Cloning of animals for food supply (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question - to the Commission by Neil Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the cloning of animals for food supply.
author. - Mr President, I should like very much to welcome Commissioner Vassiliou here this evening to listen to our oral question, especially at this late hour.
When we deal with cloning, it is not only a case of food safety, but also we in Europe believe that, under the common agricultural policy, we are producing food to a very high standard and also to a very high welfare standard. The problems with cloning concern not only the welfare of animals but also consumer confidence in food that may come from cloned animals.
You only have to look across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States of America to see how to stop cloned animals from entering the food chain. For instance, if a cloned bull is worth EUR 1 000 at the end of its life to go into the food chain, then the people who have bred that bull have to put up a bond, which may be worth EUR 3 000, and when they destroy that animal and make sure that it does not go into the food chain, they get the bond back. It is quite a simple way of keeping cloned animals out of the food chain.
I think we have to take this matter very seriously and I would urge the Commissioner to look at this again.
I will go through some of the problems with cloning, especially from a welfare point of view. Cloning entails serious health and welfare problems for clones and their surrogate dams; animal health problems come from invasive techniques required to produce a clone; there is the suffering of surrogate dams which carry cloned foetuses, and high levels of ill health and mortality in early life for cloned animals.
The OIE Scientific and Technical Review identified that only 6% of cloned embryos resulted in healthy, long-term surviving clones.
The EFSA report also points out an increased proportion of pregnancy failure and disorders in surrogate dams of cloned embryos. These disorders and the large size of clones make caesareans more frequent in cattle carrying clones than in conventional pregnancy. Mortality and morbidity is higher in clones than in sexually-produced animals; the welfare of both surrogate dam and clone can be affected.
On the ethics side, the European Group on Ethics has doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. It also does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.
If you look into the figures of what has happened when animals are cloned, cloned calves are often 25% heavier than normal, leading to a painful birth; 25% of cows pregnant with clones at day 120 of gestation develop hydroallantois. Reports in 2003 show only 13% of embryos planted in surrogate dams result in calves delivered at full term; only 5% of all cloned embryos transferred into recipient cows have survived. EFSA's opinion cites a study where out of 2 170 cattle receiving embryos only 106 live births occurred - 4.9% - and only 82 survived more than two days.
We also have to consider the problems that occur not only on the animal welfare side but also in the gene pool of animals - and this is a farming aspect also. Take the Holstein Friesian - it is thought that there are only about 50 strains of the Holstein Friesian. If we start cloning bulls and the heifer from a cloned bull is then put back on to the offspring, so the same father is used, then we will create an even tighter gene pool. There are then problems with disease and with genetics being carried over to those offspring. Therefore, we need to make sure there is hybrid vigour.
The industry itself cannot explain why a cloned animal has the cell of the parent - an older cell. Therefore, again, there is the risk of producing an animal that is not as strong and as healthy.
Therefore, I call on the Commission to submit proposals prohibiting the cloning of animals for the food supply and the placing of cloned animals on the market in meat and dairy products.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I want to thank Mr Parish for raising this question, because it is a question to which the Commission has given a lot of consideration and considers important, and it is indeed something which preoccupies us. The European Commission - as Mr Parish said - has asked EFSA to provide an opinion on food safety, animal health, animal welfare and the environmental implications of the use of live animal clones.
The final opinion was adopted on 15 July this year, and the Commission is now evaluating the necessary steps to be taken. This opinion refers to uncertainties in the risk assessment due to the limited number of studies available. It also refers to the fact that the health and welfare of a significant proportion of clones have been found to be adversely affected, often severely, with a fatal outcome.
The Commission is aware that, even though the efficiency of animal cloning has improved in recent years, adverse health affects on animal health and welfare still occur today. There are indications that mortality and morbidity rates in clones after birth are higher than in sexually-reproduced animals. However, most surviving clones are normal and healthy, as determined by psychological measurements as well as by behaviour and clinical examinations.
The Commission closely follows the scientific developments in this area. In 2004 the Commission also financed a pan-European research project called Cloning in Public, addressing ethical, legal and other societal aspects of farm animal cloning. The project was coordinated by the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment and aimed to promote public debate on the issue of biotechnology.
As far as the involvement of the public is concerned, in autumn 2007 the Commission launched a public consultation on the ethics of animal cloning for food supply, and in September 2007 it organised an open round table on the same topic with representatives from academia, industry, NGOs, civil society, international organisations, industry etc. In order to increase public participation, the round table was also broadcast on the internet, and its proceedings have been published.
Last but not least, the Commission has recently launched a Eurobarometer survey on consumers' attitudes to cloning for food production. Its purpose is to ask the public about their opinion and their awareness regarding cloning and food derived from the offspring of cloned animals. The results will be made available very shortly.
The Commission takes ethical considerations fully into account when dealing with sensitive issues such as cloning. The Commission has given its attention to the ethics of animal cloning since 1997, when the group of advisers to the European Commission on the ethical implications of biotechnology issued an opinion on the ethics of cloning. Due to the state of the art of technology at that time, the opinion did not address the use of cloning for food purposes. It is for this reason that the Commission asked the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, the independent advisory body to the Commission in this field, to give an opinion on the ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply. Their opinion was published in January this year. Considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the European Group on Ethics expressed doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. It advocated that at the moment there are no convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring. The Commission is currently examining the concerns expressed by the Group.
Under international rules, restrictions to imports of products must be based on legitimate concerns, not be discriminatory, and be proportionate to the objective pursued. According to global trade rules, imports of food products from third countries might be suspended if they present a serious threat to animal or public health. On the basis of the studies conducted and the opinion of EFSA, the Commission will consider whether restrictions must be imposed. I am sure this will be done very shortly.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, today's discussion is absolutely essential as a means of drawing attention to the dangers inherent in cloning. I am very grateful to Neil Parish for having put this oral question to the Commission. One thing is quite clear, namely that animal health equates with food safety.
As we know, there are various types of cloning processes: therapeutic and reproductive cloning as well as DNA cloning. What we are discussing today is reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning means creating a genetically identical copy of something: a plant, an animal and perhaps one day - if we feel the need to overstep all boundaries - even a human being.
When cloning is used in animal breeding for food production, however, there are problems. The first of these to which I wish to refer is the high loss rate. We know from the Americans that only a very few clones survive. Consequently, cloning for food production is not financially viable. From the very beginning, the clone has the genetic age of the original. That is to say if the original is a six-year-old cow, the clone will be a calf whose genes are six years old. In the cloning process the cloning genome is inevitably damaged. This makes the clone susceptible to diseases and parasites.
When cloning occurs over several generations, Commissioner, there is a cumulative depletion of the genetic diversity on which species depend for their survival because it enables them to adapt to changes in their natural surroundings.
Lastly, the question arises whether mankind can presume to intervene in the most natural biological processes, even if it is done with the best intentions. It seems to me that there is no need to alter something which has worked for millions of years. Human being have too short a lifespan, in any case, to experience the effects of their actions over long periods of time. I hope we shall not find ourselves in the same dilemma as Goethe's sorcerer's apprentice, who could not rid himself of the spirits he had conjured up.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) Mr President, I completely agree with Mr Parish's proposal: two types of zero tolerance are needed here. Firstly, cloned animals should not enter the food chain in any way; we are all agreed on that. We also agree completely, and we would ask the Commission to ensure, that cloned animals from Argentina, Brazil or elsewhere outside the Union should not be imported or brought into the European Union in any way. This is the double zero tolerance which I believe is the essence of Mr Parish's proposal. Mrs Schierhuber and Mr Parish have both said that there is still a huge amount of risk, that there are no real, appropriate controls or monitoring, and there are inadequate test samples, inadequate trials, and any trials relate only to pigs and cattle, so there is a huge amount of risk. In fact, it could be summarised by saying that they should not enter the food chain, and it would naturally be absurd and idiotic to obstruct genetic engineering and bioengineering research. Research is one thing, but the food chain is another thing, and thirdly lengthy, reliable checks that are independent of organisations in the sector are needed, as well as independent monitoring for more and longer periods. Thank you for your attention.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, from experience with other issues that tackle food safety, as well as raising adequate questions linked to the relations between humans as the dominant species and the animals, we know that public perception depends very much on specific knowledge of the matter. Consumers are increasingly sensitive with regard to the suffering of, and injuries to, farm animals. Therefore, they have to be properly informed about the risks posed by the cloning of animals. An educational campaign is needed, explaining to them what an incredibly wasteful process cloning has been so far.
It was expected that EFSA would not find clear safety concerns related to food products from clones of farm animals, compared with conventionally-bred animals. However, EFSA also underlined in its recent report that the practice has major repercussions on the health and welfare of animals.
The issue raises societal problems, which advise us strongly to ban animal cloning for food, as well as the import of cloned animals and their offspring.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, our civilisation lives from the exploitation of animals and will certainly long continue to do so. We kill animals to satisfy many needs, but we also set ourselves certain standards. We Europeans, at least, impose limits on the suffering of animals and support their wellbeing. Our legislation prescribes that an animal is not an object.
Cloning animals is a controversial scientific achievement. Cloning animals for economic purposes, on the other hand, is an ethical abuse. It is not animal husbandry but animal production. It is based not even on the principle of the production line, but that of the photocopier. We should reject it on moral grounds in the name of respect for animals, but also in the name of our own humanity. It is only one step from treating animals as objects to treating human beings as objects. It is already only a short step from cloning animals to cloning people. On behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations, I support the resolution.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE. - (ES) Mr President, I wonder what we are hoping to achieve by a moratorium on cloning animals for food supply? What do we hope to achieve by applying the precautionary principle and preventing the import of cloned animals? What do we hope to achieve by ceasing to treat animals as mere objects and inflicting unnecessary suffering on them?
Dolly the Sheep died ill and malformed. The Dolly the Sheep experiment was a failure. However, it would appear that we have not learned from it.
Cloning can reduce genetic diversity; it can generate greater vulnerability to animal diseases; it can generate a situation where sentient beings, our animal cousins, which can feel and experience pain, undergo greater suffering.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, I want to thank Mr Parish most sincerely and I can fully support his comments. It has been proved that cloning causes suffering to animals, and the EFSA came to the same conclusion. If we allow animals to be cloned for food production, we come up against the following problems, in addition to animal suffering and ethical objections: it is very questionable whether consumers actually want to eat cloned meat at all, it is not certain how safe it will be and, finally, the public debate about cloned food has not even really started yet.
I therefore really object to the fact that the Commission even dares to propose allowing cloning to be covered by the definition in the new foodstuffs regulation. By doing so, it is indirectly showing that it can support animal cloning for food production. I am therefore urging the Commission, in this report too, to reconsider its position. In view of all the objections, I also call on the Commission to put forward proposals for a total ban on animal cloning without delay.
Mr President, it is right and natural to want to improve stock quality by breeding from our best animals. Artificial insemination and embryo transfer provide for that. Cloning, however, is quite different: it is, as the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency has observed, a quantum leap way beyond giving Mother Nature a helping hand.
Quite apart from other ethical issues and the danger of copycat science in the human field, animal welfare is a real concern. The premature ageing and health deficiencies seen in high-profile cloning cases that have made the headlines, such as that of Dolly the sheep, are good reminders of those welfare issues. Devoting more money to tackling animal disease would serve us better than experimenting with nature.
From a consumer perspective, there is also a food quality issue, since cloned herds would all share the same vulnerability to the same strains of disease, whereas genetic diversity is one of our best protections against rampant outbreaks of disease. In fact, whichever way I look at this subject, I can find nothing to convince me that animal cloning is right, necessary or in the public interest.
(PL) Mr President, if the protection of biodiversity is a priority of the European Commission, then there should be no talk of cloning. I would like to hear the arguments in favour of cloning animals for food. Are we to be guided solely by economic considerations? What about the ethical, social and health issues?
Before we decide to allow such food to be sold on the EU market, we must have our citizens' permission for such a step. I myself am not sure I would be able to swallow a pork chop from a cloned pig or milk from a cloned cow.
Instead of genetically modified food and food from cloned animals, we should be thinking more about action in favour of a return to natural foods that are ecological, healthy and contain no chemicals. Let us leave cloning in the realm of research. In my opinion, the road from the laboratory to the knife and fork of the European consumer is still long, because there are still too many question marks. And because there are so many questions still unanswered, I am convinced we should not act hastily in this matter.
Nor should the Commission act against the opinion of Europe's citizens. Even if food products derived from cloned animals were allowed on the EU market, I am convinced that, if they were clearly marked and people had to take a conscious decision to buy them, they would not find too many takers among EU consumers.
If we introduce products derived from cloned sheep, poultry, goats or cattle, we shall destroy the image of the European agricultural model, which sets such great store by protection of the environment and the wellbeing of animals.
(PL) Mr President, I also fully support Neil Parish's proposal for a ban on the use of cloned animals for food production. However, for some considerable time now I have been watching the Commission strive to impose legal arrangements on Member States that will lead to the introduction of genetically modified foodstuffs for mass distribution, and in future perhaps also meat from cloned animals.
In many countries, including Poland, local authorities have passed resolutions demanding that whole regions, and even a whole country, be kept free from GMOs. Under pressure from industrial lobbies, the Commission is ignoring these resolutions and pressing for the introduction of genetically modified foodstuffs on the market. EU Member States owe the public a clear answer: are they in favour of healthy, natural foods or genetically modified and cloned foodstuffs? We must not be hypocritical about this.
Let me also ask the Commissioner how she intends to protect the public against the unwitting purchase of food that may in future come from cloned animals? Such food will not be specially labelled, since exporters will attempt to smuggle it into the European market.
Mr President, I am going to be the different voice in this argument, because, through the ages, man has manipulated the breeding of animals and enhanced their productivity to meet his needs. There is a clear continuum: natural service to artificial insemination, to embryo transfer, to embryo splitting, in vitro fertilisation, blastomere nuclear transfer, foetal nuclear transfer and now somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Every new development has been seen as too far, and each time the technique has been improved and perfected, the benefits have come through and the anticipated problems have faded away.
Now the farmers' unions are beginning to foresee benefits to animal health and welfare through the use of cloning. The Food and Safety Agency says: 'There is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety between food products from healthy cattle and pig clones and their progeny, compared with those from healthy, conventionally-bred animals.' Nor does it see any environmental risks - and there are benefits: safeguarding high-value animals and their genetics, conserving and even reintroducing endangered breeds, eliminating dangerous pathogens and their transfer internationally, improving productivity and competitivity, and encouraging research and development in Europe rather than elsewhere.
So why do we Europeans repeatedly fall into the knee-jerk trap of distrusting any new development and of rushing to ban new things? Look at what happened with GMOs. So let us discuss and debate, and base our arguments on science and facts. I urge the Commission to follow developments carefully, encourage research, clarify the science, defend the facts; but do not ban. Let us drop this inaccurate, illogical and misguided resolution.
Mr President, lest Mr Purvis think he is alone, let me try and walk a middle line. This is a very worthy debate and it is a shame it is being held at this late hour. I listened to the first part in my office and it was riveting - which can be rare for a European Parliament debate - because it is practical.
I would like to mention a number of points. What concerns me in the debate now is the link between genetically-modified foods and the cloning of animals. I am not among those calling for a ban on GMOs, because in Ireland we use a large volume of genetically-modified animal feed ingredients and need to continue doing that. The concerns on cloning, well voiced by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr Parish, are on the welfare side, and clearly there is concern that animals suffer. That is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Calling for a ban on cloned animals in food production may not address that issue if the research stage of that process is concerned. Therefore, while my immediate reaction as a Member of the Committee on Agriculture was to support this resolution - I am glad we raised this issue and applaud the Committee and its Chair for doing so - my gut instinct now is that Mr Purvis is perhaps on the right track, and that an outright ban might be a step too far. I await the Commission's very considered opinion.
Mr President, let me first of all welcome the opportunity of holding this debate. I think it has been very timely.
This is a subject that gives great concern. What I do not like is that we in Europe do not have sufficient control to ensure that cloned animals do not enter or reach the food chain. I understand the need to allow animal breeding and development, and I understand fully what Mr Purvis is saying - and I have no wish to bring to an end the ability of science to develop in any way, shape, size or form - but I strongly believe that we must set in place clear criteria and controls. I share Mr Parish's concern about the welfare of the animals. I do have great concerns about animal welfare, because a very high percentage of cloned animals suffer at a very early age.
Let me repeat: I do not oppose, or wish to stand in the way of, futuristic developments. In the past we have made many mistakes. Let us not do so on this delicate subject. Let us protect the food chain from cloned animals. I am opposed to them in the food chain.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the opinion of the European Parliament on this new technology and its consequences is of course of the utmost importance for me and I welcome the views of the honourable Members. In particular, I wish to say that EFSA's opinion gives us new food for thought, and many factors need to be taken into account. I agree that novel food is not the right tool to deal with the question of food from cloned animals and this is something that can be discussed during our deliberations on the proposal for novel food.
I wish, however, to make a clarification here because I heard a number of speakers speaking about cloning and genetic modification as if they were one and the same thing. No: genetic modification and cloning are two separate techniques. Expert opinion states that cloning does not alter genetic material and clones are merely genetic copies of animals.
In finalising my comments, I wish to assure you that in any future actions the Commission will carefully examine all factors at play.
The debate is closed.
I have received the proposal for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 3 September at 11.30 a.m.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - Even if strict conditions are respected and EFSA concludes that cloned meat is equivalent to conventional meat, animal cloning for food supply is, to many people, a risky and morally unacceptable practice. The current level of suffering and health problems in cloned animals reinforces that claim. If conventional methods work, then why should we encourage a technique that causes so many animals to suffer and die? It neither improves breeding, nor food safety nor the security of provision. It clearly provides no obvious benefit to the consumer.
Furthermore, European consumers have, on several occasions, expressed their wish not to have food products from clones or the offspring thereof on their table. It is a legitimate call and sends a clear signal, so why are we even considering cloning for food supply in the first place? People want to have control over what they eat and they are concerned that cloning will ultimately be forced on them. If we do not wish to further alienate the public from the European project, I believe we had better listen to their will and enforce it. Therefore, I call for no cloning of animals for food supply.
in writing. - (SK) I was amazed when reading the text of this resolution. I should first of all like to say that I shall vote for it, but I have a few comments:
Paragraph B: 'whereas cloning processes show low rates of survival for transferred embryos and cloned animals, with many cloned animals dying in the early stages of life ...'
What would the future for humanity be if man took the same remarkable degree of care and if we stopped freezing human embryos?
Paragraph C: '... mortality and morbidity levels in cloned animals are higher than in sexually produced animals and late pregnancy losses and disorders are likely to affect the welfare of surrogate mothers'.
What would the future for humanity be if the whole of society gave such support to mothers of families as we give to the protection of surrogate animal mothers?
Paragraph D: '... given current levels of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and cloned animals, the European Group on Ethics ... questions whether cloning animals ... is ethically justified ...'
What would the future for humanity be if this Group took into consideration the suffering of women who become surrogate mothers in order to improve their financial situation or the stress suffered by women following repeated unsuccessful artificial fertilisation attempts or consistently forbade the use of human embryos for research purposes because it is morally impermissible.
Lucky animals, because this resolution also shows that they are in some cases better protected than man.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Situation in Belarus (debate)
The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the situation in Belarus.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to congratulate my friends here in the House, and whom I have met with. I know that you are all extremely concerned about the situation in Belarus, as indicated by the resolution that you adopted in May and our recent exchange of views on 16 September within the Committee on Foreign Affairs, following the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
We explained then that the Council would be closely monitoring the legislative elections in Belarus, which took place on 28 September. The results are not encouraging. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights has of course identified a few positive developments, but the election process did not satisfy OSCE requirements for democratic elections. We note that no member of the opposition will have a parliamentary seat.
In the Presidency's declaration, published on 30 September, we spoke of our concerns on the subject of democracy and human rights. We continue to call on the Belarus authorities to cooperate fully with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in order to comply with international democratic standards.
The Council will continue to work on a strategy for Belarus. There is wide consensus among Member States that the measures taken must reflect the actions of the administration over the summer, and particularly the release of the last remaining political prisoners. We must also take into account the geopolitical situation created by the Georgia conflict. We must ensure that the positive signals observed recently continue, such as the peaceful opposition demonstration following the election results, which took place without intervention from the security forces. We must also guarantee the safety and freedom of movement of political dissidents.
The Council is currently discussing a possible resumption of political contact and a possible suspension of visa sanctions. It is of course selective, and these discussions are ongoing. The Belarus foreign minister, Mr Martynov, was invited to a troika during the Council meeting due to take place in Luxembourg on 13 October. We will review the situation with him. It will give us a chance to renew our commitment to progress in terms of democracy and human rights.
Before I conclude, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to once more congratulate Mr Protasiewicz, and Mr Milinkevich and Mr Kozulin, who are here in the gallery, and to reassure them that the European Union remains open to a progressive re-engagement with Belarus, to strengthening ties with the administration and the Belarus people, and committed to continuing to help Belarus civil society.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am speaking in this debate on behalf of my colleague Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
The situation in Belarus is in a state of flux and calls for a measured and strategic response from the European Union. At the present time we are faced with a complex reality.
To begin with, it is very clear that we were disappointed with the parliamentary election on 28 September and the way it was conducted. The election did not match up to international standards or to our expectations. We are all agreed on this and I will not dwell on the subject.
On the other hand, some progress was made before the election with the freeing of political prisoners and also in connection with the election, where Belarus cooperated with the OSCE/ODIHR and its observers ahead of the elections. The freeing of the remaining political prisoners was regarded as an essential step not only by ourselves, but also by the opposition: this move reduced and eased the level of fear in civil society, where imprisonment on political grounds is no longer seen as a fact of life, even though the threat still exists.
And yet, while at the time we welcomed the freeing of the political prisoners, we did not respond tangibly with positive measures, with the election just around the corner. But now we should not delay our response any longer. Similarly, just as the freeing of the political prisoners was a decisive gesture, the cooperation of the Belarusian authorities with the OSCE observers cannot be ignored, nor can the - albeit limited - access to the media for all the candidates be overlooked. These are major steps forward compared with the previous, presidential, elections in 2006.
How do we now make sure that these steps forward are maintained and consolidated? How do we make sure that also in the future there are no political prisoners in Belarus? How do we make sure that the OSCE/ODIHR can continue its cooperation with the Belarusian authorities until the publication of its final report on the election in two months and, beyond this, follow up the report? What can be done to prevent any toughening of the rules applying to the media and to provide greater legal certainty for NGOs to work in?
I am here to listen to the Parliament's views.
It is our belief that resuming the dialogue at political level with the authorities, without ceremony but with realism, is the response we must give Belarus today. It is important that we can have contacts at the appropriate level, in order to make sure that our message gets across.
I would add that generally speaking, whatever the exact details of our response, our line must be 'gradual and proportional'. These two principles will guide the delivery of our response to Belarus and will enable us to encourage the democratic development we all hope for.
In the meantime, the Commission will make available all its expertise in order to strengthen contacts with the Belarusian administration in sectors of shared interest such as energy, environment, customs and transport. These contacts have demonstrated their worth by promoting the development of networks between persons and between administrations.
In parallel we will stick doggedly to our support to civil society, helping Belarusian NGOs, promoting development of an independent press and the European Humanities University in exile in Vilnius. I promise to keep up our effort and to strengthen our links with civil society.
In conclusion, Belarus, a country at the heart of Europe and a neighbour of three of our Member States, is faced with a historic choice: either it takes the necessary steps towards democracy and real independence, or it resigns itself to stagnation and growing dependence on one country.
It remains our wish to welcome Belarus as a full partner in our European Neighbourhood Policy and the future Eastern Europe Partnership. I therefore call for your support so that we can determine the right approach that will, at this crucial time for the stability of our continent, encourage Belarus to make real progress towards democracy and respect for human rights.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, when a sitting president wins all the seats in his Parliament, we can probably assume that something is amiss. Not even Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe has managed a clean sweep as President Alexander Lukashenko did last month in Belarus.
I do not dispute that Lukashenko enjoys widespread popularity in a country largely insulated from post-Soviet reality. But his iron grip on power has turned his country into an international pariah.
For the European Union it does not make sense to welcome the presence of the last European dictator on our own doorstep. Nevertheless, we should always seek to challenge and also at the same time to engage with Belarus. The recent release of political prisoners therefore presents us with an opportunity. Whether Lukashenko's move constitutes an overture to the West remains to be seen, but we should be ready to respond with our own incentives to recognise and reward Belarus as appropriate.
We should not discount the possibility that Lukashenko is blackmailing the Kremlin, which has hitherto been vital to his stranglehold on political power. If this is indeed the case the EU should not be afraid to wield the carrot as well as the stick and therefore I welcome Foreign Minister Martinov's imminent visit.
Belarus has much to gain from closer ties to the European Union, not least the partial alleviation of widespread poverty caused by a stagnating economy. Nevertheless the fact remains that Belarus is still not a member of the Council of Europe. Ratification of its Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU remains frozen. Belarus remains a country where human rights are routinely disregarded, political dissent is not tolerated and a free press is a distant pipe dream.
Once we have started dangling the carrot, we should also make sure we still have the stick in the other hand. I personally hope nevertheless that Belarus, if it does not reunite with Russia as some within the Kremlin would like, will one day enter its rightful place amongst the European family of free nations.
Madam President, firstly, we too are dissatisfied with the outcome of the elections in Belarus, and we agree with the conclusion of the OSCE/ODIHR that the elections fell short of our European standards. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to change EU policy towards Belarus now.
We do agree that it is good to look at whether we can initiate dialogue with the Belarusian authorities on an informal basis, as has also been proposed by the French Presidency, on a possible follow-up. Follow-up measures must chiefly originate on their side. If Belarus is prepared to develop a dialogue with the European Union on the possibility of increasing freedom in its society, and to create elbow room, including for the opposition, the European Union will be able to respond. Until then, I do not support lifting the existing sanctions against a number of leading figures in the country who are not permitted to enter the EU. There have been a number of encouraging signs over recent months - these have already been mentioned by my fellow Members in this House - which indeed give cause to look at whether progress can be made by means of dialogue with the country.
Secondly, if the Foreign Minister, Sergei Martynov, is invited to talks in Luxembourg, I propose that the Council also contact the opposition. There are two prominent representatives of the opposition here - Mr Kazulin and Mr Milinkevich. Why has the Council not invited them, too, to talks?
On a final note, if dialogue is established with Belarus on possible reforms, we think it important that the opposition be involved. There is a precedent: some seven years ago a kind of informal dialogue was held in Belarus itself, partly under the auspices of the European Parliament, which was called the Parliamentary Troika on Belarus. It would be possible, if the Belarusian authorities were prepared to do so, to restart that dialogue via a kind of troika of the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. After all, whatever we do in Europe, whatever discussions we hold, the opposition must be involved.
Madam President, the course, and also the outcome, of the elections in Belarus clearly demonstrate that although Alexander Lukashenko is signalling a desire to develop relations with the European Union, he imagines that the dialogue may be initiated and conducted on his terms and without any concessions on his part. We must, however, be aware that an improvement in relations with the European Union is not only in the objective interests of Belarus, but also in the interests of Lukashenko himself. Constant pressure from Russia to take over control of key sectors of the Belarusian economy may lead to such dependence on Russia that Lukashenko's hold over the country will be seriously weakened. One possible way out, then, is to involve Western companies in a privatisation programme that has become necessary because of the condition of the Belarusian economy. This is the only way in which Belarus will escape being bought out by politically controlled Russian capital.
Dialogue must therefore be commenced, if only to bring about legal and political conditions in Belarus that will encourage the investment of EU capital in the country. This dialogue must not, however, provide an opportunity for the regime to acquire credibility or be legitimised. It must therefore be accompanied by actions on the part of Belarus that, albeit not greatly but at least visibly, will clearly indicate the direction of changes to the political system. Meanwhile, each conversation with representatives of the Belarusian authorities, wherever it might be held, should be balanced with meetings at the same level between EU politicians and the most important representatives of the opposition.
Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I welcome the delegation of the well-known politicians Alexander Milinkevich and Alexander Kozulin, who are following our debate here in the European Parliament today and will then be able to report back to their own country on it.
It is still a problem that information on our work here for the country of Belarus has to take this route because there are no other options. This is a sign that the basic preconditions for democratic development in Belarus have still not been established. Freedom of opinion and freedom of information are essential for democracy.
This summer, President Yushchenko made a public promise to conduct the elections in his country openly, democratically and fairly, and he broke that promise. An election campaign that denies the opposition any possibility of presenting its candidates throughout the country and changes the conditions so fundamentally that even a well-organised opposition is not able to get even one candidate elected is not a fair, democratic election. Therefore, our resolution is clear on this point.
We need to include the prerequisite of having the visa ban lifted and at this point, the prerequisite of a new financial instrument to be equipped with funds to support the opposition and the people in their efforts to establish democracy.
Madam President, the policy of fast-track door-opening to Belarus has been poorly drafted and conducted in an amateurish manner. Declarations of a warming of relations have begun to emanate from the European Union and some Member States before the Lukashenko regime has taken any lasting step towards freedom. We have done this on trust. This lesson should teach us to be more precise in future.
Of course we can open up to Belarus, but only when the government in Minsk takes concrete steps in favour of freedom: initiating political dialogue through a television channel or newspaper for the opposition; EU aid for at least a partially free parliament that includes opposition figures put forward by the people, not by Lukashenko. This is the only tactic - something for something - that will maintain our credibility and bring about an opportunity for the democratisation of Belarus.
Madam President, if all parties have an equal chance of winning seats in elections in Belarus, there is every chance that the party of the incumbent President, Alexander Lukashenko, will win the most. He is held in high regard by those who set more store by social security than by individual liberties. They appreciate the much lower level of upheaval in Belarus compared to a number of other former Soviet republics. On the other hand, he inspires loathing among people who reject his pursuit of unification with Russia. They are attached to the separate Belarusian language, which was the reason for the establishment of the country almost 90 years ago. Many intellectuals who look more to Poland, Lithuania and the European Union have left the country.
There must be an end to the beating of demonstrators, the imprisonment of opponents and all other attempts to make it impossible for opposition parties to survive. Electoral law that makes it easy to exclude the entire opposition from parliament is bad electoral law. We must not seek confrontation with the country but rather do everything possible to support its democratisation.
Recently, there has been some improvement in the situation in Belarus compared to previous years. Political prisoners have been released and the government is seeking to engage with the European Union. The government had also announced that the parliamentary elections would be fair this time - but what happened next far from bore that out. Belarus still employs capital punishment and, in derogation from the law, the media are not independent. In the coming period, freedom of movement between the EU and Belarus must be promoted, and dialogue must be held with both the government and the organisations not under government control.
Madam President, many Belarusian citizens hope for an improvement in relations with the European Union, resulting in a positive dynamic of reform in their own country. I support this desire wholeheartedly. This is also why all the European institutions, without affecting their own political credibility and subject to strict conditions (see paragraph 10 of the resolution), should seek gradual engagement with Minsk.
I consider it an important tangible step in this direction that we adjust - that is, lower (see paragraph 13 of our resolution) - the cost of the EU visa for Belarusians: currently EUR 60 for Ukrainians as against EUR 35 for Russians. I should like to hear what the Council and the Commission think of this proposal.
One thing that I found strange in the resolution - which I otherwise intend to support - was paragraphs 7 and 8. In these paragraphs we call for truly democratic elections and also respect for human rights, but we only address the Belarusian Government. We should also be addressing the parliament, as that is our natural discussion partner.
(PL) Madam President, the elections that have taken place in Belarus have already been reported on by the OSCE mission. They were neither transparent nor honest nor democratic. It is, however, a fact that political prisoners, at least the main ones, were released. Nevertheless, the reasons for which they were imprisoned have not been eliminated. We do not have complete certainty that in the near future either they (those temporarily released) or new prisoners will not be arrested in Belarus. We have to ensure that the causes are eliminated and not just the effects. It is also worth recalling, given the opportunity presented by this debate, that there are 14 other people in Belarus whose freedom is restricted by being condemned either to house arrest or to enforced labour for activities supporting human rights and freedom.
Our declaration is a very balanced one. On the one hand it expresses satisfaction at the release of the prisoners, while on the other it views the course and outcome of the elections with dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, in paragraph 12 Parliament agrees with the 'step-by-step' policy in future negotiations with Belarus and says that we may agree to a partial suspension of sanctions for a maximum of six months on condition that there are some very substantial changes, which would improve the situation above all for media freedom in Belarus. This is a good move, and I am a keen advocate of it, while at the same time I would like to appeal to both the French Presidency and the Czech Presidency, which will take over for the first half of next year, to ensure that whenever there are official meetings with representatives of the Belarusian authorities, time must also be found for meetings with representatives of the opposition. The will must also be found to reduce the cost of visas for Belarusians, because otherwise we shall not bring this nation closer to Europe.
As a Pole I would like to express my appreciation of the fact that Parliament decided to take note that the activities of the Polish minority in Belarus are restricted by the Belarusian authorities, and that there is a legally elected authority representing Poles, headed by Angelika Borys.
Madam President, the resolution on the situation in Belarus reveals what Brussels and Minsk could do in order not to lose the momentum for improving their relations.
I support the approach taken by Jan Marinus Wiersma, which also mirrors the stance taken by the Belarusian opposition of Alexander V. Kazulin and Alexander Milinkevich. The policy of the EU, to punish Belarus and the Belarusians for the actions of their regime, did not achieve the envisaged results. It is necessary to open all gates for people-to-people contacts, and bring down visa barriers which are contradictory to common sense.
Providing Minsk is really willing to improve cooperation with the EU, this should create more favourable conditions for the kick-off of mutual discussions, not only externally but also domestically. It can be done by starting talks on the political, economic, social and human rights issues involving all political parties, opposition forces, NGOs and trade unions.
(NL) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, just a few weeks ago you thought it premature to invite the Belarusian Foreign Minister, Sergei Martynov, to Paris. Now you obviously believe that the time is right. To be frank, even after your statement, I am still at a loss to understand the precise reasoning behind this change in direction. After all, as everyone here has already noted, the elections of 28 September by no means met the standards that are familiar to us all and by which you, too, set so much store. A meeting at this level and in this setting - informal or otherwise - appears to be the regime's reward. A reward for what, however?
This morning I, too, had the pleasure of exchanging views once more with Mr Milinkevich and Mr Kazulin. The Belarusian opposition is united and possibly stronger than ever. The same opposition must then be given the opportunity to reach out to the Belarusian people, and the Belarusian people must be given the opportunity to experience European liberties directly. It is unacceptable that an EU visa should still cost EUR 60 when the average monthly salary in Belarus is a paltry EUR 250. How many more times must we ask for this?
I do not dispute the usefulness and necessity of some level of dialogue. It is clear, however, that Mr Lukashenko's fine words are often empty words, and so the dialogue envisaged must be justified, and also very targeted. My question here is as follows: what exactly is the Council's specific road map? I should very much like more information on this.
I wish to conclude with a question that Mr Wiersma also raised. Is the President-in-Office prepared to receive Mr Milinkevich and Mr Kazulin, too, next Monday - either before, during or after the conversation with Mr Martynov? That is for you to decide, but let it be clear that this would be the only appropriate signal to send out in the present circumstances.
Unfortunately I will have to leave the Chamber in a few minutes. I do apologise for the inconvenience but I would like to have a straight answer.
(PL) Madam President, today the fate of Belarus, a country of 10 million Europeans, is being weighed in the balance. We cannot stand by and watch this happen. Dictators like Lukashenko only give way under pressure. There is only one question: in which direction will this giving way take place? Since the economic key to the independence of Belarus is held by Russia, its constraints may end in Belarus losing its sovereignty. Pressure from the EU may be effective if Lukashenko has something to lose, and the EU something to offer. It seemed he would agree to changes, but the recent elections can hardly be termed anything other than a farce. The dictator's fear and obstinacy may lead to a loss of sovereignty for Belarus.
Lukashenko does not have to lose out over the democratisation of Belarus if he enjoys a large amount of popular trust. These must, however, be real steps down the road to democracy, not just a put-on show, with the price paid by the Belarusian opposition. Despite the risk of a black scenario, the EU cannot accept this price. Let us not, however, break off the dialogue if the independence of this country is at stake. As Mr Milinkevich said today, the future of democracy in this country depends on whether it can maintain its independence.
(HU) Thank you, Madam President. Even if the Belarusian parliamentary elections, observed by the OSCE, did not meet the requirements for fair and free elections, next week's sitting of the Council of Ministers will in all probability give the green light for political dialogue. Lukashenko has not done anything unusual. After the war in Georgia three political prisoners were set free. This satisfied the EU's only condition for the initiation of dialogue. It is obvious that after the war in Georgia the West needed every little move it could make to try to counterbalance Moscow's growing influence in post-Soviet territory. But if even Lukashenko succeeded in arranging the dialogue to his own liking, what kind of dialogue can we expect with Moscow?
Brussels must initiate dialogue on the basis of a previously agreed benchmark system, otherwise the EU can only lose in this dialogue. Lukashenko will use this to reinforce his domestic authority and keep Moscow on a leash, not to offer gradual political liberalisation. Meantime the EU could lose its greatest Eastern weapon, its image. It's up to us to decide ...
Madam President, I want to warn against a policy which tends to reward the Belarusian leadership in compensation for decisions of the Russian leadership which we do not like.
It is simply wishful thinking to believe that in this way we can generate a rift between Moscow and Minsk, or change the political orientation of President Lukashenko.
We should also not offer words for the liberation of prisoners who should not have been arrested. Indeed, the European Union must avoid the isolation of Belarus and engage in dialogue with the leadership of the country. To this end, it must put in place a motivating package which should convince the regime, and the ordinary citizens who innocently support it, that the European Union could contribute to improving the life of the Belarusian people.
On the other hand, any opening should be gradual, conditional, mutual and focused on principally bringing profit to society and not to the leadership.
Mr Lukashenko stated that opposition is good in any country but not an opposition supported 100% from abroad. The problem is that the opposition in Belarus could not survive because it is crushed by the regime. Therefore we must not abandon the democratic opposition.
Mr President, the visa issue is very important to all Belarusians. But I would like to highlight a specific situation with regard to travel.
The Chernobyl Children's Project International founded by Adi Roche in Ireland brings approximately 1 000 children from Belarus to Ireland each year for a few weeks for rest, recuperation and, in some cases, ongoing medical interventions. In total, 17 000 children have come since the charity started.
Unfortunately, permission has been withdrawn for the children to come to Ireland, and this has devastated everybody concerned: the children, their host families and so many others. This is such a good project and everybody benefits.
An intergovernmental agreement is being worked on and I hope it will be finalised soon, but in the meantime I know that Ireland is seeking an exemption from the ban.
I would ask the Commission and the Council, perhaps in its informal dialogue, to do all they can to ensure the continuation of this very worthwhile project. I know it is just a small part of the overall situation, but it will make such a positive difference to so many lives.
(CS) Mr President, we were outlining foreign policy, we were arguing about the Southern dimension and the Eastern dimension. On 21 August we, the Czechs and Slovaks in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Soviet Army entering Czechoslovakia by debating the situation in Georgia. The Eastern dimension has become a reality. We cannot run away from it, and we must therefore act. Politics is not a concert. Politics is a context and we have the context. For this reason we must fully support Belarus on its route to Europe. I therefore give my full support to the motion for a resolution as it stands. We must not isolate Belarus but we must not call it a democracy either. We must call on Belarus to abolish the death penalty, to let students return to the universities, to allow those who have refused to serve in the Belarusian armed forces to return with impunity and to allow non-governmental organisations to be registered. What about us? What do we have to do? We must demonstrate that we are observing the Copenhagen criteria. We must act as Europe.
(PL) Mr President, above all I would like to welcome Alexander Milinkevich and Mr Kazulin, representatives of the Belarusian opposition, to the European Parliament today. It is very difficult at this time to put a finger on EU policy with regard to Belarus. On the one hand we are constantly having to deal with an authoritarian state, while on the other we are seeing signs of a certain evolution and certain changes to this system of a complicated international situation. EU policy at this time should be directed entirely at the Belarusian people. The question is: who stands to lose most by sanctions? The Lukashenko regime, or the people of Belarus? This is a question we have to answer for ourselves in the various EU institutions. There is no doubt that we must try out a policy at this time that will specify our objectives and bring benefits from EU actions aimed at Belarus.
Mr President, we are currently receiving conflicting signals from Minsk, and this is already some kind of progress in relation to before, but the recent parliamentary election reinforced the popular Western image of Belarus as a kind of banana republic. On the other hand, the recent release of political dissidents is a welcome development. If it is an attempt by Lukashenko to reach out to the West, let us reward his efforts with our cautious support. But we should be under no illusions about the widespread abuses of human rights and political freedoms in Belarus. Our focus must be the people and civil society of Belarus - a cause that this House has a noble and vital tradition of supporting, even more so after today's speech by Ingrid Betancourt.
The people of Belarus yearn to take their place in the new Europe. They need to know that we care and that we will not ignore them.
(CS) Mr President, several important changes have taken place in Belarus during the past few weeks. The most significant was the release of political prisoners: Mr Alexander Kozulin, who is present here, Mr Syarhey Parsyukevich and Mr Andrey Kim. Nevertheless, the parliamentary elections unfortunately fell short of international democratic standards. What does this mean for us? My opinion is that the European Union should provide much more support for the development of Belarusian civil society, the concept of democracy and human and citizens' rights than it has hitherto provided. I also think that we need to consider increasing our financial support, for example for independent media, non-governmental organisations, independent trade unions, etc. Lowering visa fees or abolishing them completely for Belarusian citizens, especially young people and students, should form part of this support for Belarusian civil society. As we have already heard, a visa costs EUR 60, which is equivalent to the weekly salary of an average Belarusian citizen. We should give this some thought.
Mr President, I call on the Council and the Commission to urge the Belarus authorities to end their practice of issuing exit visas to their citizens, in particular children and students. Whereas in most instances a visa is required to enter a country, in Belarus one needs a visa in order to leave the country.
I raised the issue of the international travel ban on children from this country with the Belarus opposition leader Alexander Milinkevich during the PPE-DE Group meeting this morning. He told our Group that the Belarus regime has imposed this travel ban as it does not want children to see how the other half lives.
From my own constituency of Ireland South, something like EUR 70 million has been raised and expended in looking after children and improving the conditions in which they live in their orphanages. My colleague Marian Harkin has already referred to the ban here this evening. I understand now that in fact the bilateral agreement between Ireland and Belarus will not be in place until May or June. Therefore I join with her in calling for the exemption to be granted to Ireland so that children can travel for Christmas and get the help and assistance that they require.
(SK) Mr Milinkevich, Mr Kozulin, I am delighted that you are here for today's debate on your country, Belarus. To me, you represent the prospect of Belarus becoming a free and democratic country one day.
The unfair October election in Belarus once again strengthened Mr Lukashenko's totalitarian regime. Of the 110 seats in the lower chamber of the Belarusian Parliament, not a single one was won by the opposition. Although political prisoners were released in August, they could find themselves back in prison at any time.
Ladies and gentlemen, by making small improvements to the election process Mr Lukashenko is trying to persuade us that the EU has no longer any reasons to isolate Belarus. Although good relations with Minsk would be beneficial to both sides, the Union must demand more than just cosmetic changes in improving democracy. The EU must call for a free media in Belarus and for all democratic forces to be able to participate in the process of governing Belarus.
Mr President, the French Presidency pays close attention to all of the EU's eastern neighbours: Georgia and Ukraine, where the summit on 9 September marked an unprecedented step forward in relations between the EU and Ukraine - Moldova - I was there two days ago to discuss the future of relations between the European Union and Moldova in the form of a new and more ambitious agreement than the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. So it is in this context that we are closely watching developments in Belarus.
Like you, we are sorry that the regime did not use the elections on 28 September as an opportunity to signal progress towards democratic standards. At the same time, the EU is pleased to see a few positive developments, notably the release of political prisoners. There must be a debate between foreign ministers in Luxembourg on Monday, under similar to those used by speakers during this debate. Our message is that the European Union is prepared to budge if the authorities in Minsk make an effort. We need a progressive approach - in other words, sanctions are not going to be lifted overnight - and a conditional approach, in that the EU will react to positive signals from the regime, as well as an approach geared towards the welfare of civil society, as Mr Severin said.
I would like to explain that children and students can of course obtain visas. It depends on the embassy, but it is allowed under the Schengen system. We need to put pressure on the authorities in Minsk to ensure that these visas are issued, although the EU is not responsible for this. I would also like to point out that there are specific advantages in terms of young people, children who are close to the Belarus border.
The EU will maintain its support for the opposition. I myself have just had a meeting with Messrs Milinkevich, Kozulin and Protasiewicz and Parliament can pride itself on awarding the Sakharov Prize to Mr Milinkevich. I believe that this gesture is a tribute to the European Parliament. As we have already said, it is essential that if a representative of a Member State goes to Minsk, he or she should meet with the opposition. Therefore, we have not lost hope of the regime evolving towards greater liberalisation, so that Belarus is not left in an exclusive one-to-one with Russia.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on the question of whether we are prepared to receive the opposition on Monday on the margins of the GAERC meeting, this is an interesting suggestion. We will look into it and I will pass on the views of the Members to Benita Ferrero-Waldner. However, it is for the Presidency to extend the invitation. If the meeting with the opposition takes place, the Commissioners are of course ready to participate.
On the question of EU assistance to Belarus, assistance focuses on support to civil society and the needs of the population: the combined ENPI resources of EUR 20 million for 2007-2010 to address the needs of the population and democratisation in the broad sense, with the funding from the thematic programme for non-state actors and local authorities and the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights to support democratisation and civil society in the more narrow sense.
We foresee actions to further the extent of the capacity of NGOs, in particular in the human rights field and independent media. The question was asked about Chernobyl orphans being banned from travel and from stays in Member States. The Commission, together with the heads of missions in Minsk, has raised the issue of Chernobyl orphans with the authorities and we will continue to do so as necessary. In addition the Commission will continue to support the alleviation of the Chernobyl catastrophe.
In conclusion may I say that this vivid debate demonstrates that there is a clear interest in the Belarus issue at this crucial time. Undoubtedly the time has come for making strategic choices on what should be our approach towards Belarus at this complex juncture. I have listened with interest to the views expressed by the Members of Parliament and I understand that, according to some of you, a limited and proportionate suspension of sanctions could be used as a positive lever to press for democratic progress.
We now await the Parliament resolution on Belarus which is due to be adopted tomorrow, and we will take due account of your opinion in our decision which will be taken shortly.
I have received six motions for a resolution in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
The results of the elections in Belarus speak for themselves. This outcome was largely to be expected: the opposition ended up being crushed by President Lukashenko's powerful machinery that effectively prevented the elections from being properly conducted.
It seems to me that Europe is again turning a deaf ear: claims of election-rigging, intimidation, violence and harassment have so far gone unheeded, despite international observers confirming the clear violations, light years away from the required democratic standards.
I expect the European Union to speak out more clearly and plainly, and to take the necessary political and diplomatic action. Let us avoid the usual proclamations and fine resolutions, the declarations of intent. This would just be hypocritical, symbolic of a Europe unable to express an authoritative and decisive position.
Once again Lukashenko has 'outflanked' the European Union, which has shown its naivety in not setting any initial conditions for the regime. Lukashenko has turned out to be more shrewd a politician than Europe thought. The elections and what went on during the campaign showed that the EU's strategy was poorly prepared. This should make the EU aware of its naivety in its Eastern policy. To begin with Europe will demand specific actions aimed at citizens' freedoms on the part of Minsk if the process of opening up to Belarus is to continue.
It is immeasurably important for the West to recognise these elections as a farce, because they were not free elections. If these elections are recognised, we shall be carrying on with Lukashenko's game with the West, in which Lukashenko will be the only one to benefit further. The media continue not to be free and there is no freedom of association. The mysterious deaths of political activists remain unexplained 10 years later. The liberation of political prisoners does not essentially alter anything. After the elections there will be more persecution.
So far, Donald Tusk's government has not managed to show anything whatsoever in the way of an Eastern policy. Nothing specific has been negotiated with Russia, Georgia has been pacified, Ukraine is continually moving away from Europe, and Belarus has treated our emissary as if he did not exist. I think it would be worth finding out who the author of this compromising Eastern policy is.
Mr President, the European Union is analysing and adjusting its own policy with regard to Belarus. The policy of sanctions and isolation we have pursued so far has not brought the anticipated results. It has failed to alter the repressive nature of the authorities. The Russian offensive in Georgia, signalling a resumption of the Kremlin's imperial ambitions, was a new circumstance. It will most definitely have been noticed in Minsk and in other countries that Russia considers as its sphere of influence. An attempt to take advantage of this new situation with EU diplomacy would seem to make sense, with full awareness of the risk of dialogue with a dictator. This was done in agreement with the Belarusian opposition. An additional circumstance was provided by the parliamentary elections, as a test of good will on the part of President Lukashenko.
'Carrot and stick' diplomacy has not been a success, but that does not rule out a review of policy on Belarus in relation to the way the situation is developing in that country. The aim is still the same - to draw this European country into the sphere of democracy, a market economy and human rights. I am convinced that maintenance of Belarusian independence is a necessary condition, since it is only then that prospects for democratisation of the country will become real. The alternative scenario - democratisation of a country that has been absorbed by the Russian empire - is a historical illusion.
in writing. - (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, Belarus has repeatedly been described as 'Europe's last dictatorship' and remains so today. The parliamentary elections on 28 September were a litmus test. It was a fine gesture for President Lukashenko to release political prisoners before the elections. Yet it has also become clear that the opposition will not enter parliament in the short term. The OSCE assessed the elections correctly.
One of the most important aspects for strengthening Belarusian civil society is the European Union's visa policy. Civil society must be as fully involved as possible in the democratisation of Belarus. In order to be active citizens, people must have a broader world view. And the opportunity to get out of a totalitarian country.
Belarusians need visas in order to travel. Obtaining a Schengen visa is a complex and time-consuming process. The visa process needs to be simplified. People should not be punished. By making circulation of people a complex process, we restrict Belarusians from partaking in the values and culture of the European Union. It is not our intention to punish the civil society of Belarus.
It is high time to change. The people of Belarus deserve as much. And it is our job as Europeans to help them.
With outrageous audacity, and without citing a shred of evidence even as a pretext, the political forces supporting and serving the EU have signed a joint resolution to condemn the Belarusian Government for the elections of 28 September. The resolution proposed by the political forces of the European Left, through the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, is similar in spirit. It is obvious that the EU and the parties of the 'European one-way street' (New Democracy (ND), the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA)/Synaspismos and the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS)) are aligning themselves with the representatives of imperialism who are rallying round the so-called opposition - the NATO lackey, Mr Milinkevich. This opposition won a 'surprising' 6% in the previous presidential elections and failed to win a single seat in the recent parliamentary elections.
The election results should silence all the objections of EU and US imperialists, because the people of Belarus are supporting their government's policy against NATO and the EU. This is what is so infuriating and demoralising for the political forces of the 'European one-way street'. This time they do not have the pretext of released 'political prisoners', or the excuse of a lack of equal publicity for candidates. Now that they acknowledge the existence of such equality, they are shamelessly and high-handedly claiming that the new parliament has 'doubtful democratic legitimacy'.
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece condemn both of these unacceptable resolutions and express their solidarity with the people of Belarus in their struggle against imperialist dominance.
in writing. - Recent elections held in Belarus can be described as anything but free and fair. Stalin's notorious principle that it is not important who receives the votes, but who counts the votes, is still very much respected in Belarus. The votes were mostly counted out of the field of view of the observers, thus the OSCE election observation misson, for example, was compelled not to recognise the elections.
Lukashenka's hypocrisy in his recent courting of the West is unmistakable. He has made promises on the nature of the elections that he has been unable to keep - the rights of numerous election observers were violated by depriving them of their right to oversee the election procedures fully. We should not disregard this severe breach from the ideals of democratic elections. No European Union sanctions should be lifted before an evident regime transition has commenced.
The position of the Council and of the Commission and the resolution of the European Parliament on the situation in Belarus have the objective of evaluating the results of the parliamentary elections held on 28 September, and also their impact on EU relations with Belarus.
The European Union finds itself in a complicated international situation. On the one hand, there is no doubt that Belarus has failed to fulfil its democratic obligations, but on the other we are seeing a gradual, albeit slow, 'melting' of authoritarianism.
During the elections it was possible to observe certain positive phenomena pointing towards democratisation, such as the liberation of political prisoners, the request for independent OSCE observers and an improvement in election observation conditions. The Belarusian authorities did not, however, meet all their obligations. They should confirm their desire to improve cooperation with the EU and create better conditions for dialogue with the EU. They should take genuine action on a broader scale to move towards democracy, respect for human rights and the principle of the rule of law.
I fully support the call from the Commission and the Council to review and possibly suspend some of the restrictions that are in place with regard to Belarus. The development of a civil society must not be blocked. The sanctions imposed by the EU - especially those relating to visa procedures and the costs of obtaining a visa - hit ordinary citizens, not the state authorities.


Formation of political groups: see Minutes


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes


Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


Follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans: a first assessment (short presentation)
You pointed out that we have slightly dimmed the lighting in the Chamber. I imagine that it is in order to make energy savings.
That is fitting, since the next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Gyürk, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans: a first assessment.
Thank you for the floor, Mr President. Commissioner, the gas crisis in January certainly had one positive outcome. It enlivened the dialogue on energy policy in every Member State.
Likewise, here in the European Parliament, there has been a lot of discussion about various alternative transportation routes, the expansion of storage capacities, as well as the future role of nuclear energy. However, we have devoted unduly scant attention to energy efficiency. I am particularly pleased that the report on the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans has provided an opportunity to discuss this topic during the last few weeks.
The significance of energy efficiency lies in its ability to achieve perceptible results faster than by any other means. As Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs has recently pointed out, EU measures on off mode devices could reduce standby losses by the equivalent of Hungary's annual energy consumption.
We cannot emphasise enough that energy efficiency may remedy all problems concerning energy policy. First and foremost, it may help moderate Europe's energy dependence on third countries. In addition, energy efficiency may also have a beneficial influence on the competitiveness of European industry, and may reduce the burden on our environment. Let us also remember that improving energy efficiency can also reduce the burden on the most vulnerable consumers.
Naturally, there are great differences in circumstance and potential as well as in legislative initiatives among the Member States. Therefore, we agree with the 2006 EU Directive setting out measures for the Member States to summarise in National Action Plans their planned measures for improving energy efficiency.
In the current report, we attempted to draw general conclusions regarding the aforementioned Action Plans. At the same time, our goal was to define necessary future steps in EU legislation. I would like to draw attention to a few crucial points in the report.
First of all, the report calls on the Commission to take stronger action against delays in preparing National Energy Efficiency Action Plans. This time, it must be thoroughly examined whether the plans are accompanied by practical steps taken by the Member States. A major shortcoming of several National Action Plans is that they are a far cry from their governments' policies.
Secondly, resources dedicated to improving energy efficiency need to be increased at both national and Community levels. As a result of the financial crisis, there are very few European citizens who can afford to invest in their energy efficiency. Therefore, existing energy efficiency incentive projects must be expanded at once. This leads us to the next seven-year Community budget, in which energy efficiency must be further emphasised, and tax breaks may also contribute towards genuine improvements.
Thirdly, there is a continued need for legislation in energy efficiency in the European Union. I believe that the European Commission's recommendations have set the right direction in this area. Stricter legislation on the energy consumption of buildings could result in considerable savings, for instance.
Fourthly, national governments must take on a pioneering role in the development of energy efficient solutions. These efforts should be mirrored in extensive education campaigns. Consumers will only set out to invest in their energy efficiency if they are fully aware of its benefits to them.
Lastly, I would like to share one more thought. It is my belief that energy efficiency cannot be treated as a second-rate cause even during a time of recession. What is more, energy efficiency programmes can create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe. In a year of massive layoffs, this aspect is hardly beside the point.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to address this part-session of the European Parliament covering, inter alia, the subject of the Commission's assessment of the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs), which was presented in the Second Strategic Energy Review package in November 2008 and the earlier Commission communication of January 2008.
A more detailed technical synthesis of the Commission's assessment of the NEEAPs will be presented in the Commission's NEEAP document this spring.
I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gyürk, on his work, as well as the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) for its valuable discussions and comments.
In the past few years, the Commission has stated very clearly that energy efficiency is the first priority of the European Union energy policy and a very important cornerstone to meeting the 2020 by 2020 targets, and National Energy Efficiency Action Plans play a central role in this respect. The Directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services sets an obligation, as you know, for the Member States to present these, and to show how, in practice, they are going to achieve their national targets for energy efficiency.
The original deadline for their submission by the Member States was 30 June 2007 but, as you know, many Member States unfortunately were late. The last NEEAPs arrived at the Commission in June 2008.
At this stage, the Commission has completed all the individual assessments and sent letters with the results of those assessments to all Member States. As a follow-up, a number of bilateral meetings took place, and a number of Member States declared they would themselves like to improve their NEEAPs in the coming few months. As has been noted by the members of the ITRE Committee, the first National Energy Efficiency Action Plans have proved to be a really useful exercise. Indeed, many Member States have, for the first time, prepared comprehensive plans of action on energy savings. Many of them confirmed that they found the cross-sectoral effort needed to prepare them very useful.
Under the Energy Services Directive, NEEAPs have only a limited role. However, the Commission, in its communication of November 2008, and in other recent statements has always encouraged Member States to broaden their role.
The Commission will prepare a new European Union Energy Savings Action Plan that will strengthen and better focus European Union actions, helping EU Member States and EU businesses and EU citizens to save energy in a cost-effective way.
In your report, you urged the Commission to propose a binding target for energy savings. The current energy savings objective of 20% of primary energy saving in 2020 today represents a non-binding target, as you know. However, the Commission believes that, with the climate and energy package, as well as the proposals in the Second Strategic Energy Review, we can reach 20%.
Mr Gyürk's report also rightly indicated that financial support must be increased. Financial issues relating to energy savings were recognised by the Commission in the European Economic Recovery Plan of 26 November 2008, and in other coordinated efforts which aim to help create jobs, which are often in small and medium-sized companies, since investments in energy efficiency, and especially in buildings, are mostly related to small-scale renovation projects.
In conclusion, I would like to recall that during the mandate of this Commission, EU leaders have given a real commitment to promoting energy efficiency. Boosting investment in energy efficiency and related new technologies offers an essential contribution to sustainable development and also to security of supply. Energy efficiency has a wider impact, far beyond energy policy. It has a positive effect on the European Union economy in general: increasing efficiency helps create new jobs, stimulates economic growth and improves competitiveness. As you rightly mentioned, that is exactly what we should be doing in these difficult and challenging times.
The item is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.
Written statements (Rule 142)
It is clear that oil prices are falling, but once the current economic crisis has passed, prices will rise again. Therefore, let me remind you that it is important to diversify EU energy sources and supply routes more with the aim of mitigating the negative effects which may arise due to a future oil crisis.
The dependency of EU Member States, in particular EU 'energy islands', on the import of energy supplies and existing infrastructure varies. Can we talk of a single energy market, if, for example, the Baltic States, including Lithuania, are energy islands? Europe's inability to speak to the main energy suppliers with one voice is also an acute problem. On paper, we are creating an ambitious European energy policy but, in practice, the bilateral energy policy continues to dominate. Fellow Members, the politicisation of the energy sector does not contribute to stability. We could and should try to change the situation through diversification and solidarity. We must complete the missing energy links and establish an EU coordinating mechanism, aimed at reacting to similar crises. It is essential that Member States which are most dependent on energy supplies have sufficient reserves of these supplies. We must not only look at short-term measures for security of energy supply, but we must also consider the long-term outlook. Europe in turn must diversify energy sources and improve security of supply.
Energy efficiency is all the more important at the moment as we face real challenges concerning the provision of energy supplies to the EU and as we need to make more consistent efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I support an approach to the energy efficiency problem which is consistent with the other EU policies, in particular, the package for combating climate change and the necessity to diversify energy sources.
I firmly believe that the R&D sector must be supported as this can make a significant contribution to boosting energy efficiency. The Commission and Member State governments should give stronger support to projects intended to boost energy efficiency, whether we are talking about investments to make public transport as energy efficient as possible, insulating buildings, etc. I think that government resources should be channelled more in this direction rather than towards subsidising the price of energy, as these projects provide, at the same time, support to vulnerable consumers faced with rising energy prices.
I therefore call on Member States to come up with effective and realistic action plans, to provide citizens with as much information as possible about energy efficiency, and to cooperate through the exchange of good practice. I also urge the Commission to support national authorities, particularly in the form of technical assistance.
Energy efficiency in buildings is a particular concern relevant to countries which have inherited a large number of buildings constructed according to the poor-quality standards of the Communist era.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to establish financing instruments and effective procedures for renovating the heating systems in these buildings, in keeping with the target of a 20% increase in energy efficiency in the EU by 2020.
Energy efficiency is one of the European Union's major objectives, the achievement of which will mark an important step towards implementing sustainable development. For this reason, apart from Member States' efforts to become actively involved in promoting policies aimed at making energy consumption more efficient, there must also be coordination at Community level in order to achieve much better results.
One way to achieve energy efficiency is to provide buildings with thermal insulation. According to a study, it is possible at Community level to reduce energy loss by roughly 27%, which means, by implication, a reduction in the costs which citizens are obliged to pay.
One problem facing the local communities which are proposing to carry out a project involving the renovation of residential heating systems is the complex procedure which they need to follow. As a result, the measures which will be taken in the future must consider simplifying these procedures. This objective of greater energy efficiency through insulating buildings must also be targeted at the disadvantaged social groups, thereby reinforcing the principle of solidarity in Europe.
Experience from the first assessment of the national action plans demonstrates in practice that conditions in the EU have not yet matured to the point at which measures to promote energy efficiency can be supported. One important weakness in the first energy efficiency national action plans, over and above the huge delay in submitting them on the part of certain Member States, including Greece, is the fact that the ambitious plans are not accompanied by clearly defined practical proposals with added value, despite the fact that, according to recent figures released by the European Commission, if the target of achieving energy savings of 20% were achieved, the EU would use approximately 400 Mtoe less primary energy and CO2 emissions would fall by 860 Mt.
Consequently, the scope of the potential which promoting energy efficiency gives us, especially at a time of economic recession such as the one we are experiencing now, has not been fully understood. The EU should therefore proceed without further delay to include energy efficiency in all its sectoral policies, with clear proposals and support measures, and to increase Community aid in this direction. Energy efficiency is a key point following the adoption of the package on climate change and can guarantee energy security, a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and an invigorated European economy.


6. International carriage of passengers by coach and bus (recast) (
- Before the vote:
(DE) Mr President, in the interests of fairness, I announced on Monday that we would be requesting the postponement of the vote on this report, not because Mr Grosch has done a bad job - quite the contrary - but because we want to take more time to look at the issue of rest periods and integrate it in precise terms in this report. We have held talks with the groups and have found that there is considerable backing for this proposal. Even Mr Jarzembowski, who was most difficult to convince, advised me this morning that he now supports the proposal. I therefore hope that we can deal with the matter in this way, and so I request postponement to one of the two next part-sessions.
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, as the rapporteur, I agree with the proposal, as does the PPE-DE Group, and I would like to make it clear that we have taken note of the agreement between the social partners. However, we are using the time with a view to incorporating this into an amendment.
(Parliament approved the proposal)


Welcome
Before moving on to the first item on the agenda, I would like to welcome a delegation from the Pan African Parliament, led by Her Excellency Mrs Getrude Mongella, President of the Pan-African Parliament, which is seated in the public gallery.
(Applause)
Welcome, Madam President. Your delegation will take part in an exchange of views today with our Committee on Development and with the Delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament. You will also have meetings with representatives of the European Parliament's different services in order to help you to develop your Parliament's administrative structure and strengthen the relations between our two institutions. I wish you a happy and fruitful stay in Brussels.