Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before I start this debate, I should like to extend my heartfelt thanks to those of my fellow Members of this House who have tried to reach the widest possible agreement on this topic in a constructive manner. I am aware that, for some of them, this is a sensitive issue, and I appreciate their efforts. I should like to use my speaking time to do away with two misconceptions that are nourished by an aggressive mail campaign to which we have all been subjected over the past few days. First of all, this report does not call for harmonisation of legislation at European level. It does not impose anything on the Member States or the candidate countries. We remain convinced that legislation and measures must remain within the remit of Member States, and the report therefore takes full account of subsidiarity. What the report does do is to launch an appeal, at European level, to bring into motion a learning process, to collect information about the situation in the Member States, to examine the constituent parts of policy in the Member States concerning sexual and reproductive health and rights and the measures that yield positive results. Ladies and gentlemen, I have very good reasons for giving this speech. First of all, there are a whole number of areas in which the European Union has set up a comparable system of best practice, of mutual learning and of exchange of information. Less than an hour ago, we discussed in this House the Trakatellis report on a European health strategy in which such an approach is justified and encouraged within the framework of an action programme. Sexual and reproductive health needs to form part of a health promotion campaign, and I therefore fail to recognise why this would not be fitting here. Secondly, if we talk about development and cooperation policy, this Parliament, along with the entire EU, rightly argues that sexual and reproductive rights must form part of such development and cooperation policy. It would be rather bizarre if we argued this on behalf of the developing countries, with European voices falling silent the moment we talked about our own policy. Moreover, there is reason for concern. There are huge differences in the situation in the Member States in terms of sexual and reproductive health. Why is it that in some candidate countries, the number of abortions is up to ten times higher than in the Member States that obtain the best score in this area? It is understandable, because the price of contraception in some candidate countries amounts to one third of the wage of women, while abortions are free. Surely this is not the kind of policy we wish to promote. I will give you another example. Why is it that a number of countries are experiencing an incredible rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies while other countries manage to handle this situation? Should we ask ourselves whether teenagers are so different, or whether policy is so different? I therefore urge you to learn from each other without the need to harmonise. The second prejudice concerns the fact that this is not an abortion report. Quite the reverse, in fact. The report is looking for ways to enable women to choose whether they want children, when they want them and how many they want, and to experience their sexuality in a healthy way. This means that the report aims to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore also abortions. Paragraph 8 states quite clearly that abortion should not be encouraged as a method of family planning. However, we must develop a 3-track policy. The first track is open sexual education and information. Far too many young people still believe that it is impossible to conceive the first time they have intercourse, or they receive their sexual education through pornographic films. This information should be about forming relationships and about how to relate to each other in a responsible manner. If sexual education is reduced to biology, things are bound to go wrong. The second track is that every woman must be able to make a free choice with regard to her sexual and reproductive health. This means that she must have access to a wide range of contraception and effective services, and must be informed about the pros and cons. This choice is not there if women have to pay up to a third of their wage. It also means that we need to make an extra effort for those groups that are currently not being reached. All campaigns that claim that this is to talk in terms of eugenics are acting in a very deceitful manner. I am convinced that emergency contraception, specifically the morning-after pill, should also form part of this draft. I hope that the Group will continue to support the amendments tabled by both groups. The third track is the most controversial of the three. I also believe that abortion should be the last resort of a policy on sexual and reproductive rights for women who have been let down by contraception. In fact, abortion has been legalised in most countries. I urge you not to turn a blind eye to abortion tourism, the journeys which some women are compelled to undertake because contraception has indeed failed them. This entails a serious social injustice because only those who are sufficiently well off can afford these journeys. In fact, the report urges the Member States not to prosecute those women who have had an illegal abortion nevertheless. By saying this, we are only regurgitating what has been said at the Peking plus 5 platform. Finally, a huge number of discussions have preceded this debate. Even just before this meeting, attempts were made to reach the greatest consensus possible. I hope that these attempts will be rewarded tomorrow and that the Commission will lend its support in order to launch an initiative. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PSE