Explanations of vote
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) As our group says, this proposal, which introduces biometric data information into the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals, 'raises several concerns as regards its technical feasibility, financial costs and risk of its abuse'.
As we have highlighted, it is highly debatable whether the introduction of biometric identifiers really does increase security, or whether it is rather a threat to security through the risks of abuse, technological flaws and lack of transparency and sound data protection
This is a disproportionate measure that forms part of a supranational dynamic, a measure that is aimed at setting up EU-level monitoring and control instruments. It is not in any way accompanied by 'particularly consistent and serious safeguards, especially regarding the way they are collected and used' and it is completely impossible to guarantee its use in a 'relatively safe environment'.
This proposal is both a consequence and an integral part of the trend towards excessive preoccupation with security pursued by the EU institutions, and as such we reject it.
Mary Lou McDonald
in writing. The second modified proposal introducing biometric data information into Regulation 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals raises several concerns as regards its technical feasibility, financial costs and the risk of its abuse. It is still not clear whether the introduction of biometric identifiers really does increase security or whether it is rather a threat to security through the risks of abuse, technological flaws and lack of transparency and sound data protection. The original Commission proposal has also turned out to be technically impossible and the financial resources destined for its development have been partly wasted. Due to these reasons, we cannot support the Commission's modified proposal, which would again only raise the financial costs and technical difficulties and would be entirely inadequate to the aim of added value in security.
Andreas Mölzer
in writing. (DE) Thanks to the visions of some multi-cultural dreamers, a situation has arisen which is becoming increasingly difficult for the native population to endure. In many cases, immigrants and their children have no consideration for the native population; on the contrary, they demand more and more rights for themselves and seem bent on eradicating our Western Christian heritage; conversely, they simply turn a deaf ear when it comes to civic duties or to obligations of any incomer, such as willingness to integrate.
The widespread provision of social housing for nationals of non-EU countries and for neo-citizens of the Union who are not integrated has not only created a profound sense of insecurity among the indigenous population but also led to a massive deterioration in people's housing conditions and quality of life, a situation in which outbreaks of violence are almost a daily occurrence. In the light of these realities, a general tightening of the right of immigration is needed. The Coelho report does not offer a basis for such action, which is precisely why I voted against it.
Milan Gaľa
(SK) My formal background is that of a dentist. Mercury is used in dentistry for amalgam fillings, and I have been watching with interest the EU strategy concerning mercury and the elimination of mercury from all areas of life where there is an appropriate alternative. In principle, I agree with many of the measures the Commission has been submitting in the form of draft legislation in line with the mercury strategy.
However, I am anxiously waiting to see how we deal with the opinion that mercury should also be banished from dentistry, where mercury amalgams have been used for 150 years now and quite successfully at that. There are no conclusive indications or evidence of the toxic effects of amalgams if used appropriately. At the same time, there is no clear opinion on whether there are appropriate alternative filling materials. I believe that if amalgam waste is properly separated in dentistry departments and if we dispose of it properly, safely and on a permanent basis, as proposed in the report, there will be no need for the time being to do away with amalgam as a filling material.
Richard Seeber
(DE) Mr President, I wish to give the report my firm backing, and I have voted in favour of it. It is important that we should have a European strategy for mercury, because it is one of the most toxic environmental pollutants, and Europe must certainly lead the way here. I did vote against some proposals designed to tighten the rules, because I believe it is necessary to provide incremental arrangements for businesses and to allow for a smooth transition so as not to jeopardise the general level of competitiveness. I am also wary of creating too much red tape, and a steady hand is needed if we are avoid that risk. On the whole, this is a very encouraging report.
Liam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Seán Ó Neachtain and Eoin Ryan
in writing. We have voted against amendments suggesting that liquid mercury should be stored in above-ground facilities. No impact assessments have been carried out by the Commission on the safety of such storage and there is no technology available to solidify liquid mercury. Storage of mercury in an above-ground facility is therefore questionable in terms of safety and in terms of time (the amendments suggest that this storage would be temporary). Without new technology, storage would not be temporary. On the other hand, impact assessments have been undertaken by the Commission for the storage of liquid mercury in salt mines and deep underground hard rock formations and has been confirmed safe.
We are very much aware that technology could be developed in the near future. We very much welcome the Council's agreement to a European Parliament request to include in the proposed regulation a review on extension of the scope of the regulation and a review of other options available for the storage of mercury in 2010.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) In 1990 the Oslo-Paris Commission (OSPAR) recommended that all mercury cell chlor-alkali plants (MCCAPs) be converted to mercury-free technology by 2010. Parliament's March 2006 resolution on the Community strategy concerning mercury urged the Commission to take action to implement OSPAR.
Apart from ongoing mercury emissions from MCCAPs, when these plants convert to mercury-free technologies, the vast quantities of mercury in their cells need to be managed in an environmentally appropriate manner.
To prevent this surplus mercury from flooding the world mercury commodity market, a proposal for a Regulation banning exports of metallic mercury by 1 July, 2011, was adopted in October 2006, and attempts have been made to bring that date forward.
The proposal includes parallel provisions on safe storage of the excess mercury which will mainly be coming from decommissioned MCCAPs, to prevent its re-sale. Currently there are around 12 000 tonnes of mercury sitting in mercury cells in Europe. To that end Euro Chlor (the EU chlor-alkali industry federation) has been asked by the European Commission and has agreed to develop a Voluntary Agreement for the storage of surplus chlor-alkali mercury.
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
in writing. - (FR) The management of mercury is an important issue for the conservation of the environment.
If Europe has more waste mercury to store, it is because our industries did not foresee the risks involved in the use of this metal, in particular for the production of chlorine.
First lesson: we must very quickly rethink our production methods in order to be prepared for a vital ecological revolution.
Next, it is necessary to constantly monitor the storage of waste, by setting up regular checks. That is why I voted in favour of Amendment 25 which rules out permanent storage above-ground and underground. Alas, it did not receive a majority of votes. Nonetheless, the other improvements in the text justify a vote in favour of the final report.
Georgios Toussas
Even though it recognises that there is currently no absolutely safe method of storing metallic mercury, the report endeavours to legalise a special type of territorial 'racism', by imposing the choice of the Spanish province of Almaden as the site for permanent landfill of the most toxic element on the planet. The worst thing is that it endeavours to justify the imposition of this specific area with the existence there of infrastructures and 'manpower'. In other words, it is using unemployment as a means of blatant coercion of the workers, so that they agree to turn their area into a landfill for toxic mercury waste from the entire EU, with incalculable risks to the health of the inhabitants and the environment.
The proposal in the report for the involvement and funding of all sorts of NGOs in the crucial question of the application of mercury-free technologies in developing countries and in so-called 'economies in transition' comes under the same dangerous policy by circumventing the rules which derive from binding bilateral agreements in this sector.
That is why the Greek Communist Party abstained from the vote.
The Greek Communist Party maintains that the question of where metallic mercury should be stored and managed is a subject for science and the application of its conclusions and not of choices that reflect the interests and profits of business.
Milan Gaľa
(SK) Supplementary pension schemes, collectively referred to as the 'second pillar of the social insurance system', are an inseparable part of modern society. We have witnessed in the past the reform of labour markets and social insurance systems in several Member States, and these have included pension system reforms. Let me use Slovakia as an example of a country which introduced supplementary pension schemes within the context of reforming the social security system. A large number of Slovak nationals have already joined the second pillar.
Savings generated in the second pillar are privately owned. They are more secure than the promises of the state to pay out pensions from public coffers. An advantage of the second pillar is that pension benefits no longer depend on the country's demographics but on savings accumulated in one's own account. For these reasons and in the spirit of encouraging worker mobility in Member States, I have welcomed the draft directive designed to improve the portability of supplementary pension rights, and I believe that this will make it possible to reduce the number of problems associated with eligibility for pension rights, retaining suspended pension rights and with the portability of acquired rights.
Agnes Schierhuber
(DE) Mr President, the single market and mobility depend on social security, which must extend beyond a person's working life. It is important in this respect to maintain the balance between employers and employees on which the acquisition of pension rights depends.
This was the first reading, and we still have numerous discussions ahead of us. The delegation from the Austrian People's Party has given the Oomen-Ruijten report its unreserved support, because we believe that this is the right way to continue developing mobility and the single market.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
(LT) Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur Ria Oomen-Ruijten and other colleagues who prepared this report concerning the improvement of portability of the right to a supplementary pension. I voted for this document, as I believe it will positively affect most European Union Member States, especially the newest EU members. In the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Malta, supplementary pensions have not yet been legislated, whereas in the Scandinavian countries and Slovenia, by contrast, the majority of workers participate in such pension schemes.
Our Parliament's urging to oblige EU countries to gradually seek easier portability of pension rights should provide a new impulse above all to the new Member States, and likewise to Greece, Italy and Portugal, to amend their legislation in such a way that the mobility of people in the European Union be encouraged, not penalised.
Carlo Fatuzzo
(IT) Mr President, it is with pleasure that I take the floor to say to Europe: 'if you are there, let us see some action'. Europe must show greater courage, it must have the heart of a lion and not be a chicken.
The Directive on the transferability of pension rights is absolutely crucial for all European citizens and workers. By approving this proposal we are doing something for workers, but we will not really succeed in obtaining a result for which European citizens can applaud Europe. Therefore, Mr President, let us not mourn over the referendums in France and the Netherlands that rejected the Constitution. Europe must be more courageous.
Lena Ek, Olle Schmidt
in writing. (SV) As a Liberal, I find it difficult to vote against a proposal aimed at improving Europeans' opportunities to move around more freely. It is not made any the easier when the proposal is also aimed at encouraging people to take more active responsibility for saving for their pensions, this being one of the genuinely key issues for the future. Nonetheless, I was unable to vote in favour of the original proposal.
The problem is twofold. Firstly, it is debatable whether this complicated issue is suited to being raised at European level, given the various Member States' very different systems for pension savings. Secondly, I could not help but note that Sweden, in common with Germany, has systems particularly ill-suited to this type of changeover. The Swedish model, in which the social partners decide about the issue, is incompatible with the rapporteur's proposal. Considerable problems could also arise if huge sums by way of invested funds could suddenly be released in a short period in order to guarantee the ability to transfer pensions.
I am, in the long run, in favour of a system in which people can change jobs and move from one country to another and still not need to worry about how doing so might affect their pensions. I therefore in the end voted in favour of this House's amended version of the report in which national derogations are permitted.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) On the issue of the transferability of pension rights, there are at least two key aspects that must be taken into account: ensuring workers' rights and guaranteeing the sustainability of public social security systems.
The issue before us is specifically supplementary pension schemes and not public social security schemes. With regard to these two aspects, we are opposed to the amendments tabled in the report amending the Commission's original proposal. These amendments propose, for example, to increase from 21 to 25 the age of access to supplementary pension schemes and to make the acquisition of pension rights conditional on a minimum five-year period.
Supplementary pension schemes must not, however, replace public schemes. Public social security schemes based on solidarity and universality are among the cornerstones of any state and something that must be guaranteed in a fairer and more egalitarian society.
Lastly, we are very disappointed at the rejection of the amendments we tabled, including the proposal to combine the Commission's original position on the minimum age of 21 with a two-year period of acquisition of rights, which would have been more favourable to the workers. Hence our final vote against.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. (SV) We have chosen to vote against this report. The June List wholeheartedly supports an efficient internal market. We thus support the principle whereby an employee must be able without difficulty to transfer earned pension points between the Member States. We do not, however, believe that the EU should have views on the form to be taken by the Member States' respective pension systems, provided that all EU citizens are treated equally within the system in force. We are thus critical of quite a few individual proposals in the report, such as the views on vesting conditions for policyholders in supplementary pension schemes, the views on minimum ages for earning pension rights or EU rules on the qualifying period for entry into a pension scheme. How the Member States choose to design their respective pension systems needs to be an entirely national matter, provided that all EU citizens are treated equally within the system in force.
Bogusław Liberadzki
in writing.- (PL) I am voting in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights - C6 0331/2005 -
Demographic changes and an ageing population have made us aware of the need for supplementary pension and social security insurance systems, which will ensure dignified living conditions. The new directive and Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten's report both aim to improve the mobility of workers, within and between the Member States of the European Union, by establishing minimum requirements concerning the acquisition and retention of supplementary pension rights.
The report aptly highlights the role of the Member States in providing consistent support for the transfer of acquired pension rights, especially in the event that new, supplementary pension systems are established. Over the five years following the implementation of the directive, the European Commission will draw up a report which will take into account the conditions governing transfers of capital corresponding to employees' supplementary pension or social security entitlements.
Thomas Mann
in writing. (DE) I voted against the report on the portability directive. The report goes well wide of the real target of increased cross-border mobility of labour between Member States. On average, only 10% of all employees in the EU receive company pensions. Because of the cost increase of at least 20% that can be expected to result from the high minimum standards which have just been adopted, there will scarcely be any interest in the creation or expansion of company pension schemes. My fear is that what employers and employees have achieved to their mutual advantage in the national context over several decades is now being put at risk.
The minimum age for the acquisition of company-pension rights has been entirely scrapped. The five-year vesting period has been abolished. The minimum standards are to be applicable retroactively, which is in outright contradiction to the principle of safeguarding legitimate expectations. I also voted for the deletion of index-linking, which would most probably be interpreted by the European Court of Justice as 'equitable adjustment' and as an obligation. The German Bundesrat has calculated that treating employees who have changed companies on equal terms with those who have not will increase the cost of supplementary pension schemes by 30%.
European Commissioner Vladimír Špidla has announced the presentation of a new proposal. Following the failure to reach agreement in the Council, the proposal will be largely based on today's parliamentary resolution and will thus jeopardise company pension schemes - and not only in Germany.
Bart Staes
Directive 98/49/EEC guarantees the rights to supplementary pension for workers and the self-employed who move within the EU, but provides no guarantees in the area of portability of supplementary pensions and flexibility of the acquisition conditions.
This is something which the Commission proposal addresses. It lays down terms and puts forward three minimum rules regarding the portability of rights: either they remain within the business (dormant rights), they are transferred within a certain period of time, or they are paid in cash (up to a certain threshold). According to the Commission, the new directive must apply to all supplementary pensions that are work-related.
I particularly regret the fact that the Oomen-Ruijten report excludes the proposal of portability of pension rights from the directive. As it stands now, it only deals with dormant rights.
As I see it, the new directive should do everything in its power to support workers who invest in supplementary pension rights. Accordingly, nobody should be excluded by imposing minimum conditions in terms of age or period of time. I can only endorse the report if the directive retains the broad scope proposed by the Commission. If not, I will be voting against.
Georgios Toussas
The proposal for a Commission directive, as formulated with the anti-labour changes voted jointly by the Christian Democrats, the socialists and the liberals, supported by the New Democracy and PASOK MEPs, blows national supplementary insurance schemes sky high throughout the EU. It marks a deterioration in the terms of insurance and retirement of the workers, a reduction in pensions and an increase in the retirement age. It speeds up procedures for private insurance companies to increase their share of this sector. The basic direction of these reactionary changes is the so-called 'three-axis' system of main state pension, with a supplementary and occupational pension from private companies. The blow to the workers' rights in the supplementary pension sector is linked to the ambition of the monopolies to use the reserves in these insurance funds to fund their investments, while at the same time legalising the acceptance of the 'investment risk' or possible loss of the workers' money.
New Democracy and PASOK vote in favour of all the anti-grassroots measures in the European Parliament, on the one hand, and harangue and deceive the workers in our country, on the other hand, by endeavouring to show the people a supposedly friendly mask.
The Greek Communist Party calls on the workers to step up their fight against the anti-labour, anti-grassroots EU policy, to defend state social insurance schemes and to demand satisfaction of their contemporary needs, higher pensions and a lower retirement age.
Thomas Ulmer
in writing. - (DE) I voted against the portability directive, because it misses the real target of increased cross-border mobility of labour between Member States. The rules on the transfer of company-pension rights only have the force of a recommendation for the Member States. For this reason I had repeatedly advised outright rejection of the directive, since it has become superfluous.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Mr President, even though the introduction of the euro has made life easier in many respects, as in the case of cross-border trade, it would be wrong to overlook its less savoury aspects, such as the surrender of sovereignty and price increases.
As in the case of any enlargement of the EU, the introduction of the euro in new Member States will ultimately affect the fragile stability of the entire system. This is why I believe it is imperative to ensure that the overall balance is not upset by the inclusion of weak national economies.
Now it may well be that Cyprus and Malta are ready. In the past, however, governments have all too often played with marked cards in order to qualify for the euro club. In my opinion, such an important decision must on no account be taken over the heads of the population, and that is why I have abstained in this instance.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) We abstained from the vote on account of the fact that it is entirely up to each Member State to make the sovereign decision on whether or not it wants to join the Eurozone. Our opposition to the creation of Economic and Monetary Union and to the Eurozone is well known. The example of Portugal has amply demonstrated how the euro is a tool for promoting wage moderation and flexibility in the labour market. By sustaining nominal and not real convergence, it has been to the detriment of growth, employment and living standards, and to the benefit of the large European multinationals and financial groups.
I wish to point out that the issue of speeding up the enlargement of the Eurozone is also based on the political criteria of strengthening both political integration and the Eurozone itself. With two new Member States - Malta and Cyprus - the Eurozone will boast over half of EU Member States. This is a significant psychological barrier, when dissatisfaction among the workers and the people as a whole in the Eurozone is on the increase and when the future Constitutional Treaty is under discussion. The majority therefore accept the idea of joining, even though Malta does not fulfil all the nominal convergence criteria. As in the past, this is not an 'economic' decision, but a political one.
Cem Özdemir
in writing. (DE) On the basis of economic criteria, the decision is no doubt justified. From a political point of view, it is nevertheless a regrettable decision. It squanders an opportunity to let both parts of the island of Cyprus enter the eurozone. Instead of bringing North and South closer together through a single currency, it will only deepen the divide between the two parts of the island.
John Attard-Montalto
(MT) Thank you, Mr President. The government has adopted as its policy the target of introducing the euro by 1 January 2008. In order to do so a number of criteria had to be reached, for example regarding deficit and inflation. Obviously these had a negative impact on the government's financial policies, as well as on the more vulnerable section of society.
Indeed, we believed that there was an alternative, which still entailed adopting the euro, but adopting it at a slower pace. Obviously, our entry into the eurozone will have a number of positive effects, yet it will also have adverse effects in other areas. However, in view of national interests, the Maltese Labour Party delegation has voted in favour.
Sylwester Chruszcz
(PL) Mr President, today we debated and voted on the expansion of the eurozone and Malta and Cyprus' membership of this zone. I leave the sovereign decision on the abolition of the national currency in Cyprus and Malta to the citizens of these countries. However, as a representative of the League of Polish Families in the European Parliament, I am opposed to Poland's membership of the eurozone and the negative economic and social impact this would have on Poles.
All current public opinion polls confirm that the majority of Poles do not want the euro. I think that we should not only avoid acting hastily, but we should also not introduce the euro in Poland at all. I also disagree with the opinions expressed today that the Member States have a duty to join the eurozone. Poles should decide on this issue in a national referendum and I hope that the Polish zloty will remain a national currency in Europe, alongside the British pound and the Danish and Swedish currencies.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) It is well known that we opposed the creation of European Economic and Monetary Union and the euro. Indeed, we voted against Parliament's resolution of 2 May 1998 establishing the Eurozone, which was originally made up of 12 countries, including Portugal. We feel that monetary policy, and the prerogative of issuing currency, lies exclusively with the Member States, and therefore reject this transfer of sovereignty, which will make it impossible to address the economic and social problems in each country, including Portugal.
At this time, the enlargement of the Eurozone is based on political criteria - for example the strengthening of political integration and of the Eurozone itself - as this issue amply demonstrates, given that Malta does not fulfil all of the nominal convergence criteria. However, with two new Member States - Malta and Cyprus - the Eurozone will boast over half of EU Member States. This is a significant psychological barrier, when dissatisfaction among the workers and the people as a whole in the Eurozone is on the increase and when the future Constitutional Treaty is being discussed.
In our view, it is entirely up to each Member State to make the sovereign decision on whether or not it wants to join the Eurozone, and this is why we abstained from the vote.
Jonathan Evans
in writing. British Conservatives have always opposed the entry of the UK into the euro zone. Nevertheless, we have never opposed the right of other sovereign nations to form a common monetary system. Our abstention reflects our belief that it is for the members of the euro zone to decide how best to conduct monetary policy in the interests of a stable currency.
Bruno Gollnisch
in writing. - (FR) Our vote concerning the adoption of the euro by Malta and Cyprus will be identical to the one for Slovenia: we shall abstain. We will not go against what we hope will be the conscious will of sovereign peoples.
We must, however, recognise that a threshold has been crossed: it is not at their express request, but because they almost fulfil the 'stupid' Maastricht criteria, as Mr Prodi would have said, that these countries have to adopt the euro. Have their citizens been told about it? At least one of these countries does not meet these famous criteria and neither of the two, it seems, has supplied the statistics necessary for a proper assessment of their state of preparation. Why rush? The practical and technical measures for actual transition to the single currency are a great unknown. Also, the euro zone's capacity for absorption, which at another time was a matter of concern for Mr Langen, has disappeared from the picture and from the analysis.
Here we are again faced with the bicycle syndrome, from which European construction appears to suffer: if it does not go forward, it falls down. The euro zone must be enlarged at all costs. Full stop! The truth is that it is the citizens of Europe who will have to pay the price!
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) We have chosen to abstain in the final vote on these reports. It is up to the people of Cyprus and Malta to decide, preferably through a referendum, whether they want the country to be part of EMU.
We do not believe that Sweden should be part of the currency union. Nor do we recommend other countries to participate in it.
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the introduction of the euro in Malta and Cyprus, because it is a matter of supporting strengthened integration of these countries in the sense given by the European Union. Nonetheless, this decision ought to have been accompanied by measures enabling more democratic control of the single currency (establishment of real economic government of the euro zone capable of balancing the power of the European Central bank (ECB), changing the Central Bank's objectives so as to include research for growth and full employment, changing the criteria of the Stability Pact so as not to penalise public investment policy in the future).
Let us take care not to pursue endless enlargement of the euro zone without any new perspectives.
Richard James Ashworth
in writing. The British Conservative delegation supports the Committee on Budgets resolution calling on the Commission to resubmit its proposals for financing the Galileo project. However, we have grave reservations about proposals to fund it through the existing European budget.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) We are very disappointed at the significant rejection by the majority in Parliament of the amendments tabled by our group, which were aimed at ensuring that 'the Galileo programme must not, under any circumstances, by used for military purposes', and that 'safeguards must be put in place to prevent the programme from being privatised' thereby guaranteeing that its implementation is funded entirely with public money.
Does this rejection mean that, following much-vaunted public investment, the unacceptable option of tendering the programme out to the private sector is already being considered?
Our position is clear.
We feel that the Galileo programme (European programme of satellite radionavigation) will be able to contribute towards cooperation, scientific and technical advancement and to foster the exchange of, and access to, information.
This is a project that should be based on a strategy of public investment and public control, so that a public service can be provided. That way, there can be equal access and the free use of available information for all users.
It is a project in which the citizens' rights, guarantees and freedoms must be guaranteed. It must also be ensured that it is not used for military purposes and/or as part of the trend towards an excessive preoccupation with security.
Jens Holm, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Helmuth Markov, Erik Meijer, Søren Bo Søndergaard and Eva-Britt Svensson
in writing. In order to conclude GALILEO, the European satellite navigation system, EU member states are asked to pay another € 2 400 000 000. For many years it has been argued that this project would bring technological innovation, satisfaction of consumers' needs, employment, and independence from the United States. These assets could justify the spending of community funds, instead of leaving it solemnly to profit-orientated multinationals or the American war industry. As long as GALILEO remains a peaceful process, we do not principally reject it. Unfortunately, GALILEO will be developed 10 to 20 years too late, and in the meantime GPS, the American counterpart, has conquered the world market. This makes GALILEO into a costly prestige project. Spending a lot of community money on this, might sound attractive to big business, but voters and consumers will increasingly regard this as a scandalous waste of money. European companies refuse to participate in Public Private Partnerships, because they do not expect any profit due to the arrears with GPS. They do hope to receive a large community investment in 2012 for free. Consequently, we do not want to spend even more money on GALILEO. If there are no real perspectives, we should dare to stop.
Nils Lundgren
in writing. (SV) EU Member States will be technologically dependent on current and future military superpowers, such as the United States, Russia and China, if we cannot develop our own satellite-based radio navigation.
Galileo is undoubtedly needed, but this expensive project should for the most part be funded by private actors with political support. Paragraph 6 of the resolution states that, in the European Parliament's view, the Galileo programme should be funded entirely from the European Union budget. I am not prepared to go so far and therefore choose to vote against the resolution as a whole.
Lydia Schenardi
in writing. - (FR) We support the Galileo project, even if we had a few reservations about supporting it.
We cannot, however, support this resolution. It is deplorable that, after the predictable failure of the public-private partnership, this Parliament should be saying it is prepared to give up an independent GPS system if it ceases to be purely a Community project to include direct funding by Member States.
Galileo is useful! By whatever means, it must be financed. The Commission cannot find EUR 2.4 billion, from the hundreds of billions that it intends spending, not always usefully, by 2013? Then what? Why should the Member States be pushed aside? Galileo is not a toy, nor is it the exclusive, symbolic project of Brussels' Europe that wants us to believe that it is not concerned only for itself, its competences and its sustainability.
Just for once, leave aside dogma. Put into this industrial venture a quarter of the political willingness that a handful of Member States put, a few years ago, into building a European aeronautical and space industry, and prove what you refuse to admit: intergovernmental cooperation works. In Brussels, on the other hand, it is at a standstill.
Geoffrey Van Orden
in writing. The clear intention of the resolution is for Galileo to be financed with a blank cheque from public funds to further EU political ambitions. Collaborative technological projects have a dubious track record. They do not require EU involvement and should only be undertaken for clear economic, strategic and industrial motives - not to further EU ambitions to be a global actor.
British Conservatives want opportunities for British industry and British R[amp]D, but this resolution does not guarantee that. It supports the Commission's proposal to use public funds - through the EU budget - for the entire Galileo project. This course of action will be another drain on taxpayers in the United Kingdom and other EU Member States, and one in which they have had absolutely no say.
Whereas, in the past, there was reluctance by the EU to admit military applications, this coyness has now been dropped. In the Commission's Communication on European Space Policy (26 April 2007) the aim of meeting 'Europe's security and defence needs as regards space' is one of the key objectives. As long-standing opponents of ESDP, the British Conservatives oppose proposals that extend the Commission's hand into the defence arena.
Ilda Figueiredo
in writing. - (PT) All it took for us to decide to vote against this report was the first recital. Community law on public procurement aims to open - liberalise would be a better word - public markets in the Member States to cross-border competition, in order to support the development of the internal market, in keeping with the liberalising agenda contained in the Lisbon Strategy.
We are of course in favour of national rules on the transparency of tendering, provided they do not block opportunities to use public markets to boost the economic fabric and national SMEs, bearing in mind their size and importance. There is a substantial difference in this case, however, leading us to vote against, which is that responsibility for this issue should continue to rest with the Member States.
Public procurement is also an important instrument in promoting social and environmental policy, given that it may contain criteria relating to social and environmental issues involved in awarding contracts. It cannot be restricted to supranational level, with rules on non-discrimination or on other economic interests used as a pretext.
Gay Mitchell, Mairead McGuinness, Colm Burke and Jim Higgins
in writing. We voted in favour of part one of paragraph 40 and against part 2 of paragraph 40. Similarly, we voted in favour of the first part of paragraph 41 and against the second part. We abstained on the vote for the resolution as a whole.
The reason for this is that we did not wish to indicate that we support any interpretation of the word 'rights' as indicating a support for abortion. We do, of course, support the general thrust of the Millennium Goals and therefore did not vote against the resolution as a whole.
Edite Estrela
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Kinnock report 'On the Millennium Development Goals - the midway point' because I feel that we need a broad partnership in order to be able to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. It is therefore desirable for the national parliaments and civil society in all the interested countries to become involved.
One of the key factors in achieving the Goals is that of a 50% reduction in poverty by 2015, with special focus on issues such as HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. Gender inequality and discrimination against women are further points that must be taken into account in development programmes.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) I welcome the fact that the report acknowledges the seriousness of the world situation.
As the UN report on the Millennium Development Goals revealed, progress in the fight to reduce hunger has been too slow. Indeed, the figures have worsened in recent years: 854 million people (17% of the world's population) per day suffer from hunger and almost 16 000 children die every day due to hunger-related causes.
Nevertheless, once again the report glosses over the causes at the root of this intolerable situation.
It is important to highlight the fact that, at the same time as 16 000 children die every day:
The US Administration has earmarked USD 600 billion for military spending in its budget;
The 691 richest people in the world have a net fortune equivalent to USD 2.2 billion, which is equal to the combined wealth of the 145 poorest countries;
The 500 richest people have a combined income higher than that of the 416 million poorest;
The 8 million richest people in the world have a net fortune equivalent to 80% of the GDP of all the countries in the world.
This is the root of the problem.
David Martin
in writing. The rapporteur's approach to this highly important subject is to be commended. There is urgent need for efforts to reach the MDGs to be redoubled. This means wholesale debt relief and scaled-up, better coordinated and better targeted aid.
Luís Queiró
in writing. - (PT) In the space available in an explanation of vote, there are two points that deserve to be highlighted.
The first paragraph of the resolution says: 'the overarching aim of development cooperation is and must be the fight against poverty; stresses, however, that this fight is not limited to material growth and therefore, democracy-building and the promotion of basic human rights, rule of law and the principles of justice, equity, transparency and accountability must always be central themes of any such cooperation.'
I did not oppose this resolution because I understand that these concerns require us to contribute as much as we can, but I feel that the idea must be stressed that the fight against poverty cannot be effective unless the causes of poverty are combated. Among the structural causes of poverty is always bad governance. It is for this reason, and not out of a desire to impose some sort of model, that it is so important to fight on these two fronts at the same time. Otherwise, we will be resolving a problem today only for it to come back tomorrow.
Lastly, the report tells us that 'Portugal, which is due to host the EU-Africa Summit during its Presidency, achieved only 0.21% ODA/GNI in 2006', which is terrible.
Konrad Szymański
in writing. (PL) I was forced to vote against the report on 'MDGs at the Midway Point'.
Including proposals to fund abortion using EU budget aid will inevitably lead to divisions concerning the aid strategy for Africa. This will undermine the effectiveness of our actions. From both a moral and a medical point of view, abortion does not hold the key to solving the problem of maternal deaths during childbirth.
Using European Union resources to fund abortion in Africa is contrary to the principle of providing support. It forces all European Union citizens to become indirectly implicated in this matter. It also represents a kind of moral imperialism towards Africa. The consistent support of this House for funding abortion in developing countries is the biggest mistake we have made in terms of shaping humanitarian aid policy.
Gerard Batten, Roger Knapman and Thomas Wise
in writing. The UKIP does not recognise the legitimacy of the ACP-EU JPA and therefore cannot support this amendment. However, we agree with the spirit of the text and sincerely hope that the international community as a whole will ensure that the international travel bans on key figures in the Zimbabwean regime are fully respected.
Derek Roland Clark
in writing. The UKIP does not recognise the legitimacy of the ACP-EU JPA and therefore cannot support this amendment. However, we agree with the spirit of the text and sincerely hope that the international community as a whole will ensure that the international travel bans on key figures in the Zimbabwean regime are fully respected.
David Martin
in writing. The work of the ACP-EU JPA is vital when we consider the large number of least developed countries within that grouping and the volume of development assistance the EU targets at the ACP countries. I support many of the demands made in the report, such as those calling for national parliaments and civil society to become more involved in the process of national aid programming in the ACP.
Luís Queiró
in writing. - (PT) The report clearly reveals how the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly - both in 2006 and before - is an excellent instrument for creating the crucial structures, relationships and dialogue necessary for the creation of sound foundations for good relations between both sides and for the development of genuinely useful projects.
That being said, although it should be noted that whilst progress so far has been laudable, our concerns should be based on what lies ahead. We have an obligation - one that is, on the one hand, both moral and ethical and, on the other, in our own interests - to support development in associated countries, to help them develop mechanisms to open up their economies and together to turn globalisation into a virtuous movement; it is up to us to circumvent, reduce and remove the potential pitfalls involved in this movement.
Against this backdrop, in relation to some of these partners, it is vital that the forthcoming EU-Africa summit, set to take place during the Portuguese Presidency, yields results. Realism with results is preferable to utopian ideals without history.


3. Iran, in particular, the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh
President
The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Iran, in particular, the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh.
Bastiaan Belder
Mr President, exactly one week ago, Nobel Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, published a penetrating article in The Wall Street Journal about her friend, the Iranian human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, who had just been sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment. Ebadi called for the West to pay greater attention to the Sotoudeh case and to all the brave human rights defenders in the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The debate in this House is part of the response to Ebadi's urgent appeal. We cannot and shall not forget Nasrin Sotoudeh, nor her fellow fighters for fundamental rights in Iran. That will also be the message, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, of the report that I hope to present on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the plenary sitting in March, and I count on all of you to vote in favour of it. A powerful, united European voice for the rights of the Iranian people.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Mr President, once again, we are forced to speak about human rights in Iran, after Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced to 11 years in jail. She is banned from practising law, but let us serve justice.
The Rule of Law is no longer practised or existent in Iran, and the judiciary is highly politicised. Defending human rights is now considered an act against national security. Nasrin Sotoudeh, lawyer and mother of two, is charged with acting against national security. She defended, among others, Zahra Bahrami, an Iranian-Dutch citizen who was sentenced to death before Dutch diplomats had talked to her, and in a climate of serious doubts about due process.
As strong a woman as Nasrin Sotoudeh is and was, by standing for justice, we see a weak regime that represses its citizens instead of providing for their wellbeing. High Representative Ashton will be in Istanbul later this month in an attempt to bring the Iranian regime to cooperate with the international community on the nuclear issue. Economic sanctions have the same aim. I doubt they will render the desired result before disproportionately hurting the people of Iran who, as a result, become more and more dependent on the hard-line government.
However, while I am sceptical about the impact of economic sanctions, I am confident that sanctions against individuals responsible for violating human rights through, for example, censorship, rape, torture and executions, will be an effective and necessary step to end impunity and to honour the justice that Nasrin Sotoudeh stood for. Human rights are clearly the Achilles heel of the Iranian regime.
Mr President, while I have the floor, may I ask you to encourage our Italian colleagues to be quiet because it is really distracting when they start speaking in the Chamber after their business has been dealt with.
President
Colleagues, you heard the request made by Mrs Schaake. Other colleagues have also asked if you could be quiet. If you have something private to discuss, you can do so outside.
Struan Stevenson
author. - Mr President, it was my intention today to compare the Islamic Republic of Iran to Nazi Germany but I have to say that I think in many ways, it can be even worse. The mullahs have hanged 65 people so far this year. Ten were hanged yesterday: first, they were heavily fined and had their homes confiscated, and then each was mercilessly flogged before being dragged to the gallows. Eighty-seven people have been hanged in the past four weeks.
Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier and a hater of the Jews; he says he wants to wipe Israel off the map and he is now building nuclear weapons that will enable him to do so. He and Khamenei preside over the ruthless suppression of the citizens of Iran, with hangings, torture, stoning to death, amputations and floggings all commonplace, and the execution of children, and even pregnant women, routine. Two prisoners in Mashhad had their hands amputated this week; two others have been sentenced to amputation and these verdicts will be carried out soon.
Anyone who tries to expose this evil is immediately targeted. Nasrin Sotoudeh is a case in point: a courageous human rights lawyer who has defended many of the innocent people unjustly sentenced and executed by this fascist regime. Her outrageous sentence of 11 years' imprisonment for doing her job is an insult to humanity. The real criminals are the tyrants in Tehran and they will be held to account. They believe that their critics in the West are part of an international conspiracy to topple their regime. Well, I for one would sign up to that project today. Evil must never be allowed to prevail, and the sooner we can see freedom, democracy, humanity and women's rights restored to Iran, the better it will be for the whole world.
Rosario Crocetta
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by asking for the immediate release of Nasrin Sotoudeh, we are urging the Union and its Member States to do more to liberate Iranian citizens and the world from one of the cruellest and most authoritarian regimes in history.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is characterised not only by the threat it poses to world peace with a nuclear project capable of evoking the terror of nuclear war, but also by the illegitimacy of its elections; mass arrests of people requesting free elections; the killing of objectors; the rape and physical abuse of those who do not support the regime; the iniquity of judicial processes, where decisions can be predicted as soon as the accusations have been made; serious discrimination against women and homosexuals; and the absence of freedom of expression and of association. The conditions of Iranian prisoners in Camp Ashraf, where they are subjected to violence and even stoning, are absolutely incredible.
Every day, at least two people, including children, are sentenced to death in Iran, and they are guilty of nothing more than of not pleasing the regime. Legal evidence is often created through the cruel and skilful use of brutal methods of torture. These criticisms are certainly not aimed at Islam, which is based on peace, but at the Iranian regime. The arrest and conviction of Nasrin Sotoudeh bring to light a new level of judicial deceit, since in this case, the attack and conviction are against a defender of the people, which means that citizens of Iran cannot even defend themselves.
Cristian Dan Preda
Mr President, while Iran might be starting to open up on nuclear matters, we unfortunately must conclude that the door is clearly closed in this country when it comes to human rights.
The case of Nasrin Sotoudeh demonstrates this completely. She was punished for her work in support of human rights with an extremely harsh sentence: 11 years, banned from practising as a lawyer for 20 years and from leaving the country. This verdict was reached following a mockery of a trial.
This case is far from an isolated incident. It is part of a deliberate strategy by the Iranian regime to systematically silence human rights activists. A whole series of very harsh sentences are targeted at lawyers who are active in human rights matters, and we must show solidarity with these courageous people who support and take action on human rights in spite of threats, torture and imprisonment.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - Mr President, I have to stay that I deeply deplore the fact that we once more have to talk about Iran, but we have to. We really have to because the situation in Iran is gravely problematic and dramatic.
That is why it is important that this Parliament reiterates once again its call for the release of all prisoners of conscience, including all those who have been detained over the last year in connection with their peaceful - and I repeat, peaceful - political and human rights activities. This Parliament has to call again on the Iranian authorities to respect the internationally recognised rights to freedom of expression and assembly, and strongly condemn the extraordinarily harsh sentence against Nasrin Sotoudeh and to commend her for her courage and her engagement.
This is also why this Parliament has to consider Mrs Sotoudeh, as well as her fellow human rights activists and prisoners of conscience, and demand her immediate release. We have to express our concern over the ever more frequently imposed sentence of a ban on leaving Iran, which can lead to the logical conclusion that staying in Iran is considered a punishment by the authorities.
We have to call on the authorities to combat the impunity of human rights violators within the security forces and also reiterate our demand for an independent investigation into allegations of extra-judicial executions since June's disputed presidential elections and for alleged violators to be brought to justice. Evidently, we also have to strongly condemn the bomb attack in Chabahar and to express our condolences to the victims' families and the injured.
Finally, I should like to say that we are seriously concerned about the persecution of certain religions and ethnic groups in Iran. We have to express our conviction, supported by recent European history, that peaceful and balanced social and political development can only be achieved by taking the cultural and social aspirations of differing regions into account.
Bogusław Sonik
Mr President, Nasrin Sotoudeh gave us reason to talk about her in a previous European Parliament debate on the lack of protection of human rights in Iran, when, on 4 September 2010, she was arrested on charges of propaganda against the state, conspiracy and assembling to act against national security. She has been held for four months. Now, following a trial, this distinguished human rights defender and dedicated co-worker of Nobel Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, has been sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment followed by a 20-year ban on practising law and leaving Iran. Let us remember that long prison sentences have also been handed down to other political prisoners. The 26-year-old women's rights activist, Shiva Nazar Ahari, has been sentenced to four years in prison and 74 lashes for the same crime.
We need to emphasise clearly our opposition to flagrant violations of what are fundamental human rights: freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to freedom of thought and the right to a fair trial. Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has devoted her life to the fight to defend human rights - defending minors who have been sentenced to death and people accused of causing peaceful protests as well as working closely with the opposition - has become living proof of the human rights violations in Iran. The European Union cannot continue to be a passive observer of this uneven fight on the part of Iranian society against the regime.
Corina Creţu
Mr President, we also support the demands for the immediate and unconditional release of Nasrin Sotoudeh and all prisoners of conscience in Iran. After the electoral fraud that kept the Ahmadinejad regime in power, thousands of Iranians paid the price of freedom for their courage in protesting against an increasingly repressive regime. Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced, after months of isolation and torture, to 11 years in prison because, as a lawyer and campaigner for human rights, she defended opponents of the Tehran government, including a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Along with numerous dissidents, dozens of journalists and bloggers who dared to exercise their basic freedom to express their own conscience are also suffering ill treatment in Iranian prisons. I believe that the European Union's commitment to the release of these fighters for democracy should not only take the form of public protest, but also of concrete steps from the European External Action Service, with a view to mobilising the international community to exert increased common pressure to end these human rights violations in Iran.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, we should never forget in this House that the freedom to debate and dissent that we so much enjoy in Europe is scarce and non-existent in many parts of the world. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Iran.
Yet again in this House, we find ourselves discussing the appalling human rights situation in that Islamic Republic. As a lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh has helped many opposition supporters who were detained and harassed following the rigged presidential election 18 months ago. She has also represented minors on death row, truly a heroic job in a country that executes children with alacrity. She was arrested in September last year on charges of spreading propaganda and conspiring to harm state security. Now she has been sentenced to 11 years in prison and banned from practising law for 20 years.
She should be released immediately and unconditionally. I call upon the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to make that point.
Parliament and Commission have been resolute in highlighting the human rights abuses of the brutal - almost disgusting - Ahmadinejad regime. It is time that the Council put the EU's common values ahead of Member States' individual commercial interests in that country.
Marco Scurria
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are tackling yet another debate on the violation of human rights and democracy in Iran. This time, it is the case of a lawyer who protects human rights activists in Iran.
Indeed, the idea is to solve the problem at source by no longer merely imprisoning people who fight for their rights, but to go directly to those that defend them, just to show which way the wind is blowing for those who wish to oppose the Ahmadinejad regime.
I would place a bet today, Mr President, that in a few weeks' time, we will be back in this Chamber to speak about another different case of all basic rights being violated in Iran. The violation will be disguised by some criminal motive that would be laughable were it not so tragic, such as acting against national security or propaganda against the regime, as in the case we are discussing today.
I really do wonder, Mr President, whether Parliament should continue to have a delegation for relations with a regime that is the exact opposite of everything the European Union is founded on.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, once again, we have an appalling situation coming out of Iran. Prior to Christmas, we discussed the situation of Sakineh Ashtiani, who was condemned to death by stoning for alleged adultery, a sentence subsequently commuted to death by hanging for alleged murder. Today, we have the unfortunate situation of Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has been condemned to 11 years in jail for doing her job. She has had her assets frozen and has been denied access to her own lawyer. Her husband was arrested during the week for - and I quote - 'spreading lies and disrupting public opinion'. Figure that one out!
I think all we can do is use our influence to the best of our ability to try and bring an end to this evil madness, particularly the maltreatment and disrespect of women. Those two examples have been cases in point.
George Sabin Cutaş
(RO) Mr President, the conviction of human rights activist, Nasrin Sotoudeh, reflects the fragility of the respect for human rights in Iran. Since the controversial re-election of President Ahmadinejad in June 2009, all protests have been brutally suppressed, thousands of citizens arrested and several hundred have already been convicted.
The harsh punishment received by Nasrin Sotoudeh of 11 years in prison resulted from the fact that, as a lawyer, she had defended numerous opponents of the regime who had been arrested during the demonstrations following the presidential elections. Moreover, she was reprimanded for interviews given to the foreign press during this period. We can see here a typical case of the violation of the right to freedom of expression, of the right of lawyers to practise their profession without pressure or duress, and also of the right of a defendant to an impartial trial.
In this context, I would remind the Commission and the Council that any cooperation between the European Union and Iran needs to start from the premise that respect for human rights is an absolute must.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, this is another matter which outrages European public opinion and which outrages the Members of this House. If we keep seeing situations in the same country which evidently violate human rights, we need to think about the structure and responsibility of that country. It can be seen clearly that respect for one's own traditions and customs does not, however, go together with the acceptance of certain declared standards or European standards - I am thinking, here, of human rights. That is obvious. It is good that the European Parliament has taken up this matter. There is still a question, however, about political pressure, because that is, as it were, the next matter on which the European Parliament speaks, when we are talking about Iran, and is not achieving any great success. Perhaps it is necessary to begin applying pressure which is very much stronger than at present.
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) Mr President, activists and advocates fighting for human rights in Iran have long been persecuted and detained, and the verdict against the lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, comprises a sad example of this persecution.
The Iranian regime has done the same to the activist, Shiva Nazar Ahari, the lawyer, Mohammad Seifzadeh, and the advocate, Mohammad Oliyafar. Other activists are threatened with a similar fate.
Repression in Iran continues to get worse, and our attempts to improve the situation have no effect. The action of the government against those who have reservations about the regime has now reached such a level that we must seriously begin to consider a change of policy towards this country and to consider other possibilities for more effective pressure on the Iranian administration so that we can help the Iranian people to breath more freely. It will surely not be easy, but I believe it is our responsibility to try and change the situation in Iran.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, Nasrin Sotoudeh is one of the best known human rights lawyers in Iran and she defended Shirin Ebadi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, among others. Her clients have also included underage persons who have been sentenced to death and the victims of family violence. Her only crime is that she was practising her profession, which is defending people unable to defend themselves against Iran's brutal regime.
The unrest following the elections in 2009 and their consequences have resulted in the Iranian authorities taking harsh measures against human rights defenders and activists. It is the aim of the Iranian Government to silence all opposition once and for all both inside and outside the country.
This Parliament has appealed on behalf of the people in Ahvaz, for example, and submitted a unanimous written declaration on the matter. It is strange that the international community can do nothing to get rid of this barbarous regime.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(PL) Mr President, during the last debate on human rights violations in Iran, which took place in this Chamber barely four months ago, I said in my speech that five Iranian citizens every day are told they are soon to lose their lives under sentence of capital punishment. To this tragic statistic must also be added the sentences of many years in prison for Iranian lawyers who defend the victims of the country's justice system. Those last two words should probably be put in inverted commas. Forty seven year-old Nasrin Sotoudeh, who was arrested on 4 September, tortured and who has now been sentenced to 11 years in prison, is an example of this.
Other Iranian lawyers have also met with repression. Shiva Nazar Ahari, co-founder of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters, has been given a sentence of four years in prison, Mohammad Seifzadeh has been given nine years in prison and a ban on practising law for 10 years, and Mohammad Oliyafar has received a year in prison just for representing his clients in court. I think that by using the negotiating position of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, we should press for the subject of human rights defenders to be included in talks with Iran as a matter of urgency.
Monica Luisa Macovei
(RO) Mr President, the case of the lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, is very serious. She has received 11 years in prison, has been banned from practising law and from leaving the country for 20 years. What has she done? She has defended Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, other political and human rights activists, journalists and minors sentenced to the death penalty.
Since 2009, at least 15 human rights lawyers have received prison sentences in Iran. Through such measures, Iran violates fundamental human rights and fundamental UN principles for the role of a lawyer. I urge the Commission and the Council to intervene for the immediate release of the lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh.
Štefan Füle
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Union remains extremely concerned about the grave and deteriorating situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Over the last two years, conditions have gone from being difficult to being near impossible for those who work to defend human rights.
For Nasrin Sotoudeh and many others like her who work to defend the just causes of fundamental rights and freedom, working from jail is not an option. The impact of her arrest is clear: those in Iran who are brave enough to stand up for those whom the state itself is supposed to protect risk being intimidated, imprisoned or worse.
The European Union has been speaking out; more than ten statements were released in 2010 by High Representative and Vice-President Ashton on both the general situation and on individual cases. At the same time, the European Union undertook discreet demarches with the Iranian authorities seeking clarifications and explanations, and conveying clear messages on the need to improve the situation in Iran. A statement on Nasrin Sotoudeh's case was made by High Representative and Vice-President Ashton on 14 January 2011, which mentioned both Ms Sotoudeh and Ms Shiva Nazar Ahari, a lawyer and a journalist, sentenced respectively to eleven and four years in prison.
The Islamic Republic of Iran was recently elected to the membership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Mrs Sotoudeh and Ms Ahari are two women who have been deprived of the very rights they were fighting to protect. The European Union will continue reminding the Iranian authorities that, first and foremost, they must comply with those international obligations stemming from the multilateral agreements and conventions they have signed and ratified. We will continue seeking ways to make our action in defence of human rights more effective, using all the means at our disposal. The Iranian people deserve no less.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, we have a completely superfluous working group here in Parliament whose job it is to look at ways of making the plenary sessions more interesting. This group would have done well to study today's plenary. All we need is sufficient time, which is why we should also be allowed time on Thursday afternoons. We also need the right President in the chair, who can exercise a judicious measure of rigour and flexibility. This will produce a lively and interesting plenary.
(Applause)
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Eija-Riitta Korhola
The situation of active human rights defenders in Iran is becoming ever more difficult. In addition, we read about the increasing number of death sentences. The Dutch national, Zahra Bahrami, who had been mentioned in our hurried resolutions previously, was sentenced to death, and her lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, received an 11 year prison sentence 'for acting against national security'.
As we know, the hallmark of Iran's legal system is a serious lack of justice and transparency. It is therefore important that the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy does not let the country off the hook, but continues to raise human rights issues in relations with Iran. Let me list the minimum requirements: the immediate and unconditional release of human rights lawyer Sotoudeh and other prisoners of conscience, Bahrami's death sentence to be reconsidered and the Dutch authorities to be included in handling the case, allowing representatives of the Red Cross to meet with prisoners, and letting human rights organisations into the country to assess the situation.
Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein
The European Parliament must react to cases of human rights violations. We have to remember that thanks to the publicising of specific cases, the international community can exert greater pressure on countries which do not respect generally accepted democratic standards. Nasrin Sotoudeh represented Iranian civil and human rights activists at their trials and defended minors who had been sentenced to capital punishment. The Iranian authorities considered her activities to be 'spreading hostile propaganda' and sentenced her to 11 years in prison. It is a good thing that her case has appeared on the agenda of a plenary sitting of the European Parliament. The European Parliament, when it calls for the release of Nasrin Sotoudeh and other prisoners of conscience, and also for the establishment of an independent commission to examine the prosecution of human rights defenders, should not be ignored.


Environmental protection from radiation following the crash of a military aircraft in Greenland (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Diana Wallis, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (petition 720/2002).
Diana Wallis
rapporteur. - Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe's citizens in the event of nuclear incidents.
This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen.
Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War - indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold - indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them.
This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report - the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply.
But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument - an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures - not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe's citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention.
I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended.
Andris Piebalgs
Madam President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work on this very important petition. The Commission has full sympathy with the petitioners who have undergone a very difficult time following their participation in the rescue operations after the air crash in 1968. At the same time, I would say that over the past five years the Commission has followed this case very closely. It has studied it carefully from the legal point of view and has cooperated with the Committee on Petitions and with its rapporteur.
The Commission reached the conclusion that the claims brought by the petitioners in this case cannot be based on Community law but solely on the basis of Danish national legislation before the Danish administration and courts. In view of these elements, this case calls for a political, rather than a legal, solution. I believe that the proposed European Parliament resolution could be one of the elements to help such a political solution.
In order to ensure that Euratom legislation covers future situations such as the one which originated in the petition, the Commission will examine the possibility of making a relevant provision on the application of the radiation protection requirements in situations arising from military applications. The inclusion of such a provision could be undertaken in the framework of the forthcoming revision and recasting of Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. However, the compatibility of such a provision with the case-law needs to be examined in detail.
Michael Cashman
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I will not read from my notes. I will say what I feel, not what I ought to say.
The Commissioner offers his sympathy, but we do not need sympathy. What is needed is the enforcement of fundamental rights, which are critical here; the right of access to information in order for you to be completely certain that what has happened to you is not life-threatening.
The easiest thing here would be to attack the government of one of the Member States. I do not what to do that. I want to seek to achieve a solution on behalf of the petitioners.
Commissioner, you talk of a political solution. Well, I wish to inform you that this is a political institution, which is why we are approaching the European Commission to help us achieve that solution.
The solution will not come through sympathy, but through the determination to ask the Danish Government, under the auspices of good and loyal cooperation, which is enshrined in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, to acquiesce to the request for information from the petitioners and workers who formed an association and cleaned up after this tragedy. Therefore, do not sympathise with them, but lend them the Commission's political clout and support and enquire of the Member State as to whether it will release information that is essential to these people in terms of ensuring that they are not at risk and that their lives are safe and in good hands. That is all we ask.
I shall detain the House no longer. I am tiring of the Commission's response to the effect that 'it is nothing to do with us'. That is the simplest way to reinforce the Euro-scepticism that is growing across the EU and which, sadly, is prevalent in Denmark.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, this is a unique report on a unique petition and Mrs Wallis has dealt with it excellently. Legal matters aside, the petition on which the report is based raises some important points. I shall briefly mention three of them.
Point one. Even with the greatest of safety precautions, a nuclear weapons accident is always possible. In a way, the US B-52 crash in Greenland was very fortunate. Imagine the effects of it happening in a highly populated area, for example near a US base in central Europe. So anybody who claims nuclear weapons are absolutely safe in peace time is not telling the whole truth.
Point two. After a nuclear accident, well-prepared plans should immediately be put in action which would minimise the short-term and long-term effects to human health and to the environment. It seems that the relevant authorities, in this case the US air force and the Danish Government, were ill-prepared and did not deal with the problem properly, especially as regards protecting the civilian personnel and providing them with long-term health surveillance and monitoring. This shortfall has led to numerous premature deaths from cancer in cases where early detection could have provided a much better chance of survival, so anybody who claims that the relevant authorities can deal most adequately with the after-effects of a nuclear weapons accident is also not telling the whole truth.
Point three. After a nuclear weapons accident, one expects that the government concerned would display a spirit of transparency and cooperation in dealing with the affected population. This was not the case with the Greenland crash, as the Danish Government refused to provide access to the relevant environmental radiation records needed to estimate the radiation doses received by affected workers. Furthermore, the information given by the Danish authorities was dangerously misleading. So even scientific reports issued by governments after a nuclear weapons accident cannot be trusted.
The overall message is therefore clear. Nuclear weapons can cause death and suffering even in peace time, so the best way to deal with them is not to have them at all. After listening to the Commissioner, my final observation would be that petitioners who have endured years of suffering and struggle seem only to receive a lot of sympathy from the EU, but no practical assistance.
Marcin Libicki
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Diana Wallis for her - as usual - excellent report, and take pleasure and satisfaction in saying that we have in this House a rapporteur who always delivers highly accurate reports, particularly from the legal point of view, which is extremely important here.
In 1968, a US aircraft crashed with nuclear weapons on board. The writer of a petition which reached our Committee, suffered problems with his health and believes that he was not adequately compensated.
The Committee was again the last resort for a large number of people who had nowhere else to seek justice. This gave rise to an interesting legal aspect which Mrs Wallis dealt with excellently. The accident took place in 1968, while Denmark together with Greenland joined the European Union in 1973, and in 1985 Greenland left the European Union, while the Directive establishing basic safety standards in the event of such accidents (that is, Directive of the Council 96/29/EURATOM), dates from 13 May 1996. Although from the dates themselves it appears that the author of the petition stood no chance of seeking justice here, Diana Wallis proved that according to the precedents of the ECJ, new provisions of community law are fundamentally applicable to the future outcome of events that took place before prior legislative acts came into effect, such as Greenland's withdrawal from the European Union.
If states actually applied the relevant directives, the Committee on Petitions would have fewer problems to deal with. I would like to recall just three cases - the Lloyds case, the Equitable Life case and the matter of local planning abuses in Spain, which were brought simply because the relevant directives were not properly implemented in the countries in question. The injured parties are entitled to remedy for damage suffered, and we are all entitled to security in the future.
Margrete Auken
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DA) Madam President, this is a grim state of affairs. It is absurd and quite indefensible that nuclear weapons should have been flown around in this negligent way during the Cold War. That is what is really scandalous about the Thule case. Unacceptable though it is to treat nuclear weapons so carelessly, that is no reason for allowing ourselves to state something that has proved to be untrue. We have no documentation to indicate that any of the Thule workers died as a result of radiation. Nor can we maintain that the relevant health checks were not carried out. They were, in fact, carried out, and the results show the opposite of what the petitioner, and now also the report, assert. That is something that we have to respect.
The amendments by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance are designed to remove errors and unwarranted assertions. That being said, we agree with Mrs Wallis that Denmark cannot avoid the fact that the EU has powers to exercise in this matter. What happened involving the B-52 bomber is not the only nuclear activity that has polluted the Thule area. Every aspect needs to be looked into, and the EU should make sure that the relevant investigations take place. If, however, the report is to have some significance, it must not contain factual errors. If we adopt a report containing errors, all we do is damage our own credibility. I have no interest in defending the Danish Government on this matter. On the contrary. It has treated Mrs Wallis badly, and it has been all too slow in forwarding the results of the many investigations to Parliament. We nonetheless very much hope that we get the report properly adopted so that it is practical and effective enough subsequently to influence events and is not merely set aside for not having respected the real facts.
Søren Bo Søndergaard
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DA) Madam President, the plane crash on 21 January 1968 in North-Western Greenland triggered not only 850 metre-high flames but also extensive radioactive pollution. The Danish authorities wanted the matter kept under wraps. They knew that their tacit acceptance of American aircraft armed with nuclear weapons in Greenland's airspace was unpopular among the populations of both Denmark and Greenland. That is why 18 years went by before the authorities began to take an interest in the health of the Greenlanders affected and of the civilian workers involved in the clean-up operation. Even today, the people concerned have still not been given a complete picture of what happened to them. This is partly because successive Danish governments have refused to comply with the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty, which they nonetheless signed.
In the view of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, that is the crucial point in Mrs Wallis's proposal. We are able to support the first four of the five amendments by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, but we shall in any case vote in favour of the proposal in the final vote.
Jens-Peter Bonde
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Madam President, for the first time in 28 years, I shall vote tomorrow in favour of criticising my own government in Denmark. I am ashamed of the way we behaved towards the few hundred survivors of the American nuclear accident in Greenland in 1968. In order to conceal the fact that this accident was a nuclear one, the authorities failed to supply them with personal protection when getting them to clean up after it. Many have since died of cancer, while animals have been born with defects, which can presumably be traced back to the accident. Mr Carswell has raised this matter in the Committee on Petitions. He has himself been in hospital 50 times due to the effects of the accident. Mrs Wallis has done some detailed work for the committee over the last three years, involving hearings and visits, and now Mrs Auken comes along to the actual sitting at which we are to vote and wants to see all the work begun again from scratch. The matter is very simple and is not about the presence or otherwise of radiation. What it is about is the fact that, under the EURATOM Treaty, the survivors are entitled to annual health checks, however much their health may or may not have been affected, and they are entitled to have access to their own medical reports. Denmark should now comply with those two requirements.
I should like to thank Mrs Wallis and the committee for the very responsible work they have done on this matter. I myself took part in all the meetings, and if Mrs Auken had shown her interest when the matter was discussed, she would not have tabled amendments at the last minute. Imagine if all the other reports from Parliament had to be debated again because Mrs Auken had not taken part in the committee reading. I urge you to vote in favour of the report tomorrow without last-minute amendments.
The Commission now says that there is a need for a political solution. There are some of us who have tried to obtain such a solution. I have sent private letters to the Prime Minister in order to get this matter cleared up politically. His attitude was sympathetic, but no solution was found because officialdom does not want to give way on this matter. What a good thing it is, then, that people have access to a Committee on Petitions to which they can turn when officials are not disposed to listen to them.
Andris Piebalgs
Member of the Commission. Madam President, honourable Members, enforcement of rights could be done on the basis of legislation. The Commission has analysed this thoroughly. Unfortunately I cannot add anything further, even after this very professional debate.
At the same time, I could also say that the report will be a reference document for future Community action in this field.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday.


1. Iran (vote)
- Resolution: Iran (RC B6-0406/2007)
- Before the vote on paragraph 15
Marios Matsakis
Madam President, I ask for your leniency, and that of my colleagues, in submitting a last-minute oral amendment on account of the fact that we have just been informed of the arrest of a prominent human rights defender in Iran. The amendment is to add to paragraph 15 the following sentence: 'Condemns the arrest and imprisonment of human rights defender Dr Sohrab Razzaghi on 24 October 2007 and calls for his immediate and unconditional release;'
I have already spoken with most of the other political groups, and they are in agreement.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)