Iceland's application for membership of the European Union (debate)
The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on Iceland's application for membership of the EU.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity today to address a few words to the plenary sitting of the European Parliament on behalf of the Presidency of the European Union and to present to you our plans for the accession negotiations with Iceland, a country with which we have all become more familiar in recent months because of the volcano Eyjafjallajökull. My apologies to the interpreters for forcing them to pronounce this tongue twister.
First of all, I should like to emphasise, as you have also pointed out in your most recent resolution on the enlargement strategy, that enlargement has been a success story for the EU and for Europe as a whole and that it has brought benefits to both long-standing and new Member States. The enlargement process will continue to contribute to peace, democracy and stability on the European continent. It gives the EU greater weight in the world and also yields concrete benefits for our citizens, amongst other things, in the form of greater prosperity, better prospects for economic growth and new opportunities for cooperation, for instance, as regards transport, energy and many other areas.
Building on the progress made by previous Presidencies and in line with the renewed consensus on enlargement, which is contained in the conclusions of the European Council of December 2006, and with the programme of the Council Presidency trio, the Belgian Presidency will continue with these activities. Perhaps I should point out that steering enlargement in the right direction is one of the five priority axes of the Belgian Presidency.
The European Council of 17 June welcomed the Commission Opinion on Iceland's application for membership of the European Union and the recommendation that accession negotiations with Iceland be opened. In the light of the renewed consensus on enlargement, the European Council has established that Iceland is compliant with the political criteria set in 1993 by the Copenhagen European Council and has decided that accession negotiations are to be opened.
The European Council has also requested that the Council set out a general negotiating framework and has also issued a reminder of the objective of the negotiations, namely that Iceland adopt the acquis in its entirety and ensure full implementation and enforcement thereof. This means that Iceland must comply with its existing obligations, such as those under the European Economic Area Agreement, which the supervisory authority of the European Free Trade Association has pointed out. In addition, Iceland needs to take action on the other weak areas to which the Commission referred in its Opinion, including financial services.
(FR) The European Council has also welcomed Iceland's intention to focus on these issues and is convinced that it will actively continue with its efforts to settle any outstanding issues.
Finally, the European Council has confirmed that, as in the case of all the other accession candidates, negotiations will be based on Iceland's own particular merits, and that the rate of progress will depend on the progress that the country makes towards satisfying the criteria laid down during the negotiations.
How are we going to proceed on this matter? We will apply the same procedure as the one we followed during previous accession processes, in line with the renewed consensus on enlargement.
The Council will first adopt a negotiating framework for Iceland, which will set out the general principles governing the negotiations and the conditions that it will have to satisfy. This negotiating framework will also take account of Iceland's particular merits and its specific situation and characteristics. The fact that this country has recently benefited from the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance will clearly help prepare it for accession.
Meanwhile, the Commission has already sent the Council the draft negotiating framework, and I hope that the General Affairs Council, which I will be chairing on 26 July, will be able to adopt it so as to pave the way for the first intergovernmental accession conference to be held with Iceland even before the end of this month.
If confirmed, this timetable would enable us to start accession negotiations before the summer recess. Iceland will then be subjected to screening by the Commission, which is intended to determine how prepared candidate countries are to commence negotiations in a number of specific areas of the acquis. These areas are subdivided, as you know, into chapters. In the autumn, the Commission will present its first regular report on Iceland's progress towards accession. Based on the results of the screening conducted by the Commission and on a proposal which the Commission will submit to it, the Council will decide on the criteria to be applied for the purposes of opening and closing each chapter.
Some people are asking how long these accession negotiations with Iceland will last. Let us first emphasise the fact that, as a Member of the European Economic Area and of the Schengen Area, Iceland already has very close links with the EU and already complies with a large proportion of the acquis. However, it would be wrong for the Council to lay down a timetable for the negotiations or to anticipate what they will cover.
Indeed, in other fields, such as fishing for example - including whale hunting, an issue on which Europe has a clear position and which falls under the acquis, with which Iceland will also have to comply - and agriculture and rural development, negotiations will probably be a little more difficult. Enlargement is decided by merit rather than by an artificial timetable.
However, I should like to emphasise that the Belgian Presidency is firmly committed to moving this process forward.
(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the enlargement process has so far been a success story, both for the European Union and for Europe as a continent. Therefore, the Belgian Presidency looks forward to cooperating with you on this in a positive and constructive manner in the course of the coming six months, not only on the matter of Iceland's accession but also with regard to the other candidate Member States.
I should like to underline what my Prime Minister has just clearly stated in his presentation. The Belgian Presidency is particularly aware that the European Parliament has also played a crucial role, not least since the Treaty of Lisbon, in matters such as support for the enlargement process by ensuring, among other things, that the citizens of the European Union, too, continue to support this process.
I should also like to express my appreciation for the efforts made by the European Parliament and for your constructive contributions to the EU enlargement policy, for example, in the present resolution, when it comes to convincing public opinion and continuing to drum up sufficient support for the enlargement policy amongst all European citizens. Thank you for your attention.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, it is my pleasure to be here with you today for an exchange of views on Iceland and the next steps in the accession process.
The unanimous decision of the Heads of State and Government to open accession negotiations, taken at the June European Council, is an important step forward in the country's bid to join the European Union. It clearly confirms that Iceland has a place in the European Union and the common will of Member States to welcome it as soon as all conditions are met. The Commission warmly welcomes this decision, which follows the recommendations of our opinion of February.
Let me seize this opportunity to thank the House for its support in this process and congratulate the rapporteur, the honourable Member Preda, for his timely and high
quality report. The European Parliament resolution under discussion today is a very helpful contribution to the process. It delivers the right messages to Iceland at the right moment.
I can assure the House of the Commission's full support for this resolution.
With the political backing of Member States, the Commission is now actively preparing the next stages of the accession process. As a first step, the Commission prepared a draft negotiating framework, rightly admitted by my predecessor, which is currently under discussion in the Council. The Belgian Presidency foresees adoption by the General Affairs Council on 26 July, with a view to convening the first intergovernmental conference with Iceland on 27 July. We count on the Member States' support in this endeavour.
The negotiating framework lays down the general guidelines for the conduct of accession negotiations and points out reforms Iceland must undertake in order to join the European Union. As with all candidates, negotiations will be based on the country's own merits and their pace will depend on Iceland's progress in meeting the requirements set out in the negotiating framework. This includes the fulfilment of Iceland's obligations under the European Economic Area. The Commission will provide Iceland with all necessary technical support to facilitate the process of negotiations.
Furthermore, we are actively preparing for the assessment of Iceland's compliance with the acquis, on a chapter by chapter basis, through the so-called screening exercise. That screening is expected to start in autumn 2010 and should last until mid-2011. In line with the renewed consensus on enlargement, screening of chapters with special sensitivity in the Icelandic context - meaning financial services, fisheries, agriculture and the environment - should start very early in the process.
Throughout the whole process, the Commission aims to support Iceland's efforts to meet the accession criteria through financial assistance under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). We therefore welcome the entry into force next week of the amended IPA Regulation, which allows Iceland to benefit from EU assistance.
I would like to thank Parliament for its constant support in the process of adopting this important regulation. As a sign of it now belonging fully to the enlargement family, Iceland will, for the first time, be included in our annual enlargement package this year, with the first progress report to be published mid-November, whereby progress over the last year will be monitored.
As you can see, all preparations are well on track to allow for an early start to the negotiations. Iceland's membership of the EEA, its association with the Schengen Agreement, and the country's high democratic standards will be valuable assets in this process. However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the road to accession will also hold a number of challenges.
We are well aware that issues such as whaling and fisheries - to quote the most obvious - are sensitive issues for both Iceland and the Member States. I heard your call for a constructive attitude when negotiating the fisheries chapters, and can assure you that the Commission will conduct talks in the best spirit.
As regards the Icesave issues, I understand the concerns raised due to the slowdown in bilateral talks following the negative outcome of the referendum in Iceland in March. As referred to in your resolution, we hope that clarification of the legal situation provided by a letter of formal notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority will facilitate the process of swiftly finding a satisfactory agreement between Iceland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Recent exchanges at ministerial level give reason for hope. Let me stress that I greatly appreciate the efforts and commitment of all parties involved to trying to find an agreement on this issue. The Commission will closely follow the developments in the framework of the accession process.
Not least, I share your concerns on the challenges stemming from the absence of national consensus and the related low level of public support in Iceland for membership. I have duly noted the call made on the Commission to provide support to the Icelandic authorities in its communication strategy on European Union membership.
Communication will be a clear priority for IPA support to Iceland. We are working on the setting up of an information centre in the country, and on the development of factual and objective communication material. Our delegation in Reykjavik, which will be fully operational by autumn, will be instrumental in addressing the citizens of Iceland. It will work in very close cooperation with the Icelandic Government, which bears the first responsibility in this regard.
To conclude, let me reiterate the Commission's full support for Iceland's aspiration to join the European Union. I am confident that Iceland will continue to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure a positive outcome of the accession negotiations.
As I have emphasised on previous occasions, I will make sure that Parliament is kept fully informed throughout the negotiating process.
I would like to begin by welcoming the presence of the Commission and Council in the Chamber, as well as the fruitful cooperation we have had so far with these two institutions and also with fellow Members in the other political groups. The report which I have compiled deals with Iceland's application to join the EU from the perspective of four basic factors.
Factor one: political criteria. Iceland excels in this respect, with a strong tradition of democracy. On the other hand, in spite of recent encouraging signs, there are still doubts hanging over the independence of the judicial system. Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities need to end the distinction among European citizens when it comes to the right to vote and participating in local elections.
Factor two: economic criteria. As a member of the European Economic Area, Iceland already fulfils a large proportion of a Member State's obligations. I welcome the resumption of bilateral negotiations on the 'Icesave' legislation, as well as the recent signs of economic consolidation. I obviously support Iceland's desire to join the euro area after it becomes an EU Member State and fulfils the necessary conditions.
Factor three: regional cooperation. On this point, Iceland and its accession offer the European Union a unique opportunity to strengthen and consolidate its presence in the Arctic region.
Last, but not least is public opinion. The role of public opinion is vital to ensuring that the accession process culminates in success. With this in mind, I believe that encouragement must be given to the Icelandic authorities' initiative to launch a public debate and consult with all the stakeholders in this project. This is all the more important as a recent survey highlighted that Icelanders would like to receive more information about the EU and its policies.
Madam President, members of the Council and of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, clearly, the start of accession negotiations with Iceland represents another step forward in the European integration process. We are talking about a country which has signed European partnership agreements for years, which has been a signatory to the Schengen Agreement since 1996, and which is one of the founding members of the World Trade Organisation.
So far, Iceland has demonstrated that it meets many of the accession criteria, though there are some aspects that still need to be improved. I refer to the judicial system, mentioned by Mr Preda: it is important for Iceland to adopt clear mechanisms in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary and to resolve the problem of appointments of judges, prosecutors and supreme judicial authorities.
The Icelandic Government must work harder: it is the Icelandic people who must be convinced about wanting to participate in the European challenge. There are, of course, some issues that still need to be defined, and one of those is whaling. The conference in Agadir on 25 June confirmed the moratorium on whaling, and Iceland must act in accordance with this decision and stop whaling even for scientific purposes, since it is often a cover for commercial whaling.
Lastly, there is one point on which I think greater conviction is needed by Parliament and that is the Icesave issue, which has highlighted the need for a solid law on conflicts of interest in that country. Madam President, the negotiation stage can begin in order to reaffirm that Europe is not a geographical area or a closed system, and that, if they so desire and if they conform, the countries neighbouring Europe can participate in the development and the construction of the European project.
Madam President, Iceland is one of the oldest democracies in Europe. The Althing, the Icelandic Parliament, is the oldest parliament on our continent. Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area, of Schengen and of Dublin, and that means that Iceland has already transposed most of the acquis communautaire. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe therefore strongly welcomes the commencement of accession negotiations with Iceland. As a member of the European Union, Iceland will be able to make a real contribution to Europe. However, that also means, Madam President, that Iceland must comply with its obligations stemming from Icesave; that is, its obligations towards the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. You know that the agreements with both of these countries were rejected in a referendum, and that means that the Icelandic Government must now make every effort in order to forge new arrangements with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and to comply with them. After all, the basis of European integration is the saying pacta sunt servanda; that is, agreements must be adhered to. Should the Icelandic Government do that, then that will slot into place the final piece of the jigsaw of the accession negotiations with Iceland and of its accession to the European Union. These are the conditions under which we welcome the accession negotiations.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a document here which defines the European Parliament's mandate for negotiators with Iceland, and this is also an important message to the public, including the Icelandic public, which, as we know, is not optimistically minded in relation to integration with the European Union. As this constitutes a mandate, I think that we should stress those aspects which promise to be the most serious in their discussions, such as fishing and the question of whaling. I find it unfortunate that in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the proposals of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance were voted down, because they would have given a fair and candid message to the Icelanders.
Indeed, however, the points which do not relate directly to the negotiators' mandate were not voted down, and naturally I have in mind here the Icesave question. Fortunately, Mr Preda has achieved a satisfactory compromise here. To me personally, it seems unfair that some people would like to make all the Icelandic people responsible for the wrong decisions of economic actors. Furthermore, money was put into Icelandic banks by some British local governments, money which British taxpayers had given them in order to sort out public transport and education, not to spend in a casino.
In one session of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Iceland was called a bankrupt island. It is true that Iceland was struck by a financial crisis, but can we think of many countries which were not affected? I cannot. I would remind you that in 1971, Denmark, too, was in very serious financial difficulties, but a year later, it emerged from that to become a very good European Union member. Finally, Madam President, I very much hope that, as early as this plenary session, there will be six extra seats in this chamber for Icelandic members.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, the ECR Group supports enlargement of the Union and, in principle, of course we support the accession of Iceland - if that is what the people of Iceland themselves want.
There are several reasons why Iceland's membership would be good for the EU. First, the more the EU increases its size, hopefully the looser and more flexible the Union will become.
Second, Iceland's dependence on its fishing industry will most likely result in a favourable deal which itself may prompt long overdue reform of the common fisheries policy and pave the way for Norway's eventual accession.
Third, Iceland has already adopted large chunks of the acquis through membership of the European Economic Area and the Schengen zone, so absorption of Iceland would not exacerbate the so-called 'enlargement fatigue' that has been blamed for the public's disenchantment with the European Union.
No one expects wealthy Icelanders to leave their underpopulated country en masse to seek work elsewhere in the European Union, as might be the case, for example, if Turkey were to join in the future.
Of course, the decision rests with the people of Iceland in a referendum. In the last referendum held in Iceland, voters decided against refunding British savers billions of pounds following the collapse of the Icesave bank.
I remain confident that Iceland will recognise and honour its EEA legal obligations in this regard to other most affected Member States such as my own country - the United Kingdom - and the Netherlands.
Madam President, in the debate on Iceland's membership of the EU, I have not actually seen any self-critical analysis. In my view, the debate should not only be about those areas in which Iceland has to adapt itself to the EU. We must not turn ourselves into a propaganda machine for the fact that Iceland's membership has been, is and always will be clearly advantageous for Iceland.
We must be in a position to assess the advantages and disadvantages in an objective manner. The people of Iceland are not stupid. They understand very well that if Iceland had been a member, the current fisheries policy in the EU would have spelled disaster for the fisheries industry, which is the country's main industry. The people of Iceland also know that the EU's repeated calls for the liberalisation of the banking system did not help to prevent, but rather to create, the basis for the bank crisis that they experienced in Iceland. Finally, the Icelandic people can see very well that, if they currently had the euro in Iceland, it would be much more difficult for them to get themselves out of the crisis, which, fortunately, Iceland is well on the way to doing on the basis of their own floating currency.
The most recent opinion poll in Iceland indicates a steadily growing opposition to EU membership. If there was a referendum today, 70% of Icelandic people would vote 'no' and only 30% would vote 'yes'. If we believe that this result can be changed by a propaganda campaign about the blessings of the EU, we are badly mistaken! Iceland's application should not only be a reason to place demands on Iceland; it should also be a reason to take a self-critical look at the EU's own policy.
Madam President, I speak as a Finn and someone from the Nordic countries. Iceland is an independent sovereign state and you yourselves will make the decision. My recommendation to you is this: do not do this to yourselves. You are a lot more valuable as part of Europe, but outside the European Union. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland enjoy an intelligent, prosperous existence in Europe outside the European Union.
We in Finland have 15 years' experience of this, and I am not at all satisfied. The influence that a small country has here is nonexistent: the big countries dominate. You have much that is good in your country, and you certainly meet the criteria. You are a strong Nordic democracy, in which referendums do not make a mockery of democracy. When Norway said no in 1994, they did not vote again. When Sweden said no to giving up the krona, they did not vote again. Elsewhere in Europe, however, they vote again a year later if the result is not the right one. Do not do this to yourselves.
Madam President, the defining feature of the EU conspiracy, apart from endemic waste and fraud, is that it rides roughshod over the wishes of real people. The push to bully Iceland into surrendering to EU rule is an example. Gallup polls reveal that 60% of Icelanders want to retain their freedom by staying out of the EU. Only 26% are now fooled by the pro-Union propaganda of the corporate media.
This is no surprise. Icelanders have the oldest tradition of true democracy in the world. They do not want to exchange it for rule by unelected commissars. Icelanders have some of the last great fish stocks in the world. They want to preserve them from being destroyed, as EU membership has destroyed Britain's fish stocks. Icelanders are proud of their Viking origins, vibrant culture and identity. EU rule would doom Reykjavik to becoming a scale model of the Muslim ghettos of 'Londonistan', Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen! So, from the belly of the Euro beast, I urge the people of Iceland: stay free! Say 'no' to European Union!
(DE) Madam President, Mr Füle, Mr Vanackere, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome Iceland's accession to the European Union, because, as a member of the European Economic Area, it already fulfils many of the necessary conditions. It is one of the best functioning democracies I know of and I believe that the European Union will be happy to act as a safe haven for Iceland, which is the reason behind Iceland's application. However, we should also make it clear that it is in our interest for Iceland to become a member of the EU.
In addition, there is a whole series of questions which are not covered by the European Economic Area. Whaling is definitely one of the items that needs mentioning, together with a range of other issues relating to free movement of capital and agriculture, among other things, which need to be resolved.
I believe it is particularly important to ensure that the Icelandic Government enlists popular support for the accession. Negotiating in the full knowledge that the government does not have the majority of the population behind it will tie up resources in an unacceptable way. Therefore, Mr Füle, I would like you to make this clear, so that we are not negotiating to no purpose.
Madam President, there is no doubt that Iceland's home is in the European Union and it may come as a surprise to Nick Griffin that Iceland already voluntarily applies two thirds of EU laws, voluntarily is a member of the internal market and voluntarily is in the Schengen zone.
What I want to stress today is that we need to develop responses to the financial crisis. It has been a dominant feature of our European policy making process. Commissioner, as you know, today, Parliament will vote on the financial supervisory package and on capital requirements for institutions and rules for bankers' pay and remuneration. It is therefore important, in the wake of Iceland's banking collapse, that we strengthen our partnership around financial reform. I am pleased therefore that this forms a key part - and indeed an early part - of the negotiations with Iceland.
There is of course - as many colleagues have said - one major outstanding issue that needs to be resolved. The Icesave negotiations between the UK, Netherlands and Iceland need to find a fair and equitable solution to the compensation paid to savers and indeed, in my own constituency, to a cancer care charity which lost funds that had been donated to them and had to be compensated by our government. I am therefore pleased that the Commission and Council recognise the importance of this solution.
I would again stress that financial services and improved supervision must be an essential element of the negotiations in the interests of the European economy, not just of Iceland and other Member States.
Madam President, Iceland is uniquely placed to proceed quickly with negotiations and it has already adopted, as others have said, a significant part of the Community acquis due to its membership of the EEA. Over 35 different aspects of EU policy are to be concluded, including the areas of competition policy, financial services, agriculture, fisheries.
As Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee, I strongly believe that, aside from the political negotiations that will now commence, it is of equal importance to further improve the political and civil society dialogue between the European Union and Iceland. By tradition, access negotiations are an open-ended process, with progress dependent on the good faith of both parties. This is why, for example, it is important that Icesave issues remain a bilateral affair.
My simple recommendation to the Icelandic people, who may be apprehensive at this stage, is to await the final outcome before taking fixed positions. There is no question of bullying Iceland, as Arlene McCarthy has said. The Icelandic people are an intelligent people and they will decide, after the negotiations are complete, where their future is.
(NL) Madam President, as a Dutch national, I obviously think it absolutely vital we come to an agreement with Iceland about the debts incurred by Icesave, but on no account should that debate be an obstacle to opening negotiations now. Therefore, I very much value the constructive position which my Dutch fellow Members in the European Parliament have adopted on this issue. Ultimately, Iceland's admission to the European Union will, in itself, act as our guarantee that it will eventually repay that money.
I shall now turn to a second aspect, that of whaling. Europe has placed whales on the list of protected species. European countries do not hunt whales. If Iceland wants to become a member of the EU - and I hope that it does - then it will have to stop whaling, and I think that it is this Parliament's job to send out that message. However, let us not get into an argument about whaling now, when the negotiations have only just begun.
(NL) Madam President, Iceland's application for accession to the EU makes sense and deserves our support. Unlike Turkey, the country is situated in Europe, and it has long-standing socio-economic, cultural and ideological similarities with Europe. That, too, distinguishes it from Turkey.
Iceland's accession is being allowed because that country is compliant with the Copenhagen criteria, but its dispute with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom over the Icesave savings is an even more important matter. That must be resolved in a timely and appropriate manner. Negotiations on the financial chapters of the accession agreement should only be closed once we have full agreement that Iceland will pay that money back and once we have clarity on this matter. For me, that should be a firm requirement. No hard cash, no accession.
Madam President, we are talking about a small Atlantic community with a parliament that has been in existence for over 1 000 years. We are talking about a place with good levels of education. We are talking about a place where people actually think before they jump. I think that is why roughly two thirds of people in the opinion polls have made their minds up: they do not want to join the European Union. It is not going to happen!
All I can say is: lucky old Iceland! Because they were not part of this club, because they did not surrender to the euro, they have had a competitive devaluation of the krona, which has been good for their economy. It has led to a tourist boom and I would have thought countries like Greece would be very jealous of them.
And they have a 200-mile exclusive economic zone for their fisheries, which they won during the Cod Wars with Britain back in the 1970s. Do not sacrifice it! Do not give it away! Do not trust your own career politicians, because, if you do, this lot will take your greatest renewable resource from you! Do not do it!
Madam President, being a human rights lawyer, I follow the accession process of Iceland from the perspective of human rights - and, I must say, with great worry.
I have just one minute to speak on the issue of human rights - mainly, of course, of those who challenge, question or protest against the accession - and would like to remind Icelandic citizens of two important things. One is that you have a fundamental human right under modern human rights law to be informed correctly, precisely and accurately about public affairs - not just the positive sides but also the negative sides of accession. Moreover, those of you who want to mobilise against accession have just the same right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly as those who mobilise for the accession. You have just the same rights to public financial resources without discrimination, and access to public media, public television and so on. Claim your rights before it is too late.
(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we thank Mr Preda for his fine and constructive cooperation.
Madam President, when negotiating accession, it is important that you do not give the candidate country false expectations and that you also identify very difficult issues. In the process, you also have to be objective, and we know that the criteria also have to be met. Madam President, it is, for that reason, essential that Iceland comply with all the obligations arising from the acquis. Like the European Commission, I have come to the conclusion that Iceland is not exercising sufficient supervision of its financial markets. I have also concluded that its failure to implement the deposit guarantee system has led to problems with at least two Member States: the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Another thing that is part and parcel of a country's acceding to the EU is that it has to comply with its obligations and reach agreement.
Madam President, the main challenge facing Iceland is that, while its society and politicians are convinced that they want accession, the country still has a great deal of work to do.
(RO) I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague, Cristian Preda, for all his efforts in drafting this report. Adopting it almost one year after Iceland submitted its application for accession sends out a message of support to this country's efforts towards integration.
I would like to point out that Iceland has already been cooperating with the European Union for a number of years as part of the European Economic Area since 1994 and of the Schengen area since 1996. As a result, this country will manage to implement European legislation fairly quickly.
I think that Iceland's accession is of strategic importance in terms of strengthening the EU's role in the Arctic Region and North Atlantic. At the same time, Iceland would guarantee its stability, while the European Union would include a country which, although currently in a crisis, has a market economy and democratic system.
(EL) Madam President, Iceland is a small island country, one of the oldest democracies in Europe, with one of the most robust economies in the world. It recently found itself in the eye of the storm of the international financial and monetary crisis. It saw its biggest banks collapse and watched its national currency slump, resulting in an increase in unemployment and the number of companies going bankrupt, as well as high interest rates.
As such, there is a direct and urgent need today to organise the financial supervision system and deposit guarantee system. The fact that Iceland has ambitions to accede to the European Union sends a message of confidence to the European construct.
Its accession will clearly be easier than Turkey's, because Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area, is a fully democratic country, and has adopted most European legislation. Its participation in the European Union will raise the European Union's profile in the Arctic and open up a new chapter of two-way communication on fisheries and whaling issues.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Madam President, I believe Iceland's membership would strengthen the values of the European Union and I welcome the application. I am told that our insistence on the curtailing of whaling will provoke an outcry in Iceland, but Icelanders need to understand that not to insist upon such a curtailment would provoke an outcry in the rest of Europe.
We have to recognise that Iceland has an excellent record in marine conservation - much better than that of many Member States. I could live with an arrangement that allowed whaling solely to meet indigenous needs, although the evidence is that Icelanders themselves do not seem to like whale very much. I cannot accept whaling for commercial export. I hope that Iceland will become known as the place in Europe where we go to watch whales, not where we go to see them killed.
Madam President, I welcome Iceland's application. I am not aware of anybody putting a gun to their heads. I think they want to join the European Union because, in the words of the Belgian Prime Minister earlier, they see the European Union as a guarantee of prosperity.
The message has to go out loud and clear that there are no guarantees of prosperity. It is a two-way street. To paraphrase the words of the late US President, John F. Kennedy, we should say to Member States and applicant countries: 'Ask not what the EU can do for you, but what you can do for the EU'. There is no gold mine out here that people can dip their hands into and become prosperous.
I also welcome the application of Iceland because, as other speakers have said, it will give us an opportunity to reform the common fisheries policy. I know in my own country people feel very aggrieved at this current situation, especially the fishing community. Having Iceland in, renegotiating the CFP can change that.
Madam President, it seems to me that there are two contradictory paragraphs on fisheries in our resolution. Paragraph 26, which I will vote against, 'encourages Iceland to adopt fisheries policy measures that will allow it to make the transition towards introduction of the CFP'. Surely not the current CFP? Surely Icelanders will not volunteer to join a common fisheries policy that has failed us, just as it would fail them?
By contrast, paragraph 25 recognises Iceland's 'responsible and sustainable' attitude to fisheries and calls for constructive negotiations on fisheries 'so that the outcome may be a mutually satisfactory solution based on best practices and protecting the interest of both fishermen and consumers in the EU, as well as in Iceland'.
On that point, which I do support, I think there is a need for urgent discussions with Iceland on the issue of the mackerel fishery, which I think the Commissioner will be aware of. These discussions should be brought forward. I also think that Iceland has a role to play in indicating ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(SK) I believe we all regard Iceland as being part of Europe culturally, historically and geographically. We therefore welcome the application of the Icelandic Government to join the European Union.
Iceland is a highly democratic country which brings to the EU a wealth of experience in the field of renewable energy, geothermal energy and environmental protection, and through its experience can contribute very effectively to enriching EU policies in the environmental and energy sectors.
It is clear that the accession of Iceland to the EU would enrich the EU, but a fundamental question remains as to whether the people of Iceland wish to surrender part of their sovereignty to Brussels and undertake to respect the rights of the EU over their country.
It seems that there will continue to be a problem over this issue.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me once again show my appreciation for the role of the European Parliament, including the draft resolution tabled on Iceland.
Enlargement is indeed a very serious process and it will not be used for bullying anyone - not here in the EU and not in any aspirant country. Not only at the end of this process, but throughout this process, it should be clearly established that membership is value added for both Iceland and the European Union.
During today's discussions, I have heard a number of important points on whaling, fishery policies and public support. I am taking them very seriously, and they will be high on my list of priorities throughout the accession negotiations.
Madam President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Preda, who has mentioned the good cooperation between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, cooperation which the rotating Presidency very much values.
As Commissioner Füle has already mentioned - and many of you have also pointed out - Iceland has, indeed, come a long way already in honouring the acquis communautaire, but we have taken due note of a number of recurrent issues, such as Icesave, whaling and the independence of the judiciary. Ladies and gentlemen, accession continues to be based on a win-win logic that stems not just from Iceland's desire to benefit from further integration but also from a similar will on the part of the European Union. In that context, there is indeed no room for enlargement fatigue and we, together with Commissioner Füle, shall make every effort to continue to steer these processes in the right direction.
A motion for a resolution to wind up the debate has been tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 7 July 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - At this stage, it is worth highlighting the continuing predicament brought upon thousands of UK citizens following the failure of several Icelandic banks. These problems, in particular, the Icesave dispute, must be resolved before Iceland's accession is agreed. There is, of course, another reason why we have to be cautious of Iceland's accession to the EU. Iceland is understandably protective of its fishing industry. As fish is the country's primary export and main foreign currency earner, Iceland hails the positives of its fisheries management policy, compared to the negatives of the EU's failed fisheries policy. However, from the perspective of northern EU pelagic fishermen, free access to our waters is exactly what Iceland hopes to win from ongoing fisheries negotiations. The threat to the sustainable and well-managed mackerel stock in EU and UK waters that could come from Icelandic fishermen is very real. Ongoing negotiations with Iceland represent an ideal opportunity to dissuade Iceland from fishing mackerel at an unsustainable level. In the clamber to expand membership of the EU club, the interests of European and UK savers and our fishermen cannot be ignored.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Poland is very far from Iceland, but there are at least two reasons why we support Iceland's efforts to join the EU. Firstly, we ourselves acceded to the Union not long ago, and we all remember clearly how very important that was for us. The EU must not be an exclusive club, and should be open to the membership of other countries. The second reason is the fact that around 30 000 Poles are working in Iceland - mainly in the fish processing industry. In relation to this, I have several comments: I am glad the process of negotiations on enlargement of the EU to include Iceland is at an advanced stage, and that on 17 June, the European Council decided to open negotiations with Iceland. It is also important that Iceland accept the universal character of the principles which govern the negotiation process. Accelerating the negotiation path for Iceland's accession would be seen as a bad signal, particularly by the countries of the Western Balkans. One important issue concerns the readiness of Iceland's citizens to settle questions related to the payment of compensation to the governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for losses incurred by those countries as a result of the Icesave bankruptcy. However, I am of the opinion that bipartite disputes should not influence the process of a possible accession.
in writing. - I welcome Iceland's application to join the EU. It has been a long time coming, and we need to negotiate and discuss this issue in earnest in order to ensure that Iceland is welcomed as a full member of the EU family.
(The sitting was suspended for a short time)
Madam President, I rise to ask the President, through you, to make urgent representations to the government of the Maldives, following the arrest last week of Opposition MPs without them being told the charges against them, and their continued house arrest. A claim has been made that they have acted unconstitutionally, which should be substantiated or withdrawn.
Without making any comment about the country's domestic politics, it is right for this European Parliament to speak out in favour of democratic institutions and for the safety and protection of fellow parliamentarians, where this is under threat. Today, the army is deployed on the streets and there is huge unrest in the capital, but today, too, the President of Sri Lanka is arriving to attempt mediation between the parties.
This European Parliament should join the European Union's call for calm and for resolution of the dispute, and wish success to the President of Sri Lanka in achieving his task.
Mr Howitt, thank you for bringing those matters to our attention.


AIDS/HIV in view of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (Vienna, July 18-23 2010) (debate)
The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on AIDS/HIV in view of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (Vienna, July 18-23 2010).
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, honourable Members, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this session on human rights and HIV/AIDS. It is a timely debate, as we are only 11 days from the opening of the 18th World AIDS Conference, which will take place in Vienna.
The spread of HIV continues to cause considerable suffering. The impact of HIV is worse in situations where human rights are not respected, and we know that conflict situations can lead to an increase in HIV infections, especially when sexual abuse against women and children is common. In the absence of proper anti-discrimination laws, people living with HIV are often too frightened to come forward for help because of fear of stigma.
In countries where homosexuality is criminalised, some face the additional fear of imprisonment and, in extreme cases, even the death penalty. Human rights should empower individuals, including people affected with HIV. The right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health implies that those who are affected by HIV must have access to information as well as to effective prevention and treatment options. Affected people should not be discriminated against because of that status.
Honourable Members, we know that HIV infection is used in some countries as a reason to exclude asylum seekers from their right to seek protection. Infected persons may lose their right to work; infected children are sometimes excluded from school. The European Union has been at the forefront of the defence of the rights of HIV-affected and infected people. The European Council adopted conclusions in November 2009, with an EU programme for action to confront HIV/AIDS through external action, including the need to address the human rights aspect.
The European Union has been very active in promoting freedom of travel for people living with HIV. Our stance is that HIV-specific restrictions on entry, stay and residence based on that status are discriminatory and do not protect public health. We therefore welcome the recent modifications of the regulations in the US and in China as positive signs. In the last months, EU representatives, both in Brussels and in partner countries, have made several démarches on this issue, including voicing EU concerns about the criminalisation of sexual behaviour among consenting adults - Uganda, Burundi, Malawi - or harassment of AIDS activists by police and judicial authorities in Senegal.
The recent adoption of an EU tool kit to help promote and protect the respect of human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will further consolidate EU action in this area.
Madam President, I want to thank Mrs Ashton very much, because - although everyone is watching the match outside - we in here are debating the rights of people who are suffering from AIDS. We are debating, because it is a very distressing matter for all of us. Although recent years have seen progress in treatment and prevention, we now have just under five years to reach the Millennium Development Goals, in which Member States of the United Nations undertook to restrict the spread of HIV/AIDS and to reduce the number of new infections.
Meanwhile, the truth is that the number of people infected with the virus is rising. This concerns some regions in particular, and certain social groups among women and girls. Therefore, in our resolution, we declare and give strong support to three types of action. Firstly, legal measures intended to encourage countries at particular risk from AIDS to make the fight against AIDS a priority and to prepare plans for fighting the disease, including the preparation and introduction of anti-discrimination laws intended to protect those social groups which are at risk.
Secondly, we strongly emphasise educational measures. It is particularly important to ensure access to education and provision of information about HIV in order to turn discrimination into understanding and acceptance. This is important not only in developing and underdeveloped countries, but in European countries, too, it is still a painful and important question.
Apart from educational activities, we emphasise the importance of access to certain drugs. For example, in the autumn, a free trade agreement will be signed with India. One of the fundamental problems we encountered during our visit to India was when people emphasised how the country produces very cheap drugs which can help prevent and fight AIDS. When the agreement with the European Union is signed, this will be restricted, and so this issue, too, must be taken into account.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, listening to Baroness Ashton's introductory statement, I can only say that I feel I can go home. My work is done. I have rarely listened to someone on this side of the House sitting in her position that understands not only what we have done, not only what we are doing, but what we need to do to protect those who are most vulnerable.
That is why I am really pleased that the Parliament has decided to take a rights-based approach, because once you have rights, those rights can be enforced by you, by civil society acting on your behalf, or can be enforced by your government - and I speak also as Parliament's rapporteur on the review of the Millennium Development Goals.
Sadly, with AIDS and HIV, the numbers are growing: currently over 33 million people are living with AIDS and HIV. In 2008 alone, 2.7 million people were newly infected, most of those in sub-Saharan Africa and most - 60% - women and young children. There is quite clearly so much more we need to do. We need to empower individuals about the choices they have, about their bodies and about denying the rights that others wish to force upon them - particularly men - or those, like transgendered people, who are often sex workers and have no choice but to yield to the demands of others. That is why I am particularly pleased that we have made reference to those who are primarily affected by this.
There are elevated levels of infections amongst sex workers, men who have sex with men and deny their own sexuality because of a low esteem level, transgendered people, prisoners, injecting drug users, migrant populations, refugee and mobile workers in nearly all regions. In our own near neighbourhood, Ukraine and Russia, as well as other countries, there are epidemic levels.
It is, however, not all a negative story: the EU has led on this and will continue to lead, and I hope we will lead at the 18th Annual Conference in Vienna.
I just want to say this. Behind all of those statistics of millions, imagine that there is one life affected with the reality of living with AIDS and HIV. Think of the lost generations, lost lives, lost lovers, lost parents, lost brothers and sisters, lives often lost by the loss of the other. Think of the waste - the total, abject waste of life from the preventable transmission of the HIV virus.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Baroness Ashton for her introduction and both my colleagues, Mrs Kolarska and Michael Cashman, for their words.
I wholeheartedly subscribe to what has been said. I have to say that one of the last things that Michael Cashman just said - that this is a preventable disease - gets me very frustrated. With very simple means and for free - it does not cost a penny - we could prevent so many cases of HIV/AIDS. We could prevent so much misery.
I will look at a couple of key words, starting with stigma. Mrs Kolarska mentioned discrimination and it was also mentioned by you, Baroness Ashton. Even within the European Union, there is still stigma. Look at the fact that within a number of Member States, for example, homosexual people are still not allowed to donate blood. Or that there are still Member States which, against all the rules and all the principles that we stand for, ask people for an HIV negative declaration before they allow them to enter the country, even within the European Union. Those are the things that we should address when we are telling other countries in the world how to behave better. So, if we welcome the lifting of the travel ban in the US, we should apply the same principles within the European Union.
In addition to stigma, there is also the problem of narrow-mindedness regarding sexual morals. I am always shocked to find that there are still people in this House who feel that they cannot endorse the kind of resolution that we will be voting tomorrow because it makes reference to sexual and reproductive health rights and sexual autonomy for women. If we simply recognised those principles and notions, and if we had the support of all the Members in this House, then we could already eliminate so much misery. I fail to understand how people can refuse to endorse these principles and still look people - mainly women, I have to say - in the eye who are suffering from these debilitating diseases. I think that autonomy and rights for women are something they have to come clean on. Recognise the fact that women are in charge of their own bodies and that they decide - not only outside the European Union, but also inside the European Union.
These are all things that do not cost a penny - access to medication and to adequate health services. It is basic. Within the European Union, we consider that a basic human right, which is also the theme of today's debate. Why, then, do we deny that right to other people or consider it a privilege or a favour? No, it is a fundamental right. In addition, if you are practical, we are in the midst of an economic crisis which hits countries outside the European Union particularly. A healthy labour force is the first precondition for economic development, let us face it. Let us invest in health.
I would therefore like to appeal to those countries who are currently considering cuts in their budgets for development assistance and, in particular, assistance to public health. That should be one of our priorities, and we should not be talking about budget cuts. We should be talking about support to those countries, not forgetting, at the same time, to appeal to the responsibility of the national governments.
In conclusion, I would urge all members of all groups across this House to endorse the resolution tomorrow.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, I will wholeheartedly support what has been said by the three colleagues from three other political groups about HIV and AIDS and I would also like to thank the High Representative for her approach to this question. The resolution that we are going to adopt tomorrow will be a very important contribution to the 18th International AIDS Conference, which will be held in Vienna later this month. There, we can indeed emphasise how important it is that the European Union is going to work with those countries who still have laws and policies which are real obstacles to taking care of people who have HIV/AIDS. These are important obstacles in the prevention of this disease. In our resolution, we state that there are still 106 countries of this kind. It is a major task in our foreign policy and our development policy to emphasise that we need evidence-based approaches to HIV/AIDS.
We should deal with prejudiced ideas and discrimination that still exist. It is very sad to see that many countries still criminalise same-sexual behaviour. We have to tell these countries that it is not something that can be adopted on the basis of traditions and culture. It is about treating human beings in a decent way, it is about their rights, and the rights-based approach is the right one.
Madam President, Commissioner, we must repeat these statistics to everyone, after all, because they cannot be repeated enough. In 2008, there were 2.4 million new cases of people with AIDS and 2 million deaths, and the toll is rising year on year. Today, there are 33.4 million people with the disease, and that is just an estimate. Two thirds - I repeat, two thirds - of these people do not even have access to treatment. We are talking about a disease whose increased incidence is inversely proportional to the access to treatment. It is estimated that more than 22 million of the total number of people infected live in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are other imbalances, too: for example, the number of women with the disease continues to be much higher than the number of male sufferers. It is now a matter of urgency, as it was yesterday and the day before that, to commit to prevention, access to treatment and a response based on human rights.
We call for the Commission and the Council to take up their stated commitments and come to view AIDS as a global priority for public health. We therefore need policies to reduce vulnerability and combat different kinds of discrimination, such as the kind faced by blood donors from infected people, even within Europe, merely because they have a sexual orientation that is different from the norm. Existing support has clearly proven inadequate, and so it is necessary to strengthen the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and to recognise that general cuts in funding for sexual and reproductive health programmes in developing countries has only aggravated this situation.
We are proud of Europe as a champion in terms of development aid, but this champion cannot be two-faced, and that applies to all of us.
Madam President, I would like to compliment Baroness Ashton for her good work in getting to grips with her brief. In the very short time she has been here today, she has acquitted herself very well.
My experience of HIV/AIDS goes back to a couple of years ago, when I worked on a voluntary basis in Malawi. I saw there at first hand the devastation of HIV/AIDS amongst children, amongst adults. It is a country of 12 million people, with a life expectancy of 42 years and one of the highest prevalences of HIV/AIDS in the world, with almost three quarters of a million children suffering from HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that 86 000 people die per year from it, and another 80 000 at least get HIV/AIDS annually.
Only 50% off those who need ART have access to it, so an awful lot needs to be done. Three things must be done. One, medical care: firstly to try and prevent it, secondly to treat it when it occurs. Secondly, education: so, again, people will know how to prevent it and also have a more compassionate attitude to those who have contracted it. Thirdly - and Baroness Ashton referred to this - the elimination of certain practices based on the rights of certain mere individuals within tribes who have free access to do as they will with young girls and widowed women. This has to stop, and that has to be brought home to the tribes themselves. I think through the EU, we might help in eliminating that traditional practice.
Finally, I also want to say that, in doing that, we need to work with the authorities on the ground. One thing I did notice in Malawi: I used to buy the paper every day, and I read several articles which were critical of NGOs because of their failure to work in conjunction with local groups. So to avoid what would be seen as intellectual or cultural colonialism, we work with the people to ensure them a better life and also to eliminate this scourge of HIV/AIDS.
Madam President, I am very happy that we will have a common resolution, hopefully with the votes of a large majority of this Parliament, on this resolution. It is - as has been said - in the preparation of the 18th International AIDS Conference in Vienna - which is my home town - and which has as its topic, 'right here, right now'. It is about a rights-based approach to HIV and AIDS, something that has been missing in the past. As we all know - and as has been said by all of the speakers here - that HIV and AIDS leads to the fact that people affected by it - people infected - are seen as people sidelined. They are marginalised. They are not seen as somebody who is in the mainstream of society. This is the need: to make them the focus of attention, the focus of prevention and the focus of health care.
I would like to remind everybody that even the WTO, in its Doha Declaration in 2001 on TRIPS, made it clear that primacy of health has to come before commercial interests, which is especially important in countries like Africa, where 60% of people infected are women and girls - those who traditionally have less access to health care and have less money. So the whole issue of patenting medicine, of making medicine available for poor people - poor sections of the population - is key in the struggle against AIDS and HIV infection. As has been said before, women and girls are more affected now than at the beginning of the epidemic, when it was mostly gay men. But it is not a disease that mostly affects gay men any more. In the world context, it is mostly women and girls who are affected - and men as well.
So I ask everybody - and I really plead to those who have not signed up for the declaration - to vote in favour tomorrow, to make it clear that sexual and reproductive health and rights are for everybody, and especially those affected by HIV and AIDS.
(SK) AIDS continues to be a deadly disease and, despite medical progress, is still killing millions of inhabitants of our planet. The HIV virus attacks the immune system in such a way that the patient sooner or later dies from another infection, for example, tuberculosis or another concurrent infection.
According to epidemiological studies, the vast majority of people are infected during unprotected sex with an infected person.
However, let us be honest. If we ask who these infected persons are, then I think the answer is that they are usually male or female sex workers, who have numerous sexual contacts every day, often without using any form of protection. They then become a breeding ground for spreading the disease, and let us not be so naive as to imagine that more frequent medical checkups, for example, once a week, will solve anything.
I speak as a doctor, and I know as a professional that when you examine someone on Monday, and the next check will come a week later, they may get infected in the intervening period and then become a source of infection themselves.
Another risk group, as Mr Cashman pointed out earlier, are citizens who are sex workers, often with a homosexual orientation. As we know, there exists in this community - because it is a closed and small community - there exists the practice of frequently changing partners, and it is only a matter of time before people in such a community become infected.
We therefore have to do something, and I support research into new cures. Of course, antiretrovirals are often not completely effective, and I hope that within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for Science and Research, which European science also supports, we will discover new molecules that will really bring a cure to these infected people.
I have a lot more comments here. I am in favour of us, as Europe, providing major assistance to Africa. There are millions of people, especially in the sub-Saharan region, and it is our moral duty to help Africa.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that today, AIDS continues more than ever to threaten health, and not only the health of European citizens. Each year, thousands and thousands of people die, and this problem is even more acute in developing communities.
That is why we must not lower our guard. That is why there needs to be more prevention, more information and more rehabilitation but, above all, more resources, and those resources need to be utilised properly. There needs to be support for families, because the problems of AIDS victims become family problems, and action needs to be taken to make a series of behaviour and lifestyle choices healthier and more appropriate. The aim is to have a measurable health result, and the specific aim is to ensure that, in time, these problems are increasingly reduced.
(DE) Madam President, in recent years, the majority of new infections have affected 15 to 24 year olds. It is young people in particular who underestimate the potential risk of infection. This is a consequence of ignorance of the disease. They are too young to remember the information campaigns of the 1980s and sex education is not a mandatory component of the curriculum in schools.
A Eurobarometer survey in 2005 showed that the majority of European citizens would be in favour of increased EU involvement in combating HIV/AIDS. However, this survey also reveals the problem of half-truths that are still prevalent among the population. New campaigns must be launched to provide suitable information to the very different target groups and to once again avoid stigmatising those with the disease.
(EL) Madam President, as Mrs Werthmann said earlier: although today, some 33 million people throughout the world are carrying the fatal virus, there are many people, especially young people, who do not know the risks implied by a lack of care and we seriously need to continue the information campaigns which are not, in fact, as intense as they were in the past.
A second point to which we must give due attention is the fight against the social exclusion which results from making contamination known, as a result of which approximately 30% of the people in the European Union who have the virus do not know that they are carriers and this increases the risk of transmission.
Given these two objectives, the virus must be fought as a global health priority. The Commission and the Council must take responsible action and promote financing for programmes. That is crucial. The emphasis must be put on guiding and informing young people and, finally, public awareness must be increased and the public must be properly informed, so that the risk of social exclusion is significantly reduced.
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. - Madam President, I begin by saying that I am confident that the Vienna conference will help us to move forward in enforcing the rights of people to be protected against avoidable HIV infections and in gaining access to the evidence-based prevention and highly efficient treatment that so many honourable Members have referred to this evening.
I want to assure you as well that we will maintain and increase our dedication to defending these rights inside Europe, but also as part of our relations with third countries, whether they are close to our borders or on other continents. Unfortunately, I will be in the Middle East, so I will not be able to participate in the Vienna conference, but my colleague, Commissioner Dalli, who of course carries a portfolio for health and consumer policy, will represent the European Commission and will speak at the opening session of the conference.
Many services of the Commission from different sectors in health, research and development will attend and, if I may, I would like to extend an invitation to any honourable Members participating in the conference to meet with the services in the EU area where policies and actions that we take in the EU will be presented, or indeed to join the satellite sessions which are being organised by the Commission.
If I may, I will conclude my remarks by doing something that honourable Members have also done in this debate. My personal story of this starts by remembering that there has been an important football match in South Africa tonight. I recall that when I was in South Africa a few years ago, I was taken for a drive outside of Johannesburg up into the country. The person driving me was talking about the problems of HIV and AIDS in South Africa - an issue which has been taken up by many people and not least by someone I have had the privilege of working with, Annie Lennox, the singer.
As we drove through the countryside the driver said, 'pick a village, pick any village that you like in the next hour'. We drove along and I said I saw many villages but I would choose that one. I pointed to a village, we drove into the village and he drove me to the graveyard. He said that in Africa, the tradition is that you do not lay the headstone for one year after the death of a person, so any crosses that you see, small crosses, represent people who have died within the last year. I went to this graveyard and there were hundreds of them. He said to me very simply: those are the victims of AIDS.
Honourable Members, what I saw was the tragedy of an unnecessary devastation and I pay tribute to the honourable Members who have put forward this resolution and promise to do my best to support its implementation.
I have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 8 July 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The number of people living with HIV/AIDS is steadily rising, with estimates showing that 33.4 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide, including no fewer than 2.7 million who were infected in 2008.
I believe that both the European Commission and Council must step up their efforts to tackle the issue of HIV/AIDS as a global public health priority, with a key focus on human rights in the prevention and treatment of this disease and in the provision of care and assistance to those who are affected. Both these institutions must encourage the countries which are worst affected by the HIV/AIDS virus to establish coordinated national policy frameworks for combating HIV, which will guarantee effective measures for preventing HIV and for caring for people if they become ill with the disease.
The European Commission, Member States and the international community must adopt as quickly as possible the legislation which will guarantee access to effective, affordable medicines for treating the HIV virus, to diagnostic services, and to the technologies supporting preventive, curative and palliative care for the HIV infection.
in writing. - It is important to prepare well for this crucial conference, especially with a view to how to reduce the enormous cost of pills administered to affected parties. In Malta, the importers of medicinal products and the Nationalist Parliamentary Secretary have agreed to reduce the price of 63 medicinal products. It is astounding when there are over 3 000 medicinal products that are distributed in Malta. This means that only 2% have actually been targeted. Amongst the medicines which have been reduced in price, two were taken as examples forwarded to the Commission comparing the exorbitant prices in Malta and Belgium. Zocor 20mg has been reduced, but it is still 240% more expensive in Malta than it is in Belgium. From the other examples provided, all remain more expensive in Malta, the highest being Tegretol 200 mg, which is 150% higher in price, and Lexotan 3 mg - 113% higher. The lowest is Actonel 35, which is 20% higher in Malta. The fact that medicines have started to decrease in price, although not enough, only illustrates how right we have been not to accept the excuses put forward by a number of medicine providers. Let us hope that this is only the beginning in achieving our aim.


1. Comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States (


1. Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products (


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


1. Sri Lanka: follow-up of the UN report (
Mr President, speaking on behalf of Véronique De Keyser, I should like to move an oral amendment to paragraph 13, which would read:
'Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council and the Commission to support further efforts to strengthen the process of accountability in Sri Lanka and to support the UN report, in particular the immediate establishment of an international justice mechanism'.
Mr President, we had long-drawn-out negotiations involving six political groups on this particular resolution. It is a compromise resolution and obviously it contains elements that many of us wish were not in it, and indeed it excludes elements that many of us wish were in it. But the agreement among the six political groups was that there would be no amendments - oral, written or in any other form - and therefore I think it is a breach of the understanding, and makes a nonsense of the negotiations, if we now have an amendment put forward in this way. We should therefore reject this amendment.


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


6. Agreement between the EC and Montenegro on readmission (vote)
- Report: Vălean