leaders are arrested, there is every reason for very serious doubt that the will of the electorate has been upheld.

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

When the Russian province of Transcaucasia was divided up along ethnic lines in the 1920s the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, populated by Armenians, was given to Azerbaijan by way of a compromise, with a guarantee of regional Armenian autonomy. That solution is no longer workable in the post-Soviet era, since the two states of Azerbaijan and Armenia are now enemies. In fact the territory is currently occupied by Armenia, 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 authoritarian government 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 get democratic conditions restored and the rights of the opposition reinstated. The wishes of the European Union or its Member States for good relations with the de facto rulers of countries like Russia, Belarus, Georgia or Armenia must take second place behind this prime imperative.

  Marios Matsakis, author. − Mr President, Armenia is essentially a relatively recently re-born country, struggling to strengthen its democratic institutions and safeguard the well-being of its citizens whilst squashed between two not-so-democratic but rather hostile neighbours, namely Russia and Turkey, and whilst being disturbingly and 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 international observation 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 resulted in 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 is also warranted into allegations that external forces are instigating violence in Armenia in order to destabilise the 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 elections in Armenia gave rise to no serious protests. What is happening there today must be seen in the specific context 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 outrage at the news I have just received of the murder of Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul. He was abducted 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, who kidnap innocent victims, ordinary people pursuing religious activities – mostly Christians, mostly Catholic Christians. 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 heroic martyr who died today in Mosul.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu, on behalf of the PPE-DE group. – (RO) What happened in Armenia must be vehemently condemned but unfortunately it was not a surprise. There are other quite similar events in another country in 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 economic development, latent conflicts, and the influence of the Russian Federation. On top of all that we have the situation in Kosovo which, despite all considerable but useless efforts of the authors, will form a precedent for all those interested. For the population in the region, it can only result in insecurity, lack of confidence in the authorities, and vulnerability to manipulation.

There is only one solution to restore a state of normality: economic development that will generate a higher standard of living. There are energy resources. The development of such resources and of their transit will solve the problem of economic development, as well as that of independence from the Russian Federation and 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 the Southern Caucasus, the Union must take active steps in the development of energy routes in the Black Sea region.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (LT) When a country that participates in the European Neighbourhood Policy and is favourably disposed towards the EU holds a successful democratic election, it is 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 the international 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 no freedom of speech.

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

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

During the presidency of Levon Ter-Petrosian the country began to depart sharply from liberal and democratic standards. The main opposition parties were banned, freedom of the press was restricted, and parliamentary elections were generally recognised as not meeting all democratic criteria. Mr Ter-Petrosian resigned as president under the pressure of demonstrations. That brought some stability to the country, but it was ended by 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 perhaps be due to the weariness of Armenian society with the governments of the so-called Karabakh Clan, to which both the former and the present president belong. The government is widely accused of restoring authoritarian rule 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 in the unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. When Mr Ter-Petrosian decided to return to politics and stand 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 is not at all certain. If not, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh may be stepped up in an attempt to unite society around the government. A recent incident in Karabakh in which 11 people died confirms this fear. Another result may be a further strengthening of Armenia’s increasing dependence on Russia. The recent inauguration of the Armenia-Iran pipeline will not weaken that dependence, since the gas, and the pipeline itself, will of course be controlled by Gazprom.

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

  Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the outcome of the presidential election of 19 February 2008 was a factor in the political destabilisation of Armenia, although it should be emphasised that 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 brutal repression on 1 March ended with eight people dead, many others injured, and the declaration of a state of emergency. Restrictions on the media and the arrest of more and more members of the opposition are causing serious concern.

We call on the Armenian authorities to restore civil rights without delay, end the state of emergency, respect human rights and determine who was responsible for the tragic events of 1 March 2008. Investigation of this matter must not be a pretext for further persecution of the opposition. The situation in Armenia is very difficult 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 not as 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 settle this long-lasting conflict. There are areas occupied by Armenia which should be freed because there are no Armenians there. What is really worrying is that both countries are in the process of rearmament, which, of course, 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 situation very closely, because it is worrying.

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

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

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission keeps a 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 the Member 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 fields of democracy and human rights.

In relation to the tragic events that occurred in Yerevan on 1 March in the aftermath of the election, the Commission 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 establishment of a thorough investigation and for the prosecution of persons who broke the law. We have also called on the Armenian Government to lift the state of emergency immediately. The Commission believes it is important that all sides should refrain from using force. We expect all parties in Armenia to commit to political dialogue as the means of overcoming their differences.

At the same time, the Commission also deplores the shadow cast by the recent events on Armenia’s increasingly positive progress towards implementation of its ENP action plan, particularly in the areas of human 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 therefore use 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 the observance of principles based on our shared values. We are firmly convinced that an ongoing dialogue with Armenia, conducted in accordance with the policy provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and the ENP Action Plan, is indeed the most effective means of conveying the European Union’s messages about respect for human rights and international law. The annual meetings of the Cooperation Committee and 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 with financial and technical assistance. Supporting political reform in the areas of human rights and democracy continues to be a priority in the national indicative programme for 2007-2010. Approximately a third of our bilateral aid – which will amount over that period to EUR 98.4 million – will be used to assist relevant projects. More specifically, the 2007 bilateral aid programme with Armenia is targeting financial support in the field of judicial reform, to the tune of EUR 18 million. I am sure that the European Parliament will back us in that effort and, indeed, will be our staunchest ally.

  President. − The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes.

9.2. Russia

  President. − The next item is the debate on five motions for a resolution on the arrest of demonstrators following the presidential election in Russia⁽¹⁾.

  Bernd Posselt, author. − (DE) Mr President, in the run-up to drafting this resolution, some of us were accused of being enemies or opponents of Russia. We are just the opposite! We are friends of Russia, we are concerned about democracy and the rule of law in this important European country. We protest vehemently against the imprisonment of opposition activists who did no more than draw attention to a fact that has been noted by 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 prisons and work camps for a long time, like the so-called Yukos prisoners Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, and I support Chancellor 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 unique opportunity to make a new beginning, to move towards democracy and the rule of law and towards a less nationalistic and aggressive foreign policy. That means, however, that he will have to extricate himself from the 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 Chancellor Schröder, sing the praises of the Putin system and allow themselves to become involved in the propaganda and in the economic and nationalistic interests of that system, who are Russia’s friends; no, Russia’s friends support 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 that President Putin has endangered will finally be suffocated, and that cannot be in the interest of Europe or in the 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 beginnings of liberal capitalism; from the nuclear threat of the Cold War to the initiation of friendly disarmament and military cooperation talks with the West. At the same time, more democratic reforms in the country have been instituted and the standard of living of the Russian people has been increasing steadily.

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 but we 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 that these were held in a more democratic fashion than previously, although there was still the problem of unequal access of candidates to the media. But, let us be honest, is this a problem we do not have ourselves in the EU Member States? Unfortunately, we do.

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

Yes, we condemn the unfair treatment of candidates by the Russian state-run media; yes, we condemn the undue use of force by the Russian police against protesters, but we do so in exactly the same way and with the 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 and my group did not co-sign the resolution. The reason why my group did not do so is not to avoid having a discussion today. It is not because we think that we do not need to discuss these matters and not because we think there are no problems in Russia, nor is it because we think we do not need to address the implications of the Russian presidential elections, but rather it is because we strongly believe that, when we are dealing with 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 on our 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 us in tackling regional conflicts and global challenges, and that much remains to be done to develop the full potential of our relationship. We need to be able to have an extensive exchange of views in this House, but also with the Commission and Council, on how to formulate a pragmatic approach cooperating in issues where 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 issue in a time slot of 20 minutes on a Thursday afternoon, and this is the reason why my group cannot support the 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 many candidates were eliminated before the vote. Once again opposition activists protesting against the result of the election were forcibly dispersed. And once again the West is surprised, on three accounts. First, that in Russia 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 civilised western state can understand that country. The Russian mentality is completely different, as those who have always been Russia’s neighbours, like many Central and Eastern European nations, can testify. We know full well 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 change that 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 with which we desperately want to conclude strategic partnerships. If not democracy, then rule of law is the key point here.

27 February: an activist of The Other Russia coalition was released from a mental hospital in the Russian city of Tver. Roman Nikolaychik was a victim of punitive psychiatry. Political pressure increased on him after 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 hospitalised for 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 Natalya Morar, a correspondent of The New Times magazine, demand that the leadership of the FSB ceases her anti-constitutional detention in the customs area of the Domodedovo airport, and opens the Russian border for her.’

4 March: thousands marched in Moscow and in the streets of St Petersburg. In Moscow, where authorities refused to grant a permit of assembly, dozens were arrested as police rushed the crowd with batons. Nikita Belykh, the leader of the Union of Right Forces Party, was carried off by camouflaged OMON Special Forces troops. Lev Ponomarev, the chairman of the For Human Rights movement, and Denis Bulinov, the executive director 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 reporter of 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 detained by the militsiya for ‘being in a polling station without authorisation’. Her newspaper is run by Golos, an independent electoral monitoring group. A reporter of Vpered (Forward), a local daily from Khimki in the Moscow 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 agreements with Russia concern not only increased cooperation in the economic, security and energy spheres but also respect 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 were subjected to much tighter rules on the right of assembly and peaceful demonstration. What is more, the main daily newspapers and radio and television stations were placed under close government control. The march organised by opposition parties on 3 May at first did not receive the approval of the Moscow authorities and then ended with the arrest of the participants, including the leaders of the opposition. Regrettably, the recent election showed that democracy and respect for the rule of law are not strong in Russia. I refer not only to the use of disproportional force by the police during the demonstration but also to the hostile attitude to the OSCE observation mission.

The international community is entitled to expect from Russia’s new president more than an assurance that democracy will continue to be built in the world’s largest country, namely concrete measures such as a review of 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 election campaign nor the election itself complied with the rules of democracy. During the announcement of candidacies there was not even an attempt to keep up appearances. The media were under constant pressure not to publish information critical of the candidate backed by the president-in-office. The opposition’s access to 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 Russian authorities’ earlier declarations on respect for human rights. I must admit that such declarations are credible only to people who do not know Russia. The infringement of democratic principles during the election was followed by protests, brutal repression of a demonstration and the arrest of demonstrators. Russia has decidedly 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 see that 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 strong European Union in the future. I very much regret that the elections in Russia did not take place without any interference from the authorities. On the other hand what we are lacking, like so many times before, is a simple demonstration of basic respect, on our part, for the work that has been carried out and for the culture of 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 quality of 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 Kremlin voluntarily 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. These technologies, 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 about the 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 the infringement 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 as arrests, but the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe had to call off its observation mission because of the excessive restrictions imposed by the Russian Government. The Russian authorities exerted pressure on opposition groups, tolerated electoral fraud and subjugated the media. Non-governmental organisations 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, the discrimination against national minorities and the restrictions on independent organisations. We must however bear in mind that Russia does not have democratic traditions. The short period of democratisation that begin in 1864 ended in 1917 with the establishment of Soviet Russia, a typical totalitarian state, led first 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 of the democratic process even when the opposition is a minority and threatens only to reveal the truth, which they want to conceal at all costs.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Just two points. I have no problem at all in supporting this resolution. But of course we all know that Russia is too important a supplier of energy and so the European heads of state and government 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 Saudi Arabia, the passion for human rights of all these authors of fundamental rights charters must yield to Realpolitik. So let us be under no illusions.

Secondly, ladies and gentlemen, replace 'Russia' in this resolution with 'Belgium' and the text remains every bit as relevant. Because it is not so long ago that in Belgium too, police were incited to beat up peaceful demonstrators on orders from the mayor of Brussels. In Belgium too, the opposition is to a large extent denied access to the media. In Belgium too, politically appointed judges banned an opposition party at the request 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 first and deal with these sham democrats.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – Mr President, Russia is a great country, a global player, a member of the UN Security Council 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 the plight 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 Ramzan Kadyrov remain widespread and systematic. In the period leading up to the elections the Russian authorities tightened 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 appeal for 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 not being 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 pay too 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 support that consciousness-raising process.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I agree with the previous speakers that good neighbourly relations between the 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 on political, security, economic and, above all, energy issues. On the other hand, we must not remain silent about the breaches of democracy and political freedom in Russia. We have to express our dissatisfaction in cases where we are given advanced notice of a breach of democracy, as happened in the case of disqualification of presidential candidate Mr Mikhail Kasyanov.

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

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

Why financial difficulties? Because, in the preceding election to the Duma, political broadcasts made under an 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 illegal on 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 personal comment. I heard the contribution from Mr Dillen, representing a Belgian party of the far right, who indulged in a quite disgraceful comparison between circumstances in Belgium and those in Russia. Obviously I am bound to refute his assertions. I recognise in them the familiar methods to which his party habitually resorts and which merely amount to a form of insult. Let me state very clearly that such methods reflect no credit on those who employ them.

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

In a month’s time, we shall have one of our two annual consultations with Russia on the subject of human rights. These consultations give us an opportunity to explore general trends in human rights in greater depth and to hear the Russian point of view on individual cases. In the forthcoming consultation we will convey our concerns, particularly about the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, the problems posed by the rise of racism and xenophobia, and cooperation with Russia in international organisations such as 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 which work for human rights. Such meetings put the European Union in touch with the concerns of human rights activists and enable us to exchange views directly.

Looking somewhat further ahead, we should soon be in a position to embark on negotiations on a new agreement 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 statement following the Russian presidential election pointed out, we have a common interest in furthering our ties and we hope that our partnership will be consolidated and developed constructively under the presidency of Dmitri Medvedev. We will take care, when negotiating the new agreement, to ensure that it reflects the values to which both sides have committed themselves: a thriving civil society and independent media are the 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 future relations. I know already that the European Parliament will lend us its unstinting support in these efforts.

  President. − The debate is closed.

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

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Mr President, I am always amazed at people who make high demands on American democracy but often have very low expectations of Russia. That is humiliating for Russia and the Russians. From the great and powerful one should expect more, not less. Those who condemn the methods applied in Guantanamo and the fight against terrorism, who look for the footprints of the CIA and CIA conspiracies in Europe, ought perhaps to scrutinise Russia more thoroughly. But such people, and the politicians who share their philosophy, do not want to hear about human and civil rights in Russia. On the 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 not breach the Russian constitution and left office of his own accord. That is no achievement, it is a minimum rule 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 good to me.’ ‘What do you mean, good?’ the questioner replies. ‘He beat you didn’t he?’ ‘Yes,’ says the child, ‘but he could have killed me.’

  Katrin Saks (PSE), in writing. – (ET) Mr President, I would just like to say that I do not, unfortunately, support my 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 seen what 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 not allowed to participate in the elections or express their views on the situation in the street with people after the elections, it is important to express my own view. Otherwise, we will end up in the same situation as the Council 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 as I would like it to be. I believe that as a democratic institution it is our duty to take a principled and courageous stand in expressing our opinions on an important issue such as this concerning free elections.

(1) See Minutes

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

  President. − The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the case of the journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh and the debate on four motions for a resolution on the case of the Iranian citizen Seyed Mehdi Kazemi⁽¹⁾.

  Nickolay Mladenov, author. − Mr President, I will link this discussion to the previous debate on Russia because I strongly believe that, if we believe in a core set of values, we cannot uphold them only in countries that 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. We should fear the day when the European Parliament stops debating these resolutions and stops standing firmly for 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 be different. This is a core message that we need to pass on to our partners in Russia, and we need to pass it to our partners in Afghanistan.

President Karzai and the Afghan Government have committed themselves to building a democratic, modern state. 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 European value.

The case of the Afghan journalist Mr Kambakhsh is even more perplexing, because he has been sentenced to 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 to intervene on his behalf and use their powers to spare his life and to make sure that he is pardoned at the end of 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 function as a democratic and modern state, support civil society and, most important of all, continue our commitment to the security of Afghanistan.

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

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

I agree with previous speakers that we should not be more indulgent towards powerful countries like Russia and China. As Mr Mladenov quite rightly said, the standards should be the same for all. I would also point out that those who say we should be more indulgent towards China or Russia because they are powerful states are wrong on two accounts. First, because the standards must be the same. Secondly, because the fact that governments have to make certain compromises is a different matter. In the history of Europe, parliaments have always been the conscience of the nation. And parliaments cannot make such compromises as we unfortunately 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 in Afghanistan's constitution. And yet the journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, far from the capital Kabul, because of an article on women's rights under Islam which he did not even write himself. His brother writes critically about local leaders, so clearly that was not helpful to Perwiz's case.

This death sentence came as an enormous shock, even in countries with a large Muslim population. Journalists in Pakistan, in Iran, in Qatar, everyone is painfully aware of the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression everywhere, worldwide. In the teeth of considerable opposition, in spite of ultraconservative clubs that hold no brief for freedoms, women's rights or open debate. Even though those conservatives need freedom 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 of the 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 years has been in a state of continuous turmoil and chaotic tension. Poverty, illiteracy, tribal violent rivalry, drug barons, 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, and hope for freedom of speech and democracy.

Such is the case concerning a young journalist, Perwez Kambakhsh, who dared to circulate an article about women’s rights in Islam, which he had downloaded from the internet. This brave act was considered blasphemy in accordance with Palaeolithic-era sharia law and he was sentenced to death by hemi-encephalic fanatically blinded so-called judges in a so-called regional court in northern Afghanistan. As we all know, women in fanatic Islam terms are regarded as little more than pieces of furniture and any attempt to dispute this is met with 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 happens sooner rather than later. Since the West, including the EU, has a formidable military presence in Afghanistan and since the West, including the EU, pours billions of euros in financial aid into that country, I think we are perfectly correct in demanding that not only the young man in question be immediately and unconditionally released, 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 and letting 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 concerning Mr 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, Mehdi Kazemi, who is from Iran, and where the British Government, in this case, could make a difference. Many of 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 record in Iran. We believe that it is a dangerous country for homosexuals. Indeed, we have seen the bodies hanging from 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 suggest that what constitutes ‘discreet’ behaviour in Iran is rather different from what that might mean in our own Member States. But the issue is that for many, in certain countries, whether they are in Iran, Jamaica or elsewhere, 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 know there 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 numbers have 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 not about 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 British Government 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 crimes against 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 the right to freedom of expression, stipulating that freedom of expression must not be restricted and that every Afghan must have the right to express his ideas in speech, image and the written word and through any other medium. Despite this, the 23-year-old journalist, Perwiz Kambakhsh, has been sentenced to death in an unlawful trial, and his legal rights are being denied him. The trial is closed to journalists and organisations working for human rights. The so-called crime was that he had disseminated an article on the situation of women under Islam.

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

  Marco Cappato, author. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the case of Mehdi Kazemi we are having to 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 the hands of an executioner and a dictatorship such as Iran, the answer would undoubtedly be that it was unimaginable. However, the unimaginable may well happen, and is about to happen, despite the reassurances that are being given. That means that something very serious is happening, that Europe is being gripped by a 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 human rights and life, have not yet been abolished. If Mr Kazemi is put to death, no one will really be able to shift the blame onto bureaucratic procedures, unless they resign themselves to the view that that is solely what Europe is about: bureaucratic procedures, nation states which are so powerful that they cannot even manage to save a life.

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

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

We demand that the Afghan authorities release Perwiz Kambakhsh and that the Afghan Government restore respect for human rights, especially the right to life. May I be so bold as to hope that Afghanistan will rapidly introduce 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 Iranian President, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, solemnly declared to the United Nations that there was no problem of homosexuality in Iran because, quite simply, there were no homosexuals there. What he failed to say was that 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 and threatened with death because of being a homosexual is a matter of utmost concern and shows that the promotion 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 consider persecution on grounds of sexual orientation a sufficiently important factor for automatically granting asylum in cases such as that of Mehdi Kazemi. Unfortunately, this is not the first case of this type, and it will undoubtedly not be the last. The fact is that there are still many countries where the LGBT population continues 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 in the just petitions made in the resolution we are submitting today, especially in relation to full implementation of the Qualification Directive, which recognises persecution on grounds of sexual orientation as a determining factor in the granting of asylum. Similarly, it provides for Member States to consider cases on an individual basis, taking into account the circumstances in the country of origin, including its laws and regulations and the manner in which they are applied.

It is also necessary for the Member States to find a common solution which ensures that Mehdi Kazemi is granted refugee status and the protection he needs within the European Union and that he will not be returned to 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 Human Rights under which expulsion and extradition of persons to countries where there is a high risk of their being subjected to persecution, torture or even the death penalty, is prohibited.

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

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

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) I am pretty appalled by the Mehdi Kazemi case and the fact that we are not all just saying without further ado that he should be given asylum: I urge the representatives of the Dutch and UK Governments, along with members of this House who plan to vote against this resolution, to stop and think: what exactly is the purpose of the rule of law? Is it to enforce rules and procedures correctly and to 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 Kazemi and, naturally, against his being deported to Iran. Yet we are against this resolution because it does not concern, as intended, an urgent case, but asylum law in the European Union in general and the relationship between 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 domestic policy 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 entirely different.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I support both these resolutions. But it is my country that is proposing to send a young teenage man home to his death in Iran. A death already suffered by his friend. Not for any crime, but because of his sexuality. It is my country which in the past has had the proud boast that it has an absolute standard that we never send people back to face a penalty worse than they would suffer if they were facing 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 country which, if it does not relent in this case, should hang its head in shame. I hope that this Parliament will not have 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 to coordinate action and adopt positions in defence of human rights. That applies to the case of an Afghan journalist sentenced to death by a court in a northern Afghanistan province for distributing an article on women’s rights in Islam. During his trial he was refused the right to defending counsel and was subjected to various forms of physical violence. Yet the Afghan constitution contains a clause on the right to freedom of speech.

As we see, law and reality do not coincide. Many governments guarantee respect for the Declaration of Human Rights but shut their eyes to the way it is applied in their own countries. That should make us even more 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, despite my Group’s concerns, to some extent founded, that some of the content of the resolution may be put to wider use, there is no getting away from the fact that the information we are receiving from Iranian sources and authorities is unambiguous. Mehdi Kazemi’s fate, if he returns to Iran, is death and it is for that reason that 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 us this opportunity to talk with you about the cases of Perwiz Kambakhsh in Afghanistan and the Iranian citizen Mehdi Kazemi.

In relation to Mr Kambakhsh, we obviously share all your concerns and we are following the case closely on the ground through our delegation to Afghanistan in cooperation with the head of mission and the EU Special Representative. We have raised the case repeatedly with the Afghan authorities, most recently with the 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 Afghan Parliament 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 discreet diplomatic activity. Judging by the current political climate in Afghanistan, it will be harder to secure Mr 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 be ready to take further steps in the event of the death sentence being confirmed on appeal. Almost 30 years of armed conflict have wrecked Afghanistan’s judicial system. We have therefore made reform of the country’s judicial institutions a priority in our programme of aid to Afghanistan. We already have experts working there with the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice, with a view to professionalising those institutions at both central and provincial level. The European Commission programme will also help the authorities to put in place a new legal-aid system – something that is sorely needed in Afghanistan, as this case has shown. There is currently no firmly established, independent Bar and no access to public legal aid. I am very hopeful that the Commission’s judicial reform programme – being implemented in close cooperation with the EUPOL Afghanistan police mission deployed under the ESDP – will help to improve 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. The Dutch and British authorities are currently considering Mr Kazemi’s case very carefully. With regard to the protection of refugees, we would point out that international law stipulates, notably in the Geneva Convention in relation to the status of refugees, that no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, 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 makes no distinction between sexual relations freely entered into and forced sexual relations. In the latter case it would seem that, where the penalty is pronounced for lavat in conjunction with other offences, the term normally denotes rape. It goes without saying that the Commission is categorically opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, and all the more so where no crime has been committed. The situation of homosexuals in Iran is a cause for concern. Violations of the right to private life and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are entirely at odds with Iran’s obligations under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it has ratified.

The European Union conveys these messages about human rights to Iran in a general way and also through action on a number of fronts. Unfortunately, Iran has not yet accepted our offer to resume bilateral dialogue about human rights. Nonetheless, in our discussions with Iranian representatives, we emphasise that we wish 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 relations with Iran cannot develop satisfactorily.

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

  President. − The debate is closed.

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

(1) See Minutes

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 been agreed with the main political groups. It is to replace in the PPE-DE Group amendment the word ‘by’ Turkey to 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 earlier on, which is to replace the word ‘territory’ with the word ‘status’. I understand that this is also acceptable to the 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)

- Before voting commenced:

  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 be unintelligible.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

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

- Before voting commenced:

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

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

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

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

On 10 December 2007 the Council praised Croatia for its overall progress in the past year which has enabled the country to move into the next, significantly more important and more demanding phase. The accession talks 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 industrial policy; 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 – Financial and budgetary provisions.

Accession talks with Croatia at permanent representative and ministerial level are also planned for the first half 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 the acquis 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 efforts on 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 cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) must continue, with further improvements 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 Council again urged Croatia to meet its obligations regarding this, referring to its decisions of December 2007 which called on Croatia to comply fully with the agreement of 4 June 2004 and on no account to enforce the ecological fishery zone, within which a fishing ban applied to EU Member States too, until such time as a common agreement had been reached within the spirit of the EU. The Council will raise this issue again at its next meeting and has thus asked the Commission to continue talking to the Croatian authorities and to brief the Council accordingly.

Unless the countries of south-east Europe join the EU it will not be possible for European integration to be described as a success. Slovenia has been a full member of the EU since 1 May 2004, whereas the Croatians are 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 further complicated Croatia's accession negotiations with the EU.

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

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 conferences are 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, significantly more important and more demanding phase

Notwithstanding this, however, the issue of the ecological fishery zone (ZERP) needs to be addressed. On 18 February 2008 the Council again urged Croatia to meet its obligations regarding this, referring to its decisions of December 2007. The Council will address this issue at its next meeting and has asked the Commission 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 of this revised accession partnership will be to intensify efforts to find a definitive solution to outstanding bilateral issues, in particular the question of Croatia's borders with Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to resolve the issue of the ecological fishery zone. Conduct of the accession partnership is of crucial importance to the continuing accession process.

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The matter of conditions in prisons is the responsibility of Member States, not of the EU. Neither the EU Treaty nor the current Treaty or Reform Treaty confers any powers in this regard. Consequently no direct legislation can be enacted. But the Treaty does confer responsibilities for justice cooperation between Member States. The Council of the EU has already taken a number of measures on this basis, and two documents are of relevance here: the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic with a view to adoption 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 supervision order. The Council has already reached agreement on the former decision, and the Slovenian Presidency of the Council will work to secure agreement on the latter.

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

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The honourable Member will undoubtedly be aware that the Council sets great store by the proper and timely transposition and implementation of Community legislation in the Member States. This is also part of the extended 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 Internal Market Scoreboard, which reports marked progress on transposition of the internal market directives into national law, demonstrating that in 22 Member States the transposition deficit is currently below the interim target of 1.5 per cent set by the European Council in 2001. At the same time the large number of proceedings for infringements of the Treaty, brought against Member States for inadequate or incorrect application of the internal market rules, is worrying. In view of this the Council, in its key issues paper for the spring European Council meeting, pointed to the importance of transposing and implementing the Services Directive in a comprehensive, coherent and timely manner. This was also emphasised in the relevant key issues paper adopted by the Council on 12 February 2008.

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

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 large numbers of poor people, are very important for reducing hunger in developing countries. After the EU set the objective that biofuels should account for one tenth of all transport fuels by 2010, EU farmers began to invest actively in growing rape because they saw significant financial interest and potential in doing so. Some farmers 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 meet the 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 not put at a financial disadvantage and that levels of food aid to third countries are not reduced? What will be done to ensure that efforts to realise one objective will not lead to other objectives being sacrificed?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The honourable Member's question alludes to the undertaking given by the European Union to make an active 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 as effective 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 food aid without strings, not least to ensure that it is effective. In line with the recommendations of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee, the European Union believes that all forms of food aid should be given solely on the terms that also apply to subsidies, that is to say they should be entirely unconditional, based on a systematic assessment of need and paid in cash. The EU's implementing partners obtain food aid primarily from local and regional markets. The World Food Programme (WFP), for example, one of the EU's main implementing partners, sources about 80% of its aid in the developing countries. So the Council does not consider that extending rape cultivation in the EU diminishes the Union's ability to meet the requirements of those who need food aid.

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

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

Can the Council make a comprehensive statement outlining any new initiatives it is pursuing to stop illegal drug 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 who are co-ordinating their activities to combat cocaine importations into Europe from Africa and from South America?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

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

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

3. Exchange of intelligence by Latin American police forces and European liaison officials dealing with the drugs 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-financed 76 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, poverty reduction and the growth of democratic institutions. At the same time measures to reduce drug production are also subsidised – for example the cultivation of alternative crops to provide a living for farmers who previously grew coca.

The European Commission and European Parliament have also discussed these programmes and ways of coordinating 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 the EU countries will propose the adoption of a resolution which could have major implications for the introduction of illicit drugs into the EU via West Africa. The resolution envisages joint and better coordinated action by international organisations and UN member states to counter illicit drug trafficking and the transportation of cocaine through these countries, and it pledges help and support to the governments of states 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.

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

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

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

The Council is deeply concerned at the worsening security and humanitarian situation in Darfur. It regards it as most important that relief organisations should have constant, unimpeded and secure access to the population. Notwithstanding the recent extension of the moratorium on restrictions on and obstacles to humanitarian work in Darfur it has called on the Sudanese Government to respect the undertakings it gave under 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 humanitarian tragedy of over ten thousand refugees and displaced persons. Increasing tensions between the Governments of 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 might destabilise the region further and in particular to end their support to armed groups operating in eastern Chad and Darfur. Both Governments must fulfil the obligations they gave to prevent incursions by armed groups across their common frontier.

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

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

Equitable and sustainable management of water resources is key to sustainable development and the eradication of poverty. No strategy for the reduction of poverty can ignore people’s vital requirements for water. In this context the EU Council remains fully committed to attaining the Millennium Development Goals, including Millennium Development Goal No 7 (to ensure environmental sustainability) and target 10 thereof (to reduce by 2015 half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water).

In the European Consensus on Development⁽¹⁾, which was signed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 20 December 2005, the protection of natural resources such as water is defined as a key dimension of poverty eradication. The document also states that the aim of the Community integrated water resources management policy framework is to ensure a supply of sufficient, good-quality drinking water, adequate sanitation and hygiene to every human being, in line with the Millennium Development Goals and targets laid down at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002. 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 an expression of the EU’s common desire for innovative approaches to water and sanitation. The initiative contributes to the policy goals described earlier by means of the following: reinforcing political commitment to action; focussing attention on water- and sanitation-related issues as part of efforts aimed at poverty reduction and sustainable development; encouraging improved water management; encouraging regional and sub-regional cooperation on water management issues; and catalysing additional funding. At the same time the initiative offers a framework for establishing strategic water- and sanitation-related partnerships with Africa, Latin America, the Mediterranean countries and the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia (EECCA). The initiative is supported by EUR 500 million from the 9th European Development Fund earmarked for the ACP-EU Water Fund.

The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)⁽²⁾, which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council 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 Millennium Development Goals and sustainable and efficient use of water resources, including for agricultural and industrial purposes.

Access to safe water, water scarcity and drought are and will remain the principal EU priorities both internally and externally. In its conclusions of 14 December 2007⁽³⁾ the European Council welcomed the Council conclusions 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-EU Strategic Partnership⁽⁴⁾, which was approved at the Lisbon Summit on 9 December 2007, states that water resource management and access to safe water and basic sanitation are crucial both for economic growth and poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Africa and the EU will therefore work together to develop further the existing EU-Africa Partnership on Water Affairs and Sanitation with the overall objective of meeting basic water and sanitation needs and contributing to improved water resource management at local, river basin and catchment, national and trans-boundary level.

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

As part of its implementation of the communication ‘Global Europe – Competing in the World’ the Commission 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 in the TDI system.

One of the conclusions of this public consultation is that the proper functioning of the TDI system is not necessary to defend industries in the Community from unfairly traded or subsidised imports and ensure public confidence in fair trade. At the same time it was established that it would be necessary to remodel certain elements of that system.

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

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

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

In light of the Commission proposals to introduce an EU PNR system COM(2007)0654, an entry-exit system and 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?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

First of all, the Council would like to point out to the honourable Member that neither the EU, the Council nor the Council of Europe has an established definition for profiling. In his opinion on the Commission proposal for a European Passenger Name Record (PNR) system the European Data Protection Supervisor referred to the definition of profiling taken from a study by the Council of Europe and at the same time stated that he is aware of the ongoing discussions on the definition of profiling. Furthermore, the EDPS acknowledged that the main point is not about definitions but rather about the impact on individuals.

The proposal for a European PNR⁽¹⁾ system put forward by the Commission does not create profiling as defined by the Council of Europe study. According to that study, profiling is essentially a computer-assisted method which uses data analysis to enable individual measures to be taken in relation to a person identified in 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 ‘risk indicators’, in order to assess the risk that a passenger may pose. These risk indicators are based on the evidence obtained from reports, for example intelligence reports, and from previous examples. Risk indicators will be determined at the level of the Member States since a crime may differ from Member State to Member State. The Commission proposal expressly rules out the possibility of basing risk indicators on sensitive data such as on ethnic origin and religious belief, where the PNR data contain such information. The Council would nevertheless like to stress that Article 3(5) of the Commission proposal expressly states that the passenger information units and the competent authorities must not take any enforcement action solely on the basis of the automated processing of PNR data. In other words, enforcement action on the basis of PNR data, including decisions on individuals, may not be taken without a human factor, that is to say by the law enforcement authorities.

On 13 February 2008 the Commission presented a communication on preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union.⁽²⁾ This communication presents for discussion possible new border management instruments, including the possible setting up of a system of entry/exit registration for nationals of 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 creation of a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)’⁽³⁾ and the ‘Report on the evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX Agency’,⁽⁴⁾ will be discussed at the Ministerial Conference on the Challenges of EU External Border Management to be held in Brdo, Slovenia, on 11 and 12 March 2008.

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, a group 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 Schengen agreements, halted at the Pese border crossing the coach in which the exiles were travelling to Roditti and then to Capodistria) and with due regard to the duties which EU accession imposes on Slovenia as well (the country which currently holds the EU Presidency), does the Council not think that it should investigate this scandalous example of police behaviour? Does it not consider that it should condemn the intimidation practised by the police?

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The incident to which Mrs Muscardini refers falls within the competence of the authorities of the relevant Member 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.

Unless the most elementary justice is done by the US authorities, it will be ten years this coming 12 September that António Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez, Gerardo Hernández, Ramon Sabañino and René González have been 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 by organisations with their headquarters in Miami. It should be stressed that the UN Working Party on these five Cuban citizens imprisoned in the USA was of the opinion, on 27 May 2005, that the sentence passed on them 'had not been reached in a climate of objectivity and impartiality', and that the Eleventh Circuit appeal court of Atlanta decided, on 9 August 2005, unanimously to annul the sentence handed down in Miami. 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 elementary human rights, and the application by the US Administration of intolerable and cruel obstacles and restrictions with 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 Cuban citizens imprisoned in US jails are respected, with specific reference to their right to receive visits from their families, the rescinding of their sentences, their right to a fair trial, and their release?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council is aware that the authorities in the USA have in some cases not permitted family members and other 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 Arbitrary Detention, 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 therefore comment on the matter. The decision on granting a visa to enter the territory of a country also falls within the internal competence of that country. Since the majority of visa applications have been approved and it cannot be established that relatives are regularly denied visits, the Council cannot argue that there has been a violation of the human rights of the prisoners or their families. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides that the individual State is responsible for defending the rights and interests of its nationals abroad.

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

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?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council wholeheartedly supports the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime and has adopted a framework decision on attacks against information systems whose wording is similar to that of the Convention.⁽¹⁾ 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.

The Commission announced its alcohol strategy in the autumn of 2006. This indicated that alcohol was a public 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 its conclusions. What is the Council's view of the Commission communication on the alcohol strategy and how it should be applied?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

At a meeting on 30 November 2006 the Council welcomed the Commission’s Communication on an EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm, which represents a major step forward towards a comprehensive and coordinated Community approach to resolving the problem of the harmful impact of excessive alcohol use on health and well-being in Europe. An Alcohol and Health Forum, whose overall objective is to establish a common starting point for all stakeholders at EU level who undertake to promote measures to reduce alcohol-related harm, was established in 2007 as a basis for implementing this strategy.

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

Furthermore, the Council has stressed that it is necessary to provide comprehensive, consistent and coordinated means of preventing alcohol-related harm to public health and safety in all relevant policy areas, such as research, consumer protection, transport, advertising, marketing, sponsorship, excise duties and other internal 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 from 2008, to report regularly on their progress in implementing the EU strategy and on the activities on which the Member States report in order to enable the Council to assess the results attained. The Council has also asked the Commission to develop measurable key indicators for monitoring progress in reducing alcohol-related harm at Community level.

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

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

The Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, Konstantin Kossatšov, has publicly said that because several Russian citizens have been barred from entering Estonia, Russia could respond by restricting 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 Mariana Skvortsova, 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 Schengen State are curtailed on account of the lawful border and security policy of another Schengen State?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The conditions for the issue of visas by the Member States taking part in the Schengen cooperation are set out in the Common consular instructions on visas for the diplomatic missions and consular posts (CCI)⁽¹⁾; the conditions for entry of third-country nationals into the Schengen area are set out in the Schengen Borders Code.⁽²⁾

The Council has been informed that Commission representatives notified the Russian authorities of the arrangements applicable to the issuing of visas at meetings of the visa facilitation Joint Committee⁽³⁾ between the Russian Federation and the European Community.

The Council is not aware of any restrictions on entry into the territory of the Russian Federation which the Russian 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.

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

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

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

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 Group already been established, who are its members, how were they chosen, what are the sources of funding for the group’s activities, what are its areas of activity, and what outcome is expected? What will the Reflection Group do that the Convention could not and that the European Parliament, elected by all citizens of the EU, cannot?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The advisory group to which Mrs Budreikaitė refers was set up by the European Council at its meeting on 14 December 2007. At the same time it appointed a chairman and two vice-chairs and invited them to submit a list of names of possible members to be considered by the European Council during the French Presidency.

The group’s scope, organisation and timetable, which the European Council also agreed at the meeting on 14 December 2007, are set out in the conclusions of that meeting.

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

The EU regularly concludes fisheries agreements with poor developing countries outside the Union. These agreements are criticised by the environmental movement and aid organisations alike. The fisheries agreements are concluded primarily with African countries. The agreements give European fishing fleets the right to fish in those countries' waters. Critics consider that the fisheries agreements contribute to the depletion of world fish 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 which are concluded with third countries? Does the Presidency intend to take any initiatives to modernise and, in the long term, abolish such fisheries agreements?

The Council Presidency's answer, which is not binding on either the Council or Member States, was not delivered orally during Question Time with questions to the Council at the European Parliament's March 2008 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council is aware of the criticisms of the fisheries agreements which the Community has concluded with third countries and would like to stress that the Council Conclusions on Fisheries Partnership Agreements⁽¹⁾ 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 surplus fishing stocks in the waters of the relevant third country and that part of the Community’s financial contribution 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 performance of the agreement and to implement fisheries policy in the country to which the Community has allocated financial support. The joint committee may also decide on possible amendments to the agreement which must 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 communication proposing a change to the nature of the fisheries partnership agreements.

Recent statistics show that in 2004, at Union level, only 3.3% of students attended a doctoral course. The Czech Republic, Austria and Finland ranked first, with 7%, with respect to the number of doctoral students compared 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-based economy. The promotion of tertiary education and doctoral studies will enable companies to create highly qualified and productive job positions.

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

The number of 3.3 %, to which the Honourable Member refers, concerns only doctoral students and other advanced 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 higher than those in the US or Japan. However, the percentages and absolute numbers of doctoral students vary considerably between EU countries. Some of the countries with a high percentage of doctoral students have relatively few students in higher education overall, so that the total number of doctoral students is not very high in relation to the population.

In order to boost the number of postgraduates in engineering, it is important, first, to increase the numbers of graduates in mathematics, science and technology (MST). That is why the Commission proposed a benchmark, adopted by the Education Council in May 2003, that aims to ‘increase by 15% the number of graduates in Maths, Science and Technology’ and ‘decrease gender imbalance’ by 2010. While the first target has already been achieved, there has been very little progress on the gender balance aspect, with the share of 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 countries in the field of MST education in the framework of the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme. In 2006, the Commission has set up a Cluster group, composed of 13 countries, to follow the European MST benchmark and to improve participation in MST studies and careers, especially regarding women. It shall also contribute to preparing scientific specialists for the Barcelona objective of reaching 3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in research.

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

The importance of lifelong learning is recognised in all EU countries. Adult education provides flexibility and 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 not developing innovative learning programmes or ensuring rapid, high-quality and effective implementation and funding of these programmes. Non-formal and informal learning are clearly not being implemented quickly enough.

What initiatives is the Commission taking, and what initiatives does it intend to take, to reduce the gap between countries actively and passively implementing this programme?

To influence the situation in adult learning in Europe the Commission establishes benchmarks, applies the open method of coordination and develops reference tools and communications. In addition, the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) provides financial support.

The EU has already set up a benchmark in 2003 to improve and monitor progress as regards the participation of adults in education and training. The aim of this benchmark is to measure the participation of adults (25 to 64 year-old) in lifelong learning to 12.5% by 2010. Moreover, the same target of increasing participation of 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. In 2006 an average of 9.6% of Europeans aged 25 to 64 participated in education and training activities. Progress must be quicker in the future and additional efforts by many EU countries are needed to reach the benchmark of a 12.5% participation rate in 2010.

The best performing countries are Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom (UK) and Finland, followed by the Netherlands, Slovenia and Austria. All the remaining EU countries still have rates below the European average 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:) and adults with high education participated much more in lifelong learning than low skilled adults. Participation also decreases as age increases.

The Commission, in order to further promote adults' lifelong learning and reduce the gap between countries actively and passively implementing this initiative, has adopted two Communications on Adult learning. In the first one in 2006 "It is never too late to learn" the Commission sets out a general approach on developments and needs in the adult learning sector. The second Communication in September 2007 "It is always a good time 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 analyse the effects of national reforms on adult learning. As the adult learning sector touches all the other fields of education it is important to analyse the effects of developments in these areas and their interaction with the adult learning sector. Most Member States are developing a National Qualification Framework linked to the European Qualification Framework. These developments are focussed on how to facilitate access, progress and transfer and are thus potentially important for opening up qualification systems to adults. The Commission will also develop standards for adult learning professionals and quality assurance mechanisms, based on existing good practice. Member States will be encouraged to set targets for increasing the skills levels of adults and to speed up the process of assessing and recognising non-formal and informal learning for groups at risks. Last but not least the Commission will propose a set of core data to improve comparability in the adult learning sector.

In addition to this policy, the LLP and, in particular, its sectoral programme "Grundtvig" provides financial support to transnational projects in the area of adult education.

Recently the Commission has published a brochure with 20 outstanding Grundtvig projects - "Grundtvig Success Stories. This brochure presents examples of best practice and encourages other stakeholders to follow 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 da Vinci programme, for example, has set as one of its priorities for multilateral projects for the period 2008–2010 the "skills development of adults in the labour market".

Article 151(1) of the EC Treaty requires the Community to 'contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity'. At present, however, support from EU 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 are losing out. This is happening despite the fact that such associations not only are long-established protectors of 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 to counter this in future?

The Culture Programme 2007-2013 was designed after consultations with the cultural sector. The cultural operators' 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 civil society 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 picture of the range of activities which will have been funded by the programme. However, an information system is 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 traditions in music and dance in particular. Such events bring various European cultures together and are, as the Honourable Member rightly mentions, in this sense transnational.

The Commission listens to cultural stakeholders closely and their views have been taken into account in the changes made to the calls for proposals under the new programme. The Commission hopes that an even wider 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 with the Member States and not with the Commission.

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 this matter form part of international trade negotiations?

Moreover, how can the Commission ensure that the global consensus on a comprehensive and fair post-2012 climate change framework, as outlined at the Bali Conference in December 2007, begins to form part of the global trade agenda?

Climate change is a global priority requiring urgent global action. The best way to achieve effective and collective action is through a global climate change agreement. This is why the main objective of the EU is to make sure that negotiations initiated in Bali in December 2007 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) towards a comprehensive and ambitious post 2012 climate agreement 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 and competitiveness perspective since it is clear that the best way to avoid trade friction as well as competitiveness concerns is through an internationally agreed framework on climate change.

Trade policy should respond to the needs and indications of global climate change negotiations and deliver responses where relevant to maximize synergies and ensure the necessary mutual supportiveness between trade and environment. More particularly, it should further work on enhancing the positive contribution of trade towards addressing climate change, both regarding mitigation and adaptation needs. Tariff and non-tariff liberalisation of environmental goods and services should be strongly supported since it will contribute to the 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 the current multilateral trade round in the World Trade Organization (WTO). It invites other countries to come forward 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, environmental assessments of trade policies (such as the EU Sustainability Impact Assessments) can and should play a role in 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 the new generation of Free Trade Agreement negotiations. We are trying to facilitate trade in environmental goods, services and technology and to promote the implementation of internationally agreed environmental standards. We are also trying to set up a forum to discuss sustainable development issues, including with civil society.

More generally, in Bali, Indonesia launched an informal dialogue on Trade and Climate Change at Ministerial level in the margins of the UNFCCC conference. This should help to further build a common understanding on the link between trade policy and climate change efforts, taking due account of their development dimension.

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have experienced spectacular growth as of late and have emerged as significant global 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?

The Commission is following the activities of sovereign wealth funds and is carefully monitoring recent developments in this area.

The Commission adopted a communication on this matter on 27 February 2008⁽¹⁾.

The communication identifies and clarifies the issues raised by sovereign wealth funds. In so doing, the Communication seeks to respond to concerns about sovereign wealth funds. It lays out elements for EU expectations as to the governance and transparency of sovereign wealth funds. These elements should contribute both to arriving at a common EU approach on this issue and to discussions taking place at international level, such as in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-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 of capital has been a long standing goal of the EU and is key to the EU's success in an increasingly globalised international system. Member States have legislative and regulatory instruments to monitor and intervene on grounds of national security considerations. Thus, any European response to the concerns raised by sovereign wealth fund investments should preserve this balance and avoid giving any signal that Europe is no longer open to legitimate investors.

Can the European Commission make a comprehensive statement outlining the state of play of the World Trade Talks at present?

As the Honourable Member knows, it was decided at the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial to front load a deal on so-called modalities for trade and industrial products (or "NAMA" in WTO jargon), which would precede a final deal covering all issues under negotiations. The objective of a modalities deal is to agree on the main figures as regards tariff cuts and, in the case of agriculture also subsidy cuts. The deadline for such a deal has been pushed back several times. The stage has now been reached of trying to put in place the elements of such 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 NAMA issued revised versions of negotiating texts. These texts should ultimately form the basis for Ministerial negotiations leading towards a deal on modalities. However, a key concern as regards these two texts is that they do not yet provide sufficient certainty as to whether a sufficient balance could be achieved between agriculture and NAMA.

In the area of agriculture, we have engaged with 3rd countries, in a manner which responds to their ambitions but which remains within the framework of the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. These objectives 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 and that concessions in one area should be balanced by gains in other areas. As regards industrial goods, the Chair has unfortunately chosen to issue a revised text which could lower the level of ambition which can be achieved. 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 clear to other WTO Members. Whilst we can live with the fact that the vast majority of developing countries should 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 their level 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 borne in mind that, a deal on modalities would not be a final deal yet. It would settle key issues on agriculture and trade, but on the other negotiating issues, a final stage of negotiations would still be required until we can reach a final deal. But we will try to ensure that the modalities deal also provides sufficient comfort as to the final stretch of negotiations on other issues such as services, rules (anti-dumping and subsidies), geographical indications, 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.

Various United Nations reports have warned of growing inequalities in recent years as regards income and social and economic conditions both between countries and in many cases within countries, in circumstances where poverty and unemployment figures remain high or are rising while the big multinationals' profits and the concentration of wealth increase - developments which are obviously not unconnected to the liberalisation of trade and capital at world level.

In the light of the recent revised proposals on agriculture and access to the market in non-agricultural products, what revised proposals is the Commission putting forward for the WTO negotiations, with particular reference to agriculture, non-agricultural products (including textiles and clothing) and services? What is the Commission's view on the need to revise the current negotiating mandate, given that the liberalisation of trade in agriculture, industry and services will aggravate economic and social inequalities, jeopardise food sovereignty and public services and encourage relocations and social and environmental dumping?

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 clear that trade openness cannot operate in a vacuum: a whole range of other policies, good governance and a stable 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 of trade-led growth are probably found in Asia. China is an obvious pioneer in this sense. But similar trends can be seen in smaller Asian countries, for example Viet Nam, or even amongst Least Developed Countries such as Bangladesh. At the same time China, as well as other emerging economies, pay increasing attention to accompanying socio-economic challenges such as increasing income and wealth inequalities and social cohesion and the effective implementation of labour law.

UNCTAD⁽¹⁾ 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 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⁽²⁾ offer an opportunity to further use trade to foster development, 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 same capacities to absorb trade liberalisation. Substantial parts of the DDA negotiations are about Special and Differential Treatment for developing countries so as to provide for a sliding scale of commitments to market opening (be it on industrial or agricultural products or services), effectively depending on the level of development of particular groups of countries. The vast majority of developing countries in the WTO will take only very light commitments, in many cases in particular for least developing countries, not requiring any 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 tariffs are amongst the lowest in the world, emerging economies still have high average tariffs and often very high peak tariffs. In any event, even these countries will have to open their markets to a lesser extent than developed countries 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 the contributions 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 dimension in every aspect of the Doha Work Programme. The Commission further wants to remind the Honourable Member that agreement has already been reached on several measures to help the poorest developing country Members of the WTO to fully benefit from the opportunities that would be offered by a successful DDA outcome, 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⁽³⁾ cooperation on the relationship between employment/social policy and trade, and the Commission provides active support on developing decent work indicators and assessing the link between trade, employment and decent work in the context of the thematic programme 2007-2013 on human and social development ("investing in people").

Following the accession of Ukraine to the WTO on 5 February 2008 there are no longer any obstacles to a free trade agreement between the EU and Ukraine. The first round of negotiations commenced on 17 February 2008. 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 the Commission in the course of negotiations ensure that the Ukraine is able to increase exports to the EU in the long-term under the new free trade agreement? What will be the trade advantages for the Ukraine in general under the free trade agreement? How will the Commission ensure that negotiations with Ukraine take 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 at grassroots level?

The General Council of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) endorsed Ukraine's accession on 5 February 2008 following which negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Ukraine, as a core part of the New Enhanced Agreement were launched. Following the official opening on 18 February 2008 in Kiev by Commissioner Mandelson and Ukrainian President Yushchenko a short first round of negotiation between chief negotiators, concentrating on organisational matters, followed. We agreed with Ukraine to have negotiating rounds, if possible, every 8 weeks. The first full round of negotiation is foreseen for the week of 21 April 2008 in Brussels.

The European Union intends to negotiate a deep and comprehensive FTA with Ukraine, that will bring Ukraine as close as possible to the internal market. The agreement should go beyond the classical FTA provisions 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 is expected to lead to significant gains for Ukraine. The study also concluded that the FTA would reinforce existing trends in Ukraine: sectors in Ukraine with a competitive advantage are to win and those with a competitive disadvantage risk losing, unless they can improve their competitiveness. However, an overall positive result is expected.

Concerning information of the public on the ongoing negotiations, a Civil Society Dialogue meeting on the EU-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.

Although Russia is an important member of the G8, it continues to lag behind in having an adequate intellectual property regime for business. It needs to undertake numerous legal reforms to modernise its copyright system and improve enforcement thereof, before legitimate markets for both Russian and European right holders can be established. Russia has still not ratified the WIPO Internet Treaties of 1996 and its actions to fight Internet piracy are weak. Owing to EU pressure the notorious Allofmp3.com site has recently been shut down, but similar sites are still operating in Russia and must be closed down in parallel with the commencement 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 for Russia’s accession to the WTO. Will the Commission oppose Russia’s accession to the WTO until such times as it proves to have an effective IPR regime by adequately implementing its TRIPS obligations, ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties and fighting Internet piracy?

Russia has unilaterally increased its tariffs on unprocessed timber exports to a level which is gradually bringing to a halt the importation of Russian timber into EU Member States. How serious does the Commission consider this problem to be in relation to Russia's membership of the WTO and does the Commission intend to continue discussions with the Russian authorities to secure a reduction in these tariffs?

Russia's accession to the World Trade organisation (WTO) is, first of all, in Russia's own interest. If Russia wants to continue its economic modernisation course, to further diversify its economy and to attract much needed 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 WTO membership will mean that Russia has to comply with international trade rules. The scope for arbitrary discretion 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 the same way.

What is still to be done in Russia's accession? In fact, we have only a few outstanding issues on the table. The reality is that on the very large majority of issues, we have already found an agreement or are confident that the Russian legislation is in compliance with WTO rules.

As regards Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Russia still has many challenges in this area, most of them relating 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 compliance with the WTO requirements. For the Honourable Members' information, the new Chapter IV regarding IPR of the Civil Code entered into force on the 1 January 2008. We are working closely with Russia to further improve 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 for timber. As the Honourable Members may be aware, this is currently the most important outstanding issue for the EU in Russia's accession process. The Commission's view is that the decision to significantly raise the export duties on wood was not justified. The Member of the Commission in charge of Trade met with Deputy Prime-Minister Kudrin recently to discuss this and is likely to meet again with him in the next few days. The Commission is convinced that a solution can be found, provided that both sides have the political will to reach such an agreement.

In light of recent WTO talks and the publication of eight new working documents on market access, can the Commission comment on what concessions have been proposed in relation to European agriculture and furthermore its intention on any further concessions on agriculture in the context of the crucial role that agriculture plays in ensuring food security, traceability and a sustainable environment?

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 Crawford Falconer, chairperson of the agriculture negotiations, on 8 February 2008.

In pursuing the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, the Commission continually monitors the EU position in relation to its mandate, including through an assessment of the proposed modalities especially in relation to market access concessions, notably cuts and treatment of sensitive products. In fact, compared to what was contemplated under the October 2005 EU offer, what is being discussed today remains in the same range and would have comparable macroeconomic effects.

Ensuring food safety, traceability and a sustainable environment are essential elements of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. Accordingly, for the agricultural negotiations it is absolutely clear that the 2003 CAP reform is Europe's important contribution to the DDA and constitutes the limits for its negotiating brief in the WTO round. The margin of manoeuvre provided by this reform can only be used on condition of equivalent concessions from our WTO partners in agriculture and elsewhere. An overall outcome which is not balanced would not be acceptable.

Besides the recent problems of quality control and traceability which have prompted the withdrawal of hundreds of thousands of dangerous toys imported from China and which are the subject of a series of measures adopted by the Commission, can the Commission tell me the terms of the agreements between itself and China whereby it can be ensured and, if need be, checked that the manufacture of imported products takes 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 expansion of these commercial activities taking place at the expense of health, safety and respect for human dignity?

The Commission strongly condemns any attempts of promoting economic development at the expense of workers' 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 Promotion of the Social Dimension of Globalisation⁽¹⁾, the Social Agenda⁽²⁾, and the promotion of Decent work⁽³⁾. Furthermore, all EU Institutions have strongly supported this policy and adopted various Decisions and Resolutions that provide a general framework for the development of our bilateral cooperation with China on Employment and Social Affairs.

The EU cooperation with China on this particular issue has evolved very positively since 2005, when it signed the first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Social and Employment issues with the Chinese Ministry of 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 the social security system, the adequate implementation and reform of Labour legislation, and health and safety of workers. Although important improvements are necessary, it has been conducting a very constructive dialogue with the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has followed the recent developments and will monitor closely the new Chinese “Labour Contract Law” that came into effect as of 1 January 2008. The new law is a major improvement to the Chinese labour contract system by defining the rights and the obligations of the parties. It welcomes the fact that the new labour law, if properly applied, could and should lead to a considerable improvement of employment conditions in China.

As a token of the importance that the Commission places on employment and social standards in its relations with China, the Member of the Commission in charge of Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities made 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 Labour and 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, complementing the technical cooperation with the Chinese authorities in this important domain still absent from our bilateral dialogue. We are also currently discussing with the Chinese authorities the establishment of an ambitious training 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 committed to strengthening multilateral initiatives within the context of the ILO, and supporting all measures conducive to promoting the Decent Work Agenda in China.

In its resolution P6_TA(2006)0355 on the protection of the European natural, architectural and cultural heritage in rural and island regions, Parliament called on the Commission to draw up programmes for the restoration of traditional communities and to support cooperation between various bodies in connection with the implementation of programmes designed to restore their traditional forms of architecture in such a way as to avoid detracting from their character, while restoring any subsequent incompatible features to the original.

What measures has the Commission taken so far to achieve this specific objective?

The Commission attaches great importance to the protection of European natural, architectural and cultural heritage. Regional policy, rural development and support for cultural actions are among the leverages that can be used to further heritage protection and promotion.

In the context of Cohesion Policy investment in the protection of architectural and cultural heritage is explicitly encouraged in the Community Strategic Guidelines (cf. Article 2.1 which calls for "measures that seek to … preserve and develop the historical and cultural heritage with potential spin-offs for tourism development") since it contributes to the sustainable development of Member States. Moreover, historic heritage is an asset in the context of Member States' policies to stimulate tourism. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Regulation for the period 2007-2013 provide, inter alia, support for the "Protection and development of natural heritage" and for the "Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage" as well as for the "Development of cultural infrastructure".

Furthermore, under the support for urban and rural regeneration, measures to support historic heritage are also eligible. However, in the context of the shared management model of regional policy, the initiative to include or not heritage protection measures in the actual programmes supported by the ERDF, belongs to each 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 to conserve and upgrade rural heritage under certain circumstances⁽¹⁾. According to available data, Member States have planned to implement this measure in at least 70 Rural Development Programmes (out a maximum of 86 programmes), mobilising investments for a total budget of €1,280,000 EAFRD for the whole 2007-2013 programming period. In addition, other rural development measures make a positive contribution to the protection 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, the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission has supported initiatives related to the preservation of cultural heritage in the context of the European Cultural Heritage Prize, for which Europa Nostra has been selected as the organising body. The selection for the 2007 edition of the Prize included the Mihai Eminescu Trust for its integrated approach to heritage conservation. The Trust is based in London (UK), under the patronage of His Royal Highness (HRH), The Prince of Wales, and is dedicated to the conservation and regeneration of villages and communes in Transylvania and the Maramures (Romania). A top award was also given to the preservation project of the fortified village "Santo Stefano di Sessanio", situated in the heart of the Abruzzi highlands, near l'Aquila in Italy for its work on preserving a typical medieval urban landscape. The Culture Programme 2007-2013 is also able to fund cultural heritage networks (two were selected within the 2007 call for proposals).

Finally, the Commission also cooperates actively with the Council of Europe with regard to the organisation of European Heritage Days. This includes financial support for the organisation of events and for ensuring the visibility of the initiative.

In view of the significant number of immigrant minors who enter the EU in an irregular situation and the special protected status granted to them under international agreements, what action is the Commission intending to propose in order to help the governments of the host countries to attend to their needs and to facilitate their return to their countries of origin and their reintegration into family life?

Unaccompanied minors are in a very vulnerable situation and need constant support to meet their specific needs.

Whenever applicable, the EU immigration and asylum legislation has always taken into account this reality and insisted on "the best interest of the child" to be the primary consideration of Member States when carrying out 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 have been 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 by means 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 External Borders Fund, the European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals and the European Return Fund. The overall amount for the programme is of € 4020.37 million for the period 2007–2013, and actions aimed at minors are included.

The Strategic Guidelines of the European Fund for the Integration of Third Nationals foresee five specific priorities, one of these being actions aimed at specific target groups (women, children, etc). The co-financing by 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 vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied minors. It has a budget of € 699.37 million for the period 2007-2013. On top of the annual allocation of resources for eligible action in Member States, this Fund will grant a flat rate of € 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 other things, 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 around 420 projects to provide protection from, and to prevent, various forms of violence against children, young people and women. Some were specifically targeted at unaccompanied minors.

Will the Commission state whether it has requested that the issue of inadequate implementation of EU legislation by Member States be placed on the agenda of any meetings of the Council of Ministers scheduled to take place during the Slovenian Presidency?

The Commission has not requested that the issue of implementation of EU legislation in the Member States be 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⁽¹⁾, it should be recalled that the Commission has adopted a Communication on the application of Community law⁽²⁾, which was transmitted to the Institutions. The Commission is actively working on the implementation of the actions announced in its Communication. A group of national experts has been convened by the Commission to discuss the Communication during the Portuguese Presidency. This is the forum that has been chosen by the Commission to take such discussion forward with Member States without excluding that the possibility that some issues identified in the Communication will be put on the agenda for a formation of a Council meeting in 2008. A meeting of this expert group was organised in December 2007, the next one is planned for 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 the Competitiveness Council of 25 February 2008.

In the Justice, Freedom and Security area, a yearly Scoreboard is also presented by the Commission since June 2005.

By 31 January 2008, Written Declaration 0088/2007 on investigating and remedying the abuse of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union had been signed by 439 MEPs, making it an official position of the European Parliament. The declaration calls upon DG Competition to investigate the impact that concentration of the supermarket sector is having on small businesses, suppliers, workers and consumers and, in particular, to assess any abuses of buying power on the part of supermarkets. It also calls on the Commission to propose suitable measures, including a regulation to protect consumers, workers and producers from any abuse of a dominant market position and other adverse effects identified in the course of the investigation.

In May 2007, the Polish parliament adopted a law on the establishment and operation of large supermarkets which exactly meets these expectations, by requiring the authorities to maintain a balance between different forms of commerce, while also ensuring compliance with the rules on fair competition in the field of commercial activity. On 31 January 2008, the Commission challenged these measures and demanded that they be amended, threatening that otherwise the case would be referred to the Court of Justice. How does the Commission plan to resolve the contradiction that clearly exists between the expectations of the European Parliament and its own actions in the field of concentration of trade?

The Honourable Member makes reference to the Written Declaration No. 88/2007 of the Parliament adopted on the 19 February 2008, on investigating and remedying the abuse of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union. The Written Declaration calls upon the Commission to investigate the impact that concentration of the supermarket sector may have on different market players and especially to assess any possible abuses of buying power on the part of supermarkets. It also calls on the Commission to propose suitable measures to protect consumers, workers and producers from any abuse of a dominant market position and from any other adverse effects should they be identified in the course of the requested investigation.

The Commission will inform the Parliament of its response to the Written Declaration, in accordance with the applicable rules governing the follow-up to be given by the Commission to the Parliament's non-legislative resolutions and more specifically those adopted during the February 2008 part-session.

As regards the letter sent by the Commission⁽¹⁾ concerning the Polish legislation on establishment and operation of retail facilities the Honourable Member is referring to, its aim is to raise the Polish authorities attention to the problems of compatibility of this new legislation with the freedom of establishment, a fundamental freedom enshrined in Article 43 of the EC Treaty and with Directive 2006/123/CE on Services in the Internal Market⁽²⁾. The Commission has concerns about the possibly discriminatory nature and the restrictive effects of the Polish legislation which requires an authorisation procedure for the establishment of new retail facilities and the operation of existing retail facilities greater than 400 square metres. The Commission notably will examine whether the new procedure is potentially excessively lengthy and costly, based on criteria some of which are not precise enough, leave room to discretionary power for the authorities and/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 other Community legislation. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that there is no contradiction with the expectations of the Parliament.

Can the European Commission outline what financial support measures it has in place to help the Palestinian people at this time?

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 quarterly basis 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 2007 amounted 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 and sanitation, 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 the communities living in Beit Lahia from a possible overflow of untreated water.

The Palestinian Reform and Development Plan, which the Commission supports through PEGASE, includes several projects in Gaza. The Commission stands ready to expand its development support in the Strip, as soon as the situation allows it.

Can the European Commission start the process of introducing a European-wide law, much in line with the Sarkozy-Olivenne initiative in France, which will criminalise the illegal downloading of pay-per-view sporting matches from the internet and which will ensure that internet service providers, when notified by police authorities of illegal sites, will shut such sites down?

According to the Commission's information, no action has been taken recently in France to criminalize the illegal downloading of pay per view sporting matches from the Internet and to ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) when notified by police authorities of illegal sites will shut such sites down.

A Memorandum of Understanding⁽¹⁾ between music and film producers, Internet service providers and the French Government was signed on 23 November 2007. Following this agreement France is preparing to change its law and to set up a new Internet authority with powers, in extreme cases, to order the suspension of access provision to the web for subscribers who illegally file-share copyrighted material. This will apply, however, to copyright infringements in the film and music areas only where criminal sanctions already exist in 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 emails to the infringer, it can adopt sanctions. In addition, a judicial action can follow and the judge can apply sanctions pursuant to criminal law provisions. This mechanism establishes a graduation in the determination and in the severity of the sanction to apply according to the seriousness of the infringement. The agreement also aims at reinforcing cooperation among right holders, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) platforms and ISPs in order to improve the legal use of the protected content.

At European level, the European Commission stressed, in its July 2007 White Paper on Sport⁽²⁾, that the economic viability of exploiting sports rights depends on the availability of effective means of protecting against the activities of infringers at national and international levels. However, it should be noted that sports image rights are subject to different legal regimes across the Member States. The Commission will be examining this issue this year when it launches a study to evaluate the financing of sports which will obviously include the sale of media and image rights.

The phenomenon of unauthorised internet streaming of live sporting events and P2P piracy is an example of the need to evaluate the existing arsenal of legal measures that allow rights owners to fight digital piracy.

The conditional access Directive⁽³⁾ 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 their remuneration, for example pay-TV services) through the extension of the protection against piracy across all 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 extends to 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 the development of new subscription type services, for example, Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), and to evaluate whether it requires extension, clarification and/or simplification. It has launched a public consultation on 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⁽⁴⁾, adopted in 2000, sets down the liabilities of internet service providers depending on the nature of the service(s) they offer (mere conduit, caching or hosting). The Directive also ensures that, when they are made aware of an infringement, ISPs are obliged to assist in procedures to take down the relevant site. It was hoped at the time of the adoption of the Directive that the relevant parties would agree to develop so-called notice and take down procedures for illegal and harmful information by stake-holders. Article 16 and Recital 40 expressly encouraged self-regulation in this field. This approach has also 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 focussed on copyright infringements. The Member States are monitoring developments in these fields through the E-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 live sporting events are frequently hosted outside of the European Union. In these cases, the only option is for right 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 events and P2P piracy should take into account both the need of rightholders to fight the piracy of their content over the Internet and the need to protect the fundamental rights of individuals - such as the right to privacy and personal data - in the digital environment. Indeed, the rationale of the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in the "Promusicae" case (C-275/06) can be equally applied to a scenario involving the need to combat the illegal downloading of pay per view sport matches from the Internet.

In its Communication on Creative Content Online⁽⁵⁾ adopted in January 2008, the Commission launched a public consultation on legal offers and piracy. This topic will also be dealt with in the "Content Online Platform", a framework for discussion at European level. A proposal for a Recommendation on Creative Content Online is scheduled to be adopted by the Commission during the second half of 2008.

Can the European Commission outline what initiatives it is pursuing internationally to combat the use of child labour around the world?

The Commission is of the opinion that child labour must be tackled at its roots: the Commission systematically pursues the objective of the protection and promotion of all children’s rights in its relations with third countries, through both political dialogue and the external assistance. In particular, the Commission aims through its political dialogue to encourage countries to ratify and adequately implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, its Optional Protocols and the relevant International Labour Organisation Conventions on child labour. The primary intent, then, is not to improve children’s working conditions 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 be promoted, 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, social dialogue and social protection, for example through benefits to discourage or remove the need for child labour and the promotion of education. Such a multi-dimensional approach is reflected in the Action Plan on Children’s Rights in EU External Action, which complements the Communication “A Special Place for Children in EU External Action”⁽¹⁾, adopted by the Commission last month. The Action Plan retains the issue 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 you know, the Commission promotes the effective application of core labour standards, including the fight against child labour, globally; the Commission can and should make a difference in improving labour standards around the world.

The Israeli authorities at Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv, recently subjected Dr Karim Hilal, a Greek national of Palestinian origin and holder of a Schengen enhanced security passport, to a humiliating interrogation and subsequently banned him, unjustifiably, from entering the country. Given that other Greek passport holders living in Palestine face similar problems, will the Commission say whether it is aware of the difficulties and 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 received from the Israeli authorities?

Will it ask the Israeli Government to ensure that the State security authorities respect the human dignity of European citizens visiting the country?

The Commission is aware of difficulties experienced by EU nationals in obtaining visa for entry into the Occupied 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 2006 and early 2007 to remedy these problems and to clarify the procedures to follow for the obtainment of a visa in order to live, visit or work in the West Bank or Gaza. The Israeli authorities explained to the Commission and 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, the Presidency, Commission, and Member States on the ground continue to monitor the situation closely. The Commission Delegation in Tel Aviv is in contact with the Greek Embassy to Israel on the specific case the Honourable Member is referring to.

In case the Greek embassy does not receive a satisfactory response to its questions, the Commission intends to pursue the case further, and might raise it in the appropriate forum with the Israeli authorities.

Article 149 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that '1. The Community shall contribute to 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 States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.'

Do Member States have the right to ban educational establishments operating on the basis of certification by educational establishments which award higher educational diplomas and are based in another Member State?

Article 149 of the Treaty does not give a right to Member States to ban educational establishments operating on the basis of certification by educational establishments based in another Member State. Education provided by establishments operating on the basis of certification by educational establishments located in other Member 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 educational establishment 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 freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in particular in Article 43 and 49 of the Treaty. Any restriction on educational establishments has therefore to be examined in the light of these Articles of the Treaty and the jurisprudence of the Court. For example, the Court has stated in its judgment C-153/02, Neri, that the organisation of university courses against remuneration is an economic activity falling within the chapter of the Treaty dealing with the right of establishment when that activity is carried on by a national of one Member State in another Member State on a stable and continuous basis from a principal or secondary establishment in the latter Member State. According to the Court's case law, in order to justify a restriction of a fundamental freedom, a restrictive measure has to pursue a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and justified by reasons 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.

From the answer to Written Question P-0498/06, it emerges that, for the period 2000-2006, Wallonia received as much as €672,430,656 under Objective 1 of the European Structural Funds and €164,445,783 under Objective 2.

In an interview with the 'Metro' newspaper of 4 February 2008, Mr Gérard Deprez (a French speaking liberal MEP and Chairman of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee indicated that European subsidies had not produced the hoped-for results in Wallonia compared with other regions. He referred to 'bad project choices' for which not only the Wallonian authorities but also the Commission were responsible, the latter having approved them.

How much funding has been earmarked for the period 2006-2013? What are the Commission's project evaluation and result assessment procedures? How does the Commission respond to the criticisms expressed by Mr Deprez?

With regard to monies allocated to Wallonia for the period 2000-2006, the Commission confirms the figures cited by the honourable Member, but it would also direct your attention to the following table, showing the breakdown 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⁽¹⁾)

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 Member States 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 managing authority then uses the list to decide which projects to cofinance. Determining the eligibility of projects in the 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 managing authority for each programme. Programmes may be amended throughout the period of implementation and there is provision for ongoing evaluation (either on a continuous basis or on specific dates). The Commission also carries out an annual review, with each managing authority, of progress in implementation of 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 as necessary.

With regard to the reported opinion of Mr Deprez, the Commission has no knowledge of the information on which Mr Deprez based his assessment.

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE) is responsible for the translation of 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 legal act 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 no translation of Community legislation is available.

Neither the EC Treaty nor the Treaty on European Union stipulate a deadline for publication of texts that should be made available in relation to the accession of a country to the European Union. However, Article 58 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 date of 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 languages were 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 recent case C-161/06, Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc, held that the obligations contained in Community legislation which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a new Member State, where that language is an official language of the European Union, could not be imposed on individuals in that State. This is consistent with previous case law which stated that obligations contained in legislation of general application cannot be imposed on individuals in a Member State where it has not been published in the language of that State.

It is worthwhile to mention that the Publications Office is not responsible for the translation of legislative acts in case of enlargement. The obligation to translate texts that had been adopted prior to accession lies rather with the country in question, while texts being adopted following accession are being translated by the Institutions, which have adopted the legislative act. The Office is responsible for the publication.

What project management and civil engineering standards must be met by Phare construction projects in Romania, 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 properly or the cement topping freezes. Is the sinking of concrete piles and the application of topping authorised under freezing conditions?

The civil engineering standards for works contracts financed under Phare are specified in the internationally recognised contract framework (FIDIC⁽¹⁾). Since accession, works contracts are implemented under national procurement rules of Romania.

The provisions of the Financing Memoranda for Phare typically specify FIDIC Contracts and an engineer to supervise the contracts. Works contracts under Phare financing have been awarded using FIDIC conditions of contract. Works contracts are managed and supervised by FIDIC engineers. In addition, the engineer has to comply with the applicable provisions of Romanian law on the quality of construction. According to this law, the control of the construction's quality is done by the State Inspectorate on the unitary application of legal provisions within the construction sector⁽²⁾.

The standards to be used in bad weather conditions are defined by the same national legal framework summarised 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 in Romania 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 respective budget.

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 (the latter is not recommended unless exceptionally, setting the concrete has started when low temperatures have occurred)⁽³⁾.

The British Olympic Committee has included a clause in the contracts to be signed by athletes selected to compete in next August's Beijing Olympics under which only those athletes who sign an undertaking not to criticise China in any way, particularly as regards human rights and the annexation of Tibet, will be allowed to attend.

Does the Commission not consider that this is a blatant violation of freedom of thought and expression, not in keeping with the spirit of the Treaties?

It is under the responsibility of United Kingdom authorities to examine the case in question, which has no relation with Community legislation, in order to ensure full respect of freedom of expression in line with its obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Can the Commission state what practical European Community initiatives exist for intercepting drug shipments from North Africa to Europe?

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 aware of the evolving drugs trafficking patterns in the Mediterranean basin and the related challenges for law enforcement.

In this context, seven EU Member States have signed an international agreement on 30 September 2007 in order to set up the Lisbon based Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre - Narcotics (MAOC-N). MAOC-N matches up-to-the-minute intelligence with military and law enforcement assets to provide a rapid response to drug traffickers attempting to supply the EU with cocaine. It establishes a coordination point to counter drug trafficking by sea and air in an operational area extending from the Cape of Good Hope in Southern Africa to as far north as the Norwegian Sea. Its core focus is on non commercial vessels and aircraft, primarily from the South American and West African regions. The agreement also provides for the possibility of extending the operational area into the Western Mediterranean Sea.

The Commission is following developments closely and supports parts of its initial capacity building measures financially and has an observer status since 1 January 2008. The European Police Office, Europol, plays a significant role in the fight against drugs trafficking by providing the national law enforcement authorities with an efficient support.

Moreover, its Organized Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), to which the MAOC-N contributes, develops a threat assessment of current and expected new trends in organized crime across the EU, including of course that of drug trafficking.

In parallel, some similar regional initiatives are evolving in other regions, including the Mediterranean basin.

In Item XX 01 02 11 04 of the Commission's 2008 budget, the Council and Parliament together asked the Commission to carry out 'a study on the feasibility of and obstacles to the creation of a federal police force for the European Union'.

What progress has the Commission made with this study? When is the target completion date?

In the course of the 2008 budget procedure, Parliament called for a study to be conducted on obstacles to the 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 immediately announced that it would not support such a study because the Commission’s policy aimed to improve cooperation among the different police forces of the Member States initially through implementation of the instrument transposing the Prüm Treaty provisions into European law, and not through the creation of a ‘European Union federal police force’.

The Commission announced its alcohol strategy in the autumn of 2006. This indicated that alcohol was a public 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 applied in future in the Commission's work, or will it merely be one document among many?

The Communication on a European strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol related harm adopted in October 2006 sets out clearly the Commission's approach to alcohol and health. It addresses all these areas of concern in a balanced manner, focusing on alcohol misuse and harm – rather than demonising alcohol consumption in general.

Alcohol-related harm is a major public health, social and economic concern across the EU. It kills almost 200,000 people a year in the EU, mainly from diseases related to excessive alcohol consumption, but also due to alcohol-related road accidents and acts of homicide and violence perpetrated under the influence of alcohol, 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 and across EU policy fields, and by working in close partnership with Member States to help co-ordinate national alcohol 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 concrete actions at all levels, targeted at protecting European citizens from the harmful use of alcohol. A first round of 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 on alcohol-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 the 1.3 billion € annual budget have been spent simply to get rid of wine that has no market. A profound reform of the wine Common Market Organisation (CMO) was therefore necessary.

The recent wine CMO reform takes due account of health and consumer protection, mainly by envisaging the gradual removal of market measures that have led to the production of low quality wine. This aims at encouraging Europeans to "drink less but drink better" while discouraging the production of cheap and low quality 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 supported and does not justify an excessive enrichment of wines.

The new wine CMO also addresses promotion and information aspects. Wine is an agricultural product included in Annex I of the Treaty and the promotion of agricultural products, including wine, is regulated by Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries. The new wine CMO gives the possibility to Member States to reinforce this kind of promotion actions in third countries and to encourage information campaigns on moderate and responsible consumption by co-financing them at 60%.

The EU has now reached the second stage in the development of the common asylum system. The purpose of 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 also has the aim of increasing practical cooperation between Member States. This includes cooperation with regard 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 and correct asylum procedures, it is necessary to have access to country information which is of a high standard and provides an accurate and balanced picture of the country of origin. Country information is a key tool not 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 to country 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 the European 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 for country information projects? And what plans does the Commission have for the next call for proposals in 2008?

The collection, examination and presentation of data on countries of origin are essential aspects of Member States’ decision-making on applications for asylum. Country information enables the competent national authorities 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 countries of 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 to the work of the EURASIL network of experts.⁽¹⁾ Since 2006, in cooperation with the competent national authorities 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 common portal would be a useful additional resource, particularly for those Member States where country-information systems are less developed.

A technical feasibility study was concluded in 2007 and a pilot project linking two national databases is to run in 2008. At the end of this test phase, the Commission will bring forward proposals to establish a portal linking 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 question contain classified information.

The budget for transnational activities initiated by the Commission and financed from the European Refugee Fund is limited. For that reason, when programming the activities each year, the Commission takes a strategic approach, 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 coordinated by the Austrian Red Cross, obtained finance from the European Refugee Fund to develop a durable network of NGOs and bodies representing asylum seekers, addressing the matter of information on countries of origin. The implementation process gave rise to constructive dialogue between the voluntary sector and national authorities. The Commission also opened meetings of the EURASIL network, which it chairs, to the consortium so that the latter could present the results of its projects to the national bodies responsible for handling asylum applications.

The 2007 call for proposals focused firstly on consolidation of projects – and particularly projects run by NGOs – to tackle the problems of vulnerable groups and individuals and, secondly, on specifically encouraging Member States’ national authorities to develop transnational cooperation projects on the management of country 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 the 2008 European Refugee Fund call for proposals for European activities.

Does the Commission have a specific plan to assist the new Member States in eastern Europe with their growing shortfall in electricity supply?

These countries have seen the closure of dangerous nuclear power stations and face the dismantling of several outdated coal-fired power stations because of much stricter environmental protection requirements. The situation threatens to bring economic growth in many eastern parts of the European Union to a standstill.

Does rich Europe, which has, to a large degree, already dealt with the problems of environmental protection and modernisation of its energy base, wish to remove potential competitors from the market? Or will we support fair internal competition as a means of aiding the development of the European market and its competitiveness in the global economy by helping to solve this problem affecting large parts of Europe?

In European legislation, it is each Member State's responsibility to monitor generation adequacy in the country. 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. Such problems are part of the mission of the European Coordinators in regard to the integration of offshore wind power 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 energy efficiency proposed by the Commission in October 2006, when implemented, should limit the demand growth, improve generation capacity and reduce transmission losses.

Concerning the development of a competitive market, the Commission is working actively to ensure that fair and level market conditions are established and followed inside the EU, which is believed to be the best way to address electricity generation adequacy. This is why the Commission, in September 2007, proposed the third legislative package for the internal market in electricity and gas⁽¹⁾. A properly functioning internal market providing the correct investment signals is the best answer to facilitate the security of electricity supply. Individual investment decisions into new generation capacity are up to market players.

Under Commission Regulation (EC) No. 303/2007⁽¹⁾ of 21 March 2007 fixing the export refunds on pigmeat, the Commission offsets the difference between world market and internal market prices by means of an export refund to assist the pigmeat sector in the current market situation where high feed costs are entailing 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 the Commission explain why these products are not eligible for refunds

and say when they will be included on the list?

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 volume shipped to Japan.

For many years, EU pigmeat exports have accounted for around 30% of the global trade. Most of those exports are made without the help of refunds. The provisional data indicates that the EU's share was maintained also in 2007 in spite of the unfavourable Euro/United States (US) Dollar exchange rate. The EU exporters were 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 recent years. The Commission expects this will continue to be so, without subsidizing. During the last pig market crisis, 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 particular interest for our exporters and if appropriate, will not hesitate to propose an adjustment in the refunds.

In Lithuania, when a private individual builds accommodation, the electricity company Rytų skirstomieji tinklai (Eastern Distribution Networks) refuses to connect the property to the existing electricity main, citing insufficient capacity. The individual has to cover 40% of the cost of constructing a new main from the substation to the property and, often, of building a new substation as well. The company has the right to connect more consumers to the newly constructed main.

Having financed the enlargement of the infrastructure of, and the acquisition of property by, a (state or private) energy company, the consumer has no rights of ownership over the property and receives no reductions on the energy supplied.

Can the Commission comment on this state of affairs? Is this not an infringement of consumer and property rights? Are energy companies not abusing their monopoly position? How can this consumer rights problem be resolved? What is the experience of the EU Member States?

The Universal Service is a concept, developed by EU legislation, which states that all consumers should be guaranteed the right to connection and supply of energy at reasonable, easily and clearly comparable and transparent prices. This obliges a utility to provide electricity to any customer who is willing to pay the price set for that service.

The implementation of the Universal Service obligation is subject to subsidiarity and thus falls under the jurisdiction of Member States. There is nothing in EU legislation that prohibits reasonable and justified costs for connection being charged to the consumer.

The extent to which the connection company, the distribution company or the consumer share these costs or decide on ownership fully depends on the national connection policy, and in some instances this may result in considerable charges on individual consumers.

National energy regulators play a central role in determining that the attribution of the connection costs and the respective tariffs are transparent and non-discriminatory: neither on the individual consumers, nor on the companies.

In exceptional cases, competition law may apply and, in the present circumstances, national competition authorities 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 consumer protection 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 the scope of such legislation and should be investigated by national authorities and courts on the basis of the relevant national legislation.

Regulation (EC) No. 2135/98⁽¹⁾ and Directive 2006/22/EC⁽²⁾ were not subject to the impact analyses which now form part of sound legislative procedure in the EU and there are now enormous problems with their practical implementation, as evidenced by questions from Members of the European Parliament and the discussion held in Parliament's Committee on Transport in September 2007.

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 to developing 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 in the longer term which is more satisfactory and effective in terms of road safety and drivers' working conditions?

Implementation of the new rules on driving time and rest periods,⁽³⁾ the rules concerning the digital tachograph⁽⁴⁾ and the provisions for enforcing road transport law⁽⁵⁾ has given rise to some difficulties of the 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 with the 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⁽⁶⁾ which helps the Commission to implement the legislation, and to which representatives of the social partners are also invited as observers, set up a working group chaired by the Commission to consider questions about interpretation of the relevant regulation.

On the basis of the group’s work the Commission drafted five guidelines, which have been posted on its website.⁽⁷⁾ The guidelines were the subject of general consensus and they make for greater consistency in application of the legal provisions.

With regard to the directive on enforcement, a second working group within the same committee is helping the Commission to compile an exhaustive list of all relevant offences in order of seriousness, as the directive requires. This work will also assist with the introduction of a common system for targeting the companies that are the worst offenders. The aims are to make enforcement more efficient and to reduce the administrative burden both on national authorities – which will be able to direct their attention more effectively where the risk is greatest – and on transport companies, which will be subject to checks only if their situation demands it.

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 the digital tachograph in the light of technical advances (this will entail amendments to the technical annex of Regulation 3821/85), so that risks of fraud can be countered more effectively.