The role of volunteering in contributing to economic and social cohesion (debate)
The next item is the report by Marian Harkin on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development on the role of volunteering in contributing to economic and social cohesion.
rapporteur. - Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on my report on volunteering and the contribution that volunteering makes to economic and social cohesion.
First of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the Committee on Regional Development for their excellent cooperation on this report and, in particular, the shadow rapporteurs. I also want to record my thanks to the Commission officials, the ALDE Group staff and Parliament staff on the Committee on Regional Development for their interest and assistance.
Over 100 million Europeans volunteer - that is an incredible figure! According to the Commission, between one third and half of the EU population are involved in some kind of voluntary activity. In my opinion, we as an institution have a responsibility to recognise, to value and to support voluntary activity at every possible opportunity.
Volunteering is a unique activity in many ways: it is open to all and is freely given; it contributes to social cohesion and to economic cohesion; it puts one of the most important European values - that of solidarity - into action. Whether it is an individual delivering meals on wheels to an elderly neighbour, or the thousands who mobilise in the event of a natural disaster, such as floods or forest fires, volunteers can help build communities and reduce alienation.
Volunteering as an activity spans generations. It is a resource, sometimes latent, residing within communities, organisations and networks. It is an energy within each one of us, but it is only activated when we engage with others. It is, in my opinion, a most valuable form of renewable energy.
There is a strong link between volunteering and active citizenship: involvement in voluntary activities is a tangible expression of participatory democracy. In this Parliament, we represent our citizens and we as politicians engage in representative democracy, but sometimes we do not pay enough attention to the other side of the equation: participatory democracy. This is where citizens, through their activities, participate in the democratic process, and volunteering facilitates this important process.
Moving on to my report, it contains a number of practical suggestions as to how we can add value at European level. The Commission has a role to play in ensuring that Member States adhere to the partnership principle enshrined in the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion and to ensure that we do not continue with the illusion of inclusion of NGOs, voluntary groups etc., as is the current situation in many Member States.
I also believe that a system should be put in place across all European funds, whereby voluntary activity is recognised as a contribution to co-financing projects. If we do this, we show by our actions that we support volunteers.
We should expand the opportunities and programmes already in place to facilitate volunteering among young people and put in place similar opportunities and programmes to facilitate volunteering for older people. And we should, at every possible opportunity, promote intergenerational volunteering.
Another area where the Commission can act is in facilitating a more liberal visa regime, where volunteers from neighbouring countries are involved in EU-sponsored programmes.
Member States can play a significant role by producing regular satellite accounts, so that the value of volunteering and not-for-profit institutions can be measured. The figures for many countries, including the US, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Canada, indicate that not-for-profit institutions account for between 5% and 7% of GDP. Policymakers cannot ignore these figures and must take them into account when formulating policy. Furthermore, for every euro organisations spent on supporting volunteers, they received an average return of between 3% and 8%. Not even the ECB can match that rate of return.
Member States can also support voluntary activity by establishing sustainable volunteering infrastructure to deal with issues such as core funding, insurance cover and VAT exemptions where appropriate.
Finally, one of our tasks in the EU is to make a positive impact on the lives of citizens and to add value at European level. We can do this by supporting volunteers and voluntary activity in a tangible way.
(Applause)
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank Ms Harkin very much indeed for her report. The report relates to many EU policies and many initiatives, emphasising the strong link between volunteering and active citizenship.
I particularly appreciate your comments on the PEACE programme, where the involvement of volunteering was indeed strong. We will meet here again in May to discuss the report of Ms de Brún, in which, I am convinced, examples of local empowerment, in particular through the voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations, will be strongly present.
With regard to your recommendation on in-kind contribution, let me say that, while Article 56 of the general Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund already allows for in-kind contribution to EU co-financed projects, the real challenge is the use of this provision. But let me say that, in particular in local initiatives, which are co-financed by the Social Fund, it is quite common for volunteers to provide a noteworthy contribution, while there have been also many activities, especially within the URBAN initiative in Germany, Italy, the UK and Greece, which have supported a wide range of voluntary organisations.
Volunteering can be seen as a strong component of the partnership principle. Many times in this House, I have reiterated the Commission's full commitment towards the effective implementation of the partnership principle, in particular in the new generation of cohesion policy. We insisted on partnership during the negotiations of new programmes and we have now many positive examples of strong commitment to the partnership. But of course, as you know, we have a great variety of approaches towards partnership and volunteering in our Member States.
I also see the role of your report in preparing the ground for the next own-initiative report on governance and partnership at national, regional and local level, to be presented by Mr Beaupuy.
Let me say a few words on specific policies and initiatives in the area of volunteering in which the Commission has been particularly active. Worth mentioning is the European Voluntary Service and active European citizenship in the EU's new lifelong learning programme.
My colleague Ján Figeľ is currently preparing a new initiative on voluntary activities of young people, which will incorporate many of the aspirations expressed in your report. Enhancing and promoting trans-European voluntary activities will further reinforce the mobility of our young citizens. In its new initiative, the Commission will seek to ensure a greater interoperability of existing national voluntary schemes.
The White Paper on sport also stresses that voluntary activities in the sport sector strengthen social cohesion and inclusion and promote local democracy and active citizenship. There is also the reference to sport in the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for 'the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of [...] its structures based on voluntary activity'.
Here we share the view that we need a more holistic approach to the contribution of volunteering to Europe's economic and social cohesion. This should certainly take into account the challenge of the ageing European population. In this respect, your suggestion of 'intergenerational volunteering' merits further exploration.
In this context, I am happy to tell you that the Commission's Directorate-General for Education, Training, Culture and Youth is about to launch an assessment of the state of play of volunteering in Europe. This assessment will serve as a source of better knowledge and a solid basis for further initiatives in this field, as no systematic and integrated approach towards volunteering has been developed so far at EU level.
I am convinced that all those you are addressing in the motion for a resolution will be responsive to your call. You can certainly count on the Commission's support.
Let me also assure you that all other requests that are addressed more specifically to the Commission will be examined, in particular by Commissioners Figeľ and Špidla.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I would like first of all to congratulate Ms Harkin on an excellent and timely report. The point is to have better understanding about the potential and role of volunteering, which could be called one of the backbones of civil society. Indeed, volunteering is about citizens' initiative and so it is directly related to solidarity, the core value of a united Europe. As the rapporteur put it just now, it is one of the most efficient forms of renewable energy.
I think the point of this report is to encourage Member States to recognise the value of volunteering in promoting social and economic cohesion. The state is, of course, not expected to finance volunteering, otherwise it would lose its meaning, but the state is called on to provide incentives for the private sector to support the voluntary sector.
Parliament also addressed the Commission about the delays in the proposed European Charter on Volunteering, which is expected to define better the role of volunteering. A very important part of this report is the call for the promotion of volunteering through education at all levels, beginning with creating opportunities for voluntary activities at an early stage of the education system and also to promote volunteering as part of lifelong learning.
I would like to express my thanks once more for this excellent cooperation. We were able to discuss almost all amendments in a positive and constructive spirit and to make use of the majority of initiatives.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I welcome Marian Harkin's report on volunteering and congratulate her on her collaboration with colleagues in its drafting. Over a hundred million EU citizens volunteer, and every one euro spent in supporting them generates a return of between three and eight euros. With 1.2 million volunteers in Scotland - with its population of 5 million - and the voluntary sector amounting to 5% of Scotland's workforce, we must publicly recognise volunteers' efforts throughout Scotland and the EU.
The report gives credit to volunteers and focuses on the benefits of volunteering for the economy and social cohesion. It rightly demands that this contribution should appear in national accounts. It states that volunteering contributes about as much to gross domestic product in a wide range of countries as the construction industry or the utilities industry. This means that the not-for-profit sector accounts for 5% to 7% of the GDP in some EU countries.
Volunteering is good for you, your community, your region's economic development and your national economy. It also helps build the social capital that public policies need to succeed. I urge the European Commission to put in place a plan 'B' which would ensure valuing, validating and visibility for volunteers throughout Scotland and the rest of the EU, and I urge colleagues to support the Harkin report.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, should like to join my colleagues in thanking and congratulating Mrs Harkin for having produced this report. The choice of rapporteur is not a random one, as Mrs Harkin has extensive experience in the area of volunteering, and it is therefore only natural that she tabled this report. We have, of course, approved heartily of her being given this report, which she has drafted in a true spirit of consensus, for, as you will have noticed, we have tabled only one amendment, with which she is in agreement. This demonstrates the quality of her report, and I feel that this deserves to be strongly emphasised.
Commissioner Danuta Hübner, you have, to some extent, beaten us to the punch and given answers, right from the beginning of your speech, to questions raised in this report. I should like to thank you in advance, and it is most likely that several of the other speeches made by Members will enable you, later and over the next few days, to provide further answers from the Commission.
I should like to emphasise, in addition to what has already been said and further to what has been written in the report, that if there are 100 million Europeans who dedicate themselves to helping some 500 million Europeans every day, it must not be forgotten that these 100 million Europeans who volunteer receive personal gain from so doing, not in the financial sense but in the sense of personal fulfilment. You all know, we all know, I am certain, of sports teams and cultural and social leaders without whom our non-governmental associations and organisations would not operate. It must be said that these people need this commitment for their personal development.
In an ageing society, in a society where there is an increasing number of young retirees, we also need this individual work-life balance that is achieved through volunteering. Therefore, for economic reasons, but also with a view to the fulfilment of the human values shared by Europe's citizens - more than 100 million of them - let us make efforts to promote voluntary work in our societies and hope that, in the years to come, there will be well in excess of 100 million European citizens engaged in voluntary activity. Thanks to Marian Harkin, thanks to the Commission, thanks also to the governments and the regional and local authorities that are ready, tomorrow, to show their support, through their actions, for the wishes expressed by the European Parliament.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the UEN Group I wish to express our huge appreciation to Marian Harkin for tackling this subject. Voluntary activity is voluntary, unpaid and intentional work for others. It transcends family or friendship relationships. Although this is work without material remuneration, a volunteer receives satisfaction of a different kind: he or she fulfils his or her motivation, realises him or herself, and shows solidarity with others. Voluntary activity is highly educational for the youth and very invigorating for the elderly.
In this context the influence of voluntary organisations on the strengthening of local and regional communities should be seen as very positive. I believe it helps to build civil society in which one individual selflessly helps another and is sympathetic towards others without being a threat. The Irish example, which I had the pleasure to learn about, is a good one.
Such understanding of voluntary activity also means that the volunteer, who is often also a benefactor, must not suffer any material penalty when helping others and offering them gifts. I refer here to a case that is well known in Poland, of a baker whose business folded because he was required to pay taxes on bread he gave to poor people.
I also wish to highlight the very fine idea of declaring 2011 European year of volunteering.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I too would like to thank Marian Harkin very much indeed for her balanced and comprehensive report.
It is the product of a shared effort to give greater recognition at European level to the aims, substance and social significance of voluntary work. There are countless voluntary initiatives currently in place in the Member States which make important contributions, not only economically but also socially and in terms of integration. However, the European dimension so necessary for networking is often lacking.
We are already familiar with the European Voluntary Service for young people, and we need similar programmes for all age groups, particularly for the growing numbers of retired people who are active, healthy and experienced. They too could contribute significantly to making the European Community more meaningful, and existing measures under our regional and cohesion policies could be used to make this possible.
We need appropriate framework conditions and definitions that are as clear as possible, in the interests of long-term and short-term development for all the voluntary sector partners. Initial steps have been taken by the Commission and also by the Council. My hope is that both those institutions will take up Parliament's proposals and suggestions, so that we can make the European Year of Volunteering - jointly proposed for 2011 - a real success.
(NL) Mr President, volunteers do a great deal, at both local and regional level. Their efforts give social cohesion a very personal face. There is a difference between towns in certain parts of Europe. In the 'new' Member States the level of volunteering is still much lower. A lot of work is being done, and Mrs Harkin's report emphasises positive ideas for supporting volunteers and encouraging action at all levels. The Group of the European People's Party and European Democrats takes the view that there is no question of volunteers on the one hand and professionals on the other. The two are not mutually exclusive: neither group can function without the help of the other. Both groups, professionals and volunteers, are part of the social model that Europe exemplifies, of civil society, in which the citizen too has an important voice. That is the famous partnership principle.
There is one point I would like to raise following the debate in committee. The new Paragraph 17 deals with whether or not volunteer work should be rewarded with tax incentives. The answer is yes, but the form these take may vary considerably. That is a matter for our individual states to decide when we talk about VAT. My home country of the Netherlands has its own special system: the activities of sports associations are exempt, for example, and other activities such as canteen management are partly exempt, as is third-party sponsorship. So in 2010, when the VAT system comes up for review, it would be good to take this report on board and be able to point to examples of good practice in the Member States which others might usefully emulate.
Lastly, to make the point once more, volunteering deserves our broad support in the work of churches, politics and the rest of society.
(PL) Mr President, promoting an active and conscious role for citizens in society is one of the main principles held by the European Socialist family. We support involvement in voluntary activities when this is a concrete expression of participatory democracy.
At European level voluntary activity is a practical expression of such European values as solidarity, cohesion and social integration. For many people, except for taking part in elections at various levels, their participation in organisations of this nature is their only experience linked to the democratic process. It is therefore satisfying that more than 20% of EU inhabitants take part in various voluntary activities. Such activities help to reduce economic differences and are a catalyst in the activities of various associations, and they therefore create social capital.
The concept of social capital is increasingly used by organisations such as OECD or the World Bank in the context of local socioeconomic development. The European Union should increase its support for the various forms of participation, in particular in relation to regional planning and local development, utilising EU's political strategies and European funds.
(RO) First of all, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Rapporteur for her work and the special involvement in this subject.
I have followed this report closely, since volunteering has a major importance in current society.
The positive effects can be measured in terms of social cohesion, human rights protection, medical-sanitary assistance, promotion and organization of cultural, artistic and educational activities.
The effects are essential for the population and the economy. Yet this activity is underestimated, in my opinion and too unfamiliar to the public.
The consequences are negative for volunteer work since there are insufficient actions of support from the state, even if it can represent a considerable part of a country's economy.
As a Member of the European Parliament, coming from a former communist country, I can tell you about the very low volunteer participation in my country.
Since the communist regime introduced mandatory unpaid work in order to serve the state, this practice is now associated with that period in the people's subconscious.
Today, the percentage of volunteers in Romania is much lower than in most Member States. The activity is often unknown to the citizens, the state policy does not encourage it and people's mentality is also not in favour of this activity.
Citizens should be informed about the positive effects of volunteering. On the other hand, we should avoid the abusive situations that have happened, for instance organizations that have adopted this legal status for making profit.
I support volunteering as an important activity and I would like it to be promoted and supported throughout the European Union, especially in the former communist countries where efforts should be strengthened.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, let me also congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work, and stress that contributing and volunteering in society are invaluable. At national and local level they are the means by which participatory democracy expresses itself and they allow for the active participation of citizens in the public arena. At European level, volunteering can contribute to the creation of stronger ties between EU citizens.
Furthermore, through the additional human resources it offers to social and economic life, and also through its contribution to the creation of social capital, volunteering contributes importantly to achieving the EU's goals for economic and social cohesion.
The added value of volunteering should not be underestimated. Particularly today, with the EU facing significant social, economic and environmental challenges, volunteering should not only be encouraged, but also supported by European policies, especially by that of cohesion. Member States and regional authorities ought to try to ensure that voluntary groups and projects can transparently and flexibly have access to adequate, sustainable funding from the Structural Funds.
Mr President, can I first of all begin by thanking Ms Harkin for all her hard work and this insightful and timely report, which was so well received by the Regional Committee.
I fully support the central theme of the report - that volunteering, through its emphasis on participation and solidarity, strengthens civil society and bonds between the communities. I welcome the report's stance on the role that Member States should play regarding volunteers. I fully agree with the position that volunteering should be complementary to - and should not be intended to replace - public services.
In this regard, the role that carers play in our societies, in countries all over Europe, comes to mind. Often these dedicated people are forgotten, even though their care of the elderly and the disabled removes a huge burden from state resources.
The report also wisely points out that volunteering can be hugely beneficial for young people, fostering a sense of community and allowing them to develop practical skills which complement their formal education.
Another point advocated by the report is that special efforts should be made to promote volunteering among senior citizens. The involvement of this age group affords communities an opportunity to benefit from their wealth of experience and reinforces their essential place in society.
For me, however, this report has added significance: in my constituency in Northern Ireland we are in the process of rebuilding a society which has been deeply affected by violence and conflict. Although we have now entered a period characterised by peace and greater prosperity, in certain areas of the province the effects of social exclusion, under-development and division are still all too evident.
Ms Harkin's report specifically acknowledges the positive role volunteering can play in divided societies, and, if we consider the case of Northern Ireland, the whole concept underpinning the peace process packages has been that people work together on a cross-community basis in order to promote understanding and reconciliation. To a great extent these initiatives have had a positive effect.
Therefore I hope that Parliament's adoption of this report will ensure that the importance of volunteering is acknowledged and that the Commission and Member States will do all in their power to facilitate and encourage this practice.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our fellow Member Mrs Harkin on volunteering is a way for the European Parliament to demonstrate its social aspect to European citizens. The report promotes the idea of contribution, which is dealt with comprehensively and objectively on both a theoretical and practical level. Our fellow Member's work is important; I welcome it and congratulate her warmly.
We in turn have also tried to contribute to her activity. We have among other things brought out the importance of corporate volunteering, the coordination of voluntary initiatives reconciling family with professional life, as well as the creation of rapid action volunteer sections in every region to deal speedily with natural disasters and accidents.
In general terms, volunteering helps among other things to increase GDP. As has been said, volunteering boosts skill acquisition and improves employability of a volunteer. It provides socially and educationally excluded persons and the unemployed with genuine opportunities and encourages immigrants to participate in the local community.
The actions and the activity of volunteers speak for themselves. In my country, Greece, for example, the 2004 Olympic volunteers won us our most significant medal. Both individual and group volunteering are vital in social, economic, environmental and cultural terms. They unify all differences and peculiarities, while promoting them and revealing them in a spirit of concord and common aims.
I congratulate the rapporteur once more. I call on you to support Mrs Harkin's report and to join us in signing the joint written declaration that we have drawn up with other Members, asking that 2011 should be declared the European Year of Volunteering.
Mr President, voluntary work, apart from its economic aspect, is of great educational value, particularly for young volunteers, be it at home or abroad, in various areas of social, economic and educational life. Voluntary may mean 'no payment', but we as European institutions can help intensify it by various means.
Regarding the report, which I consider important in raising our level of consciousness, there is something missing. One group not mentioned here are male and female convents, missionaries who either do voluntary work around the world or organise and promote such work. I would welcome a monetary estimation of their contribution to people's well-being.
Voluntary work is the product of intrinsic motivation and pure altruism, which are values that cannot be overestimated. This is a report crucial to our way of thinking.
(PL) Mr President, the work of volunteers is not always valued as highly as it should be. The shaping of civic attitudes through voluntary work is not always given due attention.
Local authorities are responsible for organising and delivering social assistance, including feeding the poor. Sometimes a local NGO charity performing voluntary activity has to pay high rent to local government for premises such as kitchens and canteens for the poor and homeless. Moreover, it sometimes does not receive any resources for food or for insuring volunteers. Since the volunteers are not remunerated, they are unable to support the activities of the NGO. In this context I would draw your attention to Paragraph 15 of the report. The demographic situation in Europe highlights the increasing role of the voluntary sector, primarily in helping to care for the elderly. That is why the document presented here is so important. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Harkin.
(PL) Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to two specific forms of voluntary activity.
The first is the transfer of know-how in a highly specialised area. Experienced and educated people transfer their knowledge, skills or perhaps the achievements of their occupational group to others. Those benefiting from such know-how are often in the early stages of their education, of assimilation of knowledge or skills, of facing new challenges, of their own transformation.
The other area of volunteering concerns young people. It teaches life skills and promotes their involvement in civic life. Travel to other countries as part of volunteering, in turn, promotes inter-cultural dialogue and teaches tolerance and respect. This is why local and national authorities and international organisations should do more to support and promote volunteering.
(BG) We all agree with the conclusion made in Mrs. Harkin's excellent report that volunteering can play an important role for the development of local communities, civil society and democracy. That is why volunteering and volunteer organisations need encouragement and support. I would like to note, in this respect, that the establishment of a European database to provide basic information on the various volunteer organisations in the European Union and detail on best practices will provide necessary guidance on how to improve the system of volunteer work. The establishment of a single European database will enable a more effective partnership and cooperation among volunteer organisations and strengthen international volunteer exchange arrangements. This is particularly important for young people and school children. By acquiring experience in volunteer organisations at an early stage, they would perceive participation in volunteer work as a routine contribution to the life of their local communities and to European society.
(PL) Mr President, today we are debating Mrs Harkin's report on volunteering in the European Union. The importance of the role of volunteering in Europe in the future depends partly on us. I wish only to remind everybody that annually millions of EU citizens volunteer, whether directly or indirectly. Voluntary activities take place at local, regional and international level. Wherever they take place, they yield profits several times higher than the outlays. This is why I believe that there is a need for closer and stronger cooperation between Member States and non-profit organisations and for creating effective systems to facilitate cooperation between all voluntary organisations within individual countries and across borders.
Taxes imposed on sponsors for their gifts and the fact that VAT is payable by voluntary organisations on purchases made to achieve their objectives are the principal problems holding back and limiting voluntary activity. I believe that such problems should be resolved as soon as possible.
(RO) Allow me to express my full appreciation for the relevance of Mrs Harkin's report, by the discussions on the new economic, social, European model and constant efforts to improve the economic and social cohesion at the European Union level.
Taking into consideration the solutions it identifies, I consider the report a text that provides a series of generous and extremely useful principles, able to lead to an increase in European citizens' quality of life.
I believe, as I did on the occasion of the submission of amendments, it probably would have been better to emphasize more firmly, in the report, the modern concept of volunteering, by explicitly stipulating the conditions without which all voluntary action could be interpreted as a unilateral act.
I would also like to emphasize the role of religions in the achievement of Christian principles related to volunteering.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, just two very short points. Let me say that even the best-equipped policies cannot deliver without the strong involvement of all those who feel a co-responsibility, and also the need for commitment and contribution. Volunteering and partnership are the best ways to ensure that involvement.
Let me also assure you that I will share your conclusions with my colleagues in the Commission. I am convinced that the future assessment of the state of play of volunteering in Europe, and the follow-up to it, will take inspiration from the resolution you are going to adopt, and also from the discussion I have had the privilege of sharing with you tonight.
rapporteur. - Mr President, first of all I want to thank everybody for their kind comments and their support in the drafting of this report. I would just like to make one or two final comments.
I appreciate the Commissioner's reference to in-kind contributions by voluntary groups and, while I recognise that in-kind contributions are applicable in some EU-funded projects, I believe we need to ensure that this becomes the status quo.
I also look forward to Commissioner Figeľ's communication on youth volunteering and Commissioner Hübner's commitment to investigating and, I hope, promoting intergenerational volunteering.
I am again calling on the Commission to ensure that the partnership principle is adhered to in all negotiations and consultations in the drafting of EU programmes at national level. This is crucial, because it is a real recognition by the EU that volunteers, NGOs etc. are part of the process, not just some add-on, not just there for the optics, but an integral part of the process.
With regard to the one amendment proposed on possible VAT exemptions, it is a good compromise and I am very happy to support it.
I also want to take this opportunity to call for 2011 to be designated the European Year of Volunteering and ask for the support of Parliament in signing the written declaration which has been proposed by Members from the five largest political groups.
In this call, I am supported by the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Forum, the Portuguese presidency conclusions and very many voluntary groups across the EU.
If the Commission were to designate 2011 the European Year of Volunteers, this would allow the EU institutions, in collaboration with voluntary organisations, to work towards common objectives, as I said earlier, to add value at European level.
Finally in this context, we should encourage the development of civil society and of participative democracy, thereby giving real meaning to the aim of bringing Europe closer to its citizens.
The promotion, support and facilitation of volunteering and voluntary action, accompanied by the growth in social capital, will prove to be an invaluable tool in achieving those objectives.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 22 April 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
, in writing. - (HU) In Europe more than a hundred million people work as civilian volunteers for the public good and for others. In the United Kingdom 38% of the entire population is involved in voluntary activity and in Poland the figure is 18%.
Voluntary activity cannot be separated from European working life and is seen as a basic tenet of democracy at both local and public level. The voluntary work done by our citizens helps solve social problems and promotes the acquisition of skills and social awareness. Volunteering offers people from different groups of the population the opportunity for integration and inclusion, the elderly can take part in the life of society, invest a lifetime of experience and feel they have a useful role for longer.
The incentives for voluntary work are the same as the basic European values: solidarity and a sense of responsibility. There is increasing recognition within the EU of the usefulness of voluntary activity and voluntary organisations are being more closely involved in decision-making processes.
In recent years voluntary sector has become more ramified. Interest in volunteering is increasing but due recognition is wanting, material rewards are restricted and the infrastructures are lacking. This has to be changed. To give support to voluntary work and enhance social recognition, it is important that a community of purpose is created, with transfer of best practice and experience by the active players - government, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations - working together in dialogue and in partnership.
in writing. - (SK) I would like to speak on a very personal note. Although I am a member of the board of a large Slovak national association, the Forum for Life, I know that the volunteers who act independently rather than through specialised associations also represent a ray of hope that penetrates the darkness of loneliness and support the fight against temptations of violence and egotism.
What prompts a volunteer to care for others? The first element is the natural heartfelt enthusiasm of humans to help those around them. This is an almost existential principle of creating the human capital that is so in demand for the future of social cohesion in the regions. Volunteers experience happiness that goes beyond their work because they are willing to do their best for others, without expecting any reward. It is not enough just to meet people in financial difficulties: it is also essential to respond to their desire for values and their deepest wishes.
Although the type of help we offer is important, what is even more important is the heart that offers this help. Irrespective of whether we are talking about a micro-project or a huge project, volunteering should always be a practical lesson, especially for young people, since it is an educational contribution to the culture of solidarity and togetherness, of offering one's time and energy. For me, this is the most important contribution for both present and future generations and their coexistence.


9. Climate change conference in Durban (


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


Exchanges of information extracted from criminal records (debate)
The next item is the report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States C6-0052/2006.
Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, at present information on criminal records does not circulate efficiently between the Member States of the EU. This is not acceptable in a European area of freedom, security and justice and that is why the objective of the EU in the area of criminal records is twofold: firstly, to improve the circulation of information on criminal records between the Member States and, secondly, to use this information outside the territory of the sentencing Member State.
As you know, in 2005 the Commission adopted two legislative proposals dealing with these aspects respectively. A proposal dealing with the second aspect - circulation of information - was adopted in December 2006. Political agreement on the proposal dealing with the circulation of information was fortunately reached by the Council of Interior Ministers in Luxembourg on 13 June. This instrument is another important step forward.
In improving the way in which information is exchanged and made available to Member States, it radically overhauls the outdated, inefficient system of information exchange under the Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance of 1959. In its place, it establishes a streamlined system that will ensure that information stored in a single Member State is updated and then accessible to other Member States. In addition, the information will be easier to understand and, therefore, of greater value to the end users.
I note, with regret, that Member States have decided that the follow-up work should take the form of Council decisions and, even more regrettably, Member States do not trust each other enough to accept that these implementing measures will be adopted not by qualified majority but by unanimity.
I know that there are some amendments and I thank the rapporteur for the quality of his report. I share the spirit of the great majority of all the amendments proposed. I have a reservation concerning the amendments that propose the introduction of general provisions on data protection. Why? Because this instrument is a sectoral one: it contains a small number of provisions on data protection which are specific to criminal records and therefore they are more restrictive. Therefore, my worry is that the application of general provisions on data protection will be too flexible and less restrictive. That aside, personal data handled as part of the implementation of the framework decision should be protected in accordance with the provisions of the future framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. You all know perfectly well that I am urging the Council to find an agreement on such an important framework decision on privacy protection by the end of this year.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for their cooperation on this report and particularly the shadow rapporteurs, Mrs Buitenweg, Mrs Vălean and Mrs Grabowska.
Information on criminal convictions circulates between Member States under the mechanisms of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters of 1959, but there are serious difficulties with that mechanism.
These deficiencies were demonstrated dramatically by the case of Fourniret, a French man sentenced in the 1980s to seven years in prison for the rape of a minor and then released after just two. We would discover years later that, between his release and his re-arrest in June 2003, Fourniret had murdered nine girls and was suspected of killing a further twelve. He had managed to evade judicial action for more than 14 years, simply by changing his residence from one Member State to another, and furthermore, to top everything, he even managed to get a job in a school. It was clear that the mechanisms for exchanging information on criminal records had to be modified and improved.
The proposal for a Council framework decision intends to replace the information exchange mechanisms regulated in Article 22 of the Convention of 1959 and repeal the decision of 21 November 2005, all with a view to guaranteeing that the Member State of nationality is in a position to provide a correct, rapid and exhaustive response to requests for information that it receives with regard to convictions of its nationals.
Of the measures included in the Council's proposal, we must highlight the following:
the principle of centralising information is retained;
a framework is established for contributing to, designing and implementing a computerised system for the exchange of information on criminal convictions, based on the use of a standard European format that makes it possible to exchange information in a standard, computerised and easily translatable form by means of automated mechanisms;
the principle of obligatory forwarding to the Member State of nationality is taken up, eliminating the dispensation of notification when the person also has the nationality of the Member State passing the sentence; and, finally,
the obligation to conserve the information forwarded to the State of nationality is laid down.
With regard to the parliamentary measures proposed, I would highlight the following:
with a view to guaranteeing the integrity and authenticity of the information forwarded, the Member State handing down the conviction shall be considered to be the owner or proprietor of the data relating to the sentences passed by their courts and tribunals;
the future framework Decision must provide for a range of additional guarantees in the field of the protection of personal data;
with regard to the definition of convictions, for the sake of consistency with other reports by this Parliament, the definition contained in the report by my esteemed friend and colleague, Mr Demetriou, must be retained;
the inclusion of sentences in the register of criminal records of the Member State where the sentence was passed is a prior obligation, since it guarantees the authenticity and accuracy of the information forwarded; the information on sentences will therefore only be forwarded once it has been registered, but not before;
it must be made clear that the deletion of criminal records depends not just on completing the sentence, but also on compliance with other additional conditions, such as fulfilling the civil responsibilities arising from the crime, or not re-offending within the time period laid down in law;
it is necessary to establish clearly which legal framework will regulate the deletion of data, that is to say, whether the legislation of the Member State where the sentence is passed is applicable, or that of the State of nationality of the convicted person.
With regard to the conditions for use, Mr Frattini, I genuinely share your concern regarding personal data. The proposal is much more restrictive than the provisions in force in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is justified by the speed with which information on criminal records can become out of date. Therefore, each time information on a person's criminal record is required for the purposes of a new criminal procedure, it will be necessary to submit a new request for information.
I would like to end, Mr President, by calling upon the honourable Members to vote in favour of the proposed report, and I thank you for listening.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal we are debating this evening is a necessary step towards the development of judicial and police cooperation between the Member States of the European Union, a step towards promoting the strategy to develop an area of justice and security and I congratulate Commissioner Frattini on promoting proposals such as we are examining today, which promote the Hague programme.
Recording convictions and passing them on for recording in the Member State of which the convict is a national and exchanges of information on convictions in general will undoubtedly help in combating both national and cross-border crime.
There are, of course, gaps in the proposal. There is no Community method for regulating the question of recording administrative convictions which, in most Member States are not entered in the criminal records. There is no Community regulation of the question of recording convictions extracted from criminal records. Unfortunately, the variety of national regulations is still needed. There is still no approximation whatsoever of laws even on these procedural issues. Nonetheless, the coupling of national systems for recording and using information on convictions in the framework proposal goes some way towards dealing with the lack of a single Community policy on all aspects of the matter. However, we must emphasise the need for respect for the right to protection of personal data, not only theoretically, but also in practice. This will become clear in the natural course of events. We hope that respect for this right will be real and constant.
I support the report by my honourable friend Mr Díaz de Mera and I congratulate him on the interest which he has always demonstrated in the European Parliament in the promotion of this strategy to create an area of freedom, security and justice. I believe that the report will be supported by a large majority in Parliament tomorrow.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the Member States have their own guidelines for collecting data on those convicted in criminal trials. Sentencing data is stored in national criminal registers. Each Member State is responsible for the central storage and management of information on court sentences. However, we are crossing national borders ever more frequently and, as we are no angels, we sometimes come into conflict with the criminal law system in another Member State, and are tried and sentenced there.
What should we do with these sentences? Should we register them or not? The Member States have different, not very cohesive practices and that is why we need to harmonise this field. We need closer cooperation between judicial bodies, we need a better and more efficient exchange of information and we need to ensure that the Member States exchange accurate, comprehensive and exhaustive information in response to each request for information from criminal records.
This is what the framework decision proposal aims to do. We need a European system for exchanging information in a standardised, computerised format, where interpretation is facilitated by automated procedures and a standardised format.
That is why my political group support this report. However, my group does have one serious doubt concerning the report, which discusses judicial cooperation and the exchange of information. Bearing in mind the importance of telling the whole truth, respect for the rights of and fairness towards the victims of the terrorist attacks in Spain on 11 March, we would like to express our concern regarding the choice of rapporteur for this report. He has also drawn up other reports on the issue of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The European Parliament must be seen to be an institution based on the principle of transparency and which serves the citizens. That is why the authors of specific reports cannot be seen, in view of their activities at a national level, to be controversial figures.
To conclude, I would like to indicate that my political group welcomes the good compromise that has been achieved in this report. We support this report and we intend to vote in favour of it. We also believe that the implementation of this decision will mean that Member States will trust each other more, and that this much-needed basis of trust will also apply to criminal proceedings.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, for his very good work that led to this report.
I will recall, as he has already done, the terrible story which took place three years ago in Belgium. A Frenchman, aged 62, was given a job at a school. He was then arrested and confessed to nine murders on both sides of the Franco-Belgian border. It was then learned that he had previously been convicted of rape in France but that no one in Belgium was aware of his criminal record. We all remember the Fourniret case. This case, among others, demonstrates how urgently we need a functioning European criminal records system in a Europe composed of so many different legal systems.
I congratulate the Commission on this very valuable proposal. This is a clear case of much-needed legislation that could bring tangible improvements to citizens' security in their day-to-day lives. I therefore salute last week's agreement in the Council, but I urge the Council to adopt this important text as soon as possible. For the first time, we now have uniform EU-wide rules which will ensure a faster exchange of information on criminal records and bring more legal certainty. It is also a first step towards online data communication between the EU countries. I am satisfied that the option chosen was an interconnection of records rather than having another central EU database. This is a positive step as far as cost and above all data protection are concerned.
I should like to insist again on the privacy issue. In the absence of any agreement on the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings and on data protection in the third pillar, I urge the Council to adopt the additional data protection provisions included in this report. We cannot continue adopting such instruments without giving additional guarantees to our citizens that their fundamental rights are respected.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra rightly notes that information on investigations shared between countries should have a standardised format and should be shared as flexibly as possible. The report is also aimed at ensuring the exchange of other information that in certain situations may prove useful. Every time such information is exchanged there are, of course, potential pitfalls: at the very least there are the different legal systems in the Member States and the different classifications of the same acts. In extreme cases this may involve the boundary between a crime and a minor misdemeanour.
Personally, I am not happy that Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra was appointed rapporteur for this report despite being accused of non-cooperation with the Spanish police in connection with misleading information implicating ETA in the Madrid train attack. Where is the political and human responsibility of the former head of the Spanish police? To conclude, my group has significant reservations regarding this report.
(PT) Mr President, I must begin by referring to the last speech. It is unacceptable here in this Chamber for attempts to be made at curtailing the parliamentary and political rights of any MEP whose rights have not been curtailed either by decision of this Parliament or by legal decision in his or her own country.
We cannot accept this kind of political persecution of Mr Diaz De Mera Consuegra, who has a distinguished record in combating crime and defending justice as a professional in his own Member State and who has been an outstanding Member of this House. The report before us today is further proof of his political ability and of the rigour that has characterised both his parliamentary work and his professional life.
I should like to say to Mr Frattini that I am firmly behind everything he said in relation to the Council's attitude. This measure is a much-needed one, and it is a great shame that the Council did not go further, in terms of both trust between the Member States and Parliament's involvement.
In any event, I share everything that other speakers have said regarding the need to look into criminal background in detail and regarding the fact that the sharing of this information between the Member States constitutes a value-added in combating crime, in terms of identifying suspects, supporting criminal investigations and determining the severity of a punishment.
I should like to finish by saying that I also agree with those who say that the Council must act more quickly in adopting, on the one hand, the framework decision on procedural guarantees for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings and, on the other, the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar, for which the rapporteur was Mrs Roure, a further essential element in striking an appropriate balance in the legal measures in the sector.
(ES) Mr President, I have requested the floor in order to rebut some unacceptable personal remarks, but I have essentially requested the floor in order to thank my colleague, Mr Coelho, who has spoken not just as a friend, but also with knowledge of the facts. I will just make one comment demanding a correction and an apology from Mr Kohlíček.
Mr Kohlíček, the only possible explanations for your extremely unfortunate comments tonight in this House are ignorance, bad faith or some immoral purpose. I am sure, Mr Kohlíček, that you have heard - I hope you have heard - of something called presumption of innocence. I am sure you have heard of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 48 thereof. I am sure you have heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and Article 11 thereof. I do not imagine that you are familiar - and there is no reason why you should be familiar - with Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution. But all free and democratic Constitutions contain their Article 48, Article 11 or Article 24.
I therefore hope that, when you are in a position to understand what the presumption of innocence means, and, in particular, when you are in a position to properly understand a case about which, to judge from what you have said, you clearly know absolutely nothing, you will be capable of making a private and public apology, and I shall be willing to accept it. Yours was an unfortunate and unacceptable intervention with which to end the debate tonight, Mr Kohlíček.
(Applause from the right and from the centre)
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


Closure of the sitting


2. Tibet - plans to make Chinese the main language of instruction (


2. Guinea (vote)


12. Crisis in the EU livestock sector
(ES) Mr President, I would just like to correct an error: in recital J, where it reads '70% of EU red meat', it should read '60% of EU red meat'.
That concludes this item.


Rule of law in Russia (debate)
The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the rule of law in Russia.
I would like to ask Mrs Győri to take the floor on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, at the request of Baroness Ashton, the Hungarian Presidency of the Council is representing the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission during this debate. Baroness Ashton, as you may know, is travelling in northern Africa and in the Middle East this week.
I wish to thank you for raising the issue of the situation of human rights and the rule of law in Russia. Despite some very positive signals from President Medvedev last year, the actual human rights situation in Russia and, in particular, in the Northern Caucasus region, remains deeply preoccupying. Violence, harassment and intimidation against activists, lawyers and independent journalists are of great concern to us.
The number of cases to support this statement is unacceptably high. The brutal attacks on Russian journalists, Oleg Kashin and Anatoly Adamchuk, and environmental activist, Konstantin Fetisov, are among the latest reminders of the climate of insecurity and intimidation that journalists, activists and human rights defenders in Russia face in their day-to-day work.
Despite assurances at the highest levels, the perpetrators are rarely brought to justice and sentenced. Accountability for violence and intimidation against human rights defenders - let me mention the cases of Mrs Estemirova, Mrs Politkovskaya, Mrs Barburova and Mr Markelov among a great number of others - remains an important test for the independence and efficiency of Russia's judiciary. As long as the crimes remain unsolved, a climate of impunity will continue to prevail.
There are, however, also positive developments. I should mention here the Moscow City Council's decision to authorise peaceful and regular demonstrations - which were forbidden until last year - such as those in support of Article 31 or the day of press rallies. We have welcomed this decision. At the same time, we continue to receive reports about arbitrary arrests of peaceful demonstrators, including opposition leaders, at these very same authorised demonstrations, as well as others across the country. This is a matter of serious concern to us.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and association are preconditions for the development of modern societies. All of these freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. They also form part of the commitments that Russia has entered into as a member of the United Nations, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. The EU urges Russia to uphold its commitments and guarantee this right to citizens.
President Medvedev has asked his Presidential Human Rights Council to examine the Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and Magnitsky cases. We very much welcome this decision. The EU has made no secret of its serious concerns with the way these cases have been handled.
President Medvedev has often spoken out against what he has termed the legal nihilism prevailing in Russia. The EU stands ready to support Russia's efforts to overcome this, starting with the reform of its judicial system. Convinced that real modernisation needs established respect for the rule of law and its equal and fair application, we have put the rule of law at the core of our partnership for modernisation.
In this context, concrete activities have already been prepared - for example, the setting up of an appeal system for civil and criminal court cases in Russia - in close cooperation with the President's administration and the Council of Europe. We are ready to work with Russia on this, as well as on new projects on corruption and the Hague Conventions.
The situation in the Northern Caucasus is particularly worrying and needs urgent action. We welcome the new strategy for economic and social development and the efforts by Deputy Prime Minister Khloponin, but much more needs to be done to provide a lasting response to the barbaric acts of terrorism against civilians. The continuing immunity and impunity of security forces operating in Chechnya is fuelling grievances and terror in the region and is a source of deep preoccupation for us.
We pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives and to those who have fallen victim to aggression because of their professions or beliefs, as well as the courageous ones who cannot be deterred from their civil engagement in such a precarious environment.
Overall, the current report has not been a very positive one. However, there are positive signs in the situation of human rights in Russia. These are often offset by backward developments and, overall, have not been enough to achieve real improvements, but we must not be discouraged.
The significant body of European Court of Human Rights case-law provides an important incentive for the development of Russian law with regard to respect for human rights. We are engaged in a serious dialogue with Russia on human rights. Russia accepts this and, of course, also uses it to criticise what it sees as imperfections in the EU. We will continue with that dialogue. There is no alternative.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, those who know Russia will know that what passes for a legal system there does not measure up to the normal criteria of the Rule of Law.
This affects Russia's relations with the rest of the world and equally with its own citizens. It follows that, when the European Union deals with Russia, it must take into account a variety of non-legal factors, notably, political interference, corruption and occasionally violence.
The relationship between Russia and the West, then, is subject to uncertainty, not to mention the complete absence of transparency and accountability. Where Russia's own citizens are concerned, they lead lives more affected by arbitrariness and violence than can be reconciled with the European Union's commitment to universal human rights.
Attempts to transform Russia have failed, so the European Union has no alternative but to live with the awkward interface between its own legality and Russia's non-legality.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, the model of power sharing between the state and the members of society determines the content of political decisions, while the predictability of the decision-making process and the correct enforcement of decisions are guaranteed by the honesty, professionalism and independence of the judiciary.
The European Union and Russia can do business together only if there is compatibility between their power-sharing models, their decision-making mechanisms and their judiciary systems. The achievement of such compatibility is an exercise in partnership and cooperation, in consensus, confidence and interoperability-building, not in advocacy, lecturing and finger-pointing.
Russia is a full member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, it is the Council of Europe that has competence to look into the functioning of democracy and the Rule of Law in Russia. The European Union should therefore rely on the Council of Europe in order to achieve, together with Russia, a common area of freedom, democratic security and justice.
Moreover, since the European Union is itself on the way towards accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, it should use its future status as a party to that convention to accelerate convergence and interoperability with Russia in the field of democracy and the rule of law.
Years ago, when the European Parliament had little more power than a militant NGO, its only tools were the rhetoric of naming and shaming. Today, after Lisbon, we are a powerful political institution. This imposes on us more responsibility, pragmatism and self-restraint. We should not let ourselves be led by emotions. We should not be casual with our values either. We are not allowed to be simultaneously prosecutor and judge. We should not act on the basis of mere allegations, rumours or various interest lobby groups. Our credibility, generated by the fairness and maturity of our approach, as well as our firmness and openness, is the best weapon we have in our dialogue with Russia at a time when our citizens have instructed us to develop a strategic partnership with Russia, not to restart the Cold War.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we consider Russia to be an important partner of the European Union. Therefore, we expect Russia to respect her international obligations and implement the constitutional rights of her own citizens.
It is a fact that violations of human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law have become commonplace in Russia. Unlawfulness and widespread corruption led to the emigration of 300 000 citizens from Russia last year alone. It is hard to envisage both foreign and domestic business investments in such a climate.
The Russian authorities are evidently implementing unconstitutional law and order. The situation in the North Caucasus is one of the vilest examples of that. The Russian constitution provides a basis for a multi-party system, but de facto it has become a one-party system with a marginalised parliament.
I would like to ask the representative of the Council which punitive measures and sanctions will be applied against the Russian officials who are directly responsible for human rights abuses and perversion of the rule of law.
The European Union must be consistent in its policy towards third countries. It would discredit the European Union if we turned a blind eye to some severe offences in some countries, while imposing sanctions on other countries for identical offences. We cannot continue normal relations unless concrete improvements are made in Russia. We have to face the truth.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, despite its excellent constitution, the Russian Federation is still not a state under the rule of law, because there is a huge gap between constitutional law and constitutional reality. The fundamental requirements of a functioning state under the rule of law - an independent judiciary and a free press - are unfortunately lacking. As one sarcastic commentator said: 'The best Russian court is in Strasbourg'. The fact is that around one third of the cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights come from Russia. Russian citizens do not have any confidence in their own courts, which only rarely dispense justice. This is also clear from the fall in the number of appeals.
The country is headed by two lawyers, President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, who have repeatedly expressed their intention of combating legal nihilism. However, their words, which are usually followed by completely contrary actions, have been shown to consist merely of legal cynicism. None of the courts in Russia dare to pass judgment without consulting higher authorities. This system of telephone justice has created judges who are no longer independent and who are more concerned about their own safety and progress than about justice. The Khodorkovsky case clearly demonstrates this. An employee of the justice system has recently said that Judge Danilkin's judgment was dictated to him from above. The reconviction of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev is a sign that the rule of law in Russia remains in the era of the gulags. As in Soviet times, the judgment was made in advance by the political leadership.
Controlled democracy goes hand in hand with controlled justice. Although the Russian justice system is the embodiment of the punitive state, it fails completely when it comes to solving, prosecuting and passing judgment on politically motivated crimes. The attacks and murders of journalists have created a climate of fear and oppression.
Conditions in Russian prisons are also appalling. One example of this is the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who uncovered a case of corruption and, as a result, was imprisoned arbitrarily and without charge. He died a horrible death in prison because of a lack of medical treatment.
A modernisation agreement between the EU and Russia will only be successful if it is based on a modernisation agreement between the Russian leadership and its own population. This involves ensuring that the rights of the citizens, which are guaranteed under the constitution, are finally respected and fulfilling the obligations which have been entered into with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe.
Russia needs to make the transition from a controlled democracy to a developing democracy. Essential prerequisites for this include free and just elections to the Duma and the Presidency, an easier process for registering political parties, which meets European standards, and a fair election campaign which gives all the candidates the same opportunities and access to the public media.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, Russia is an important partner for the EU on many fronts, but we cannot pretend that Russia is a genuine democracy with a rule of law. Unsolved murders of journalists and human rights defenders to politically-motivated show trials with acquiescent judges say it all in my view. Why, then, is Russia tolerated as a member of the Council of Europe? That is a very good question.
Undoubtedly, the Kremlin treasures this international legitimisation of a government described in the US diplomatic cables recently leaked by WikiLeaks as a virtual Mafia state.
Conversely, the Council of Europe is discredited by its continued acquiescence towards Russia's authoritarian government. The European Court of Human Rights has a backlog of 27 000 cases from Russia alone, yet a Russian judge on the court is able to order the British Government to give British prisoners the right to vote. This not only exposes the absurdity of Russia's membership of the Council of Europe, but also encapsulates why the Council of Europe is, in my view, increasingly ignored internationally. Sadly now, and as a result of this, many Britons, including politicians, think it is time for the UK to review its membership of this organisation and its very intrusive court.
(FR) Mr President, this House thinks it can lecture Russia on human rights. It would do better to put its own house, that of the European Union, in order. For example, Mr Tannock mentioned Mr Julian Assange, a dissident publicist and founder of the WikiLeaks site, whose actions I do not, for all that, endorse. He has been detained for weeks in the UK because of a totally outrageous and ridiculous extradition request from Sweden, and it is plain to see that this could be a step towards his being handed over to the US.
Indeed, Mr Assange has been accused of rape by two young women, one of whom actually pressed charges on the grounds that the condom tore during consensual intercourse. The other accused him of surprising her in her sleep following earlier consensual intercourse. Who are they trying to kid? It is obvious that if these two young women did not want to be 'raped' by Mr Assange, they should not have slipped into his bed naked! They have not been outraged; they have been honoured. This example illustrates the degree to which extreme freedom ...
(The President cut off the speaker but the speaker continued off-microphone)
Dear colleague, this is a discussion on Russia. The item on the agenda is the situation in Russia. I am sorry, but we cannot change the topic in the middle of the discussion.
(NL) Mr President, we are having this debate today because the Russian leaders and, in particular, President Medvedev, have themselves so often emphasised the importance of the rule of law to the modernisation of Russia.
At the same time, though, we are finding many specific examples of things which are impeding that very modernisation; for example, if I look at corruption, which is reportedly continually on the increase, despite a good, new corruption law being in place, or if I look at the Yukos case; or the repeated arrests of opposition members and the human rights activists who were awarded our Sakharov Prize.
The modernisation that is being declared in Russia has not yet actually become a reality. Given that we are supposed to be working together with Russia on the Partnership for Modernisation, and supposed to be negotiating an EU-Russia agreement, I find it unbelievable then that only five sentences in the progress report on the Partnership for Modernisation have been devoted to the modernisation of the rule of law. I also think that we need to develop more expertise at home.
What I want to do, and we will also be doing that together in the report that Parliament is to prepare on Russia, is call for the promotion of the rule of law.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regret the fact that this debate was put on the agenda at such short notice that the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was not able to be here. In recent months, Baroness Ashton has worked with the Council to improve internal EU coordination on cooperation with our strategic partners, including Russia. With regard to her efforts to achieve a coordinated position, I think it would have been sensible to involve her in this debate.
None of the other strategic partners of the EU is as close to us as Russia, either geographically or in relation to our historic experiences. This is why we take great interest in the internal political developments in Russia. At this point, I would like to make specific mention of the work programme drawn up jointly by the coordinators of the Partnership for Modernisation, both in Russia and in the EU. This joint work programme for modernisation contains important measures which will provide active support for the development of the rule of law in Russia. This is the right way of ensuring that our partnership brings real benefits, in particular, for the citizens. The initiative to modernise Russia launched by the Russian President gives the country's international partners the opportunity to begin a fruitful cooperation with Russia. We must make use of this opportunity.
As my fellow Members have already said, if the modernisation process is to be sustainable, it must not only be based on technological developments. A modern Russian economy must be founded on the reliable principles of the rule of law. Only when citizens and business people can rely on the rule of law will they have the courage to introduce innovations and make investments. Let us take the hand that Russia has reached out to us and help the country to modernise.
(PL) Mr President, in common with many of my fellow Members who have already spoken, I agree with the obvious statement that Russia is a strategic partner for the European Union in terms of geopolitics, international security and economic matters. It is also no wonder that we are so interested in the situation in the most important of our neighbours. It is now turning out that there are some very alarming trends emerging in the country. I would like to quote from some social research recently carried out, according to which only 3% of Russians believe that they have any influence over political life in their country, 61% believe that they cannot defend their rights effectively and 82% believe that state representatives do not observe the laws enacted and in force in Russia. This is a sorry state of affairs in a country whose development is so important to us, but relations between Europe and Russia should not, under any circumstances, stop at development in a strictly economic sense and economic modernisation. Human rights and the rule of law are also important aspects upon which we should concentrate, as is the case for our other neighbours, including Belarus, for example.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is important, alongside our wide-ranging cooperation in the field of business and in the face of global challenges, as has already been said, that we keep the subject of the rule of law on the agenda in all our discussions with Russia.
In recent weeks, we have discussed the stability of the Mediterranean region on many occasions and we have defined what the concept of stability does not consist of, namely, authoritarian structures. At the same time, this means that for Russia, stability cannot be based on political influence over the courts or the persecution of journalists and of people who stand up in support of human rights. Therefore, from my point of view, it is always the right time to discuss this issue.
I hope that we can make it clear to Russia during the course of the practical relationships which we will be entering into in the near future that it is putting its own future at risk if it does not establish the rule of law.
Madam President, there has been a sequence of tens of independent journalists and civil activists being murdered in Russia - for example, Politkovskaya, Estemirova and Magnitsky - but not one crime has been cleared up and not one murderer has been brought to justice. The Kremlin regime, by its unwillingness to bring about justice and transparency, can be seen as complicit in these crimes.
Yesterday, the young assistant judge, Natalya Vasilyeva, dashed the network of falsehood around the Khodorkovsky trial by declaring that the verdict was not reached by the judges, but was dictated to them from above.
Issuing a visa ban for the officials responsible for Magnitsky and other cases is one concrete measure to show that the EU is serious about the improvement of the rule of law and transparency in Russia. The fact that the Russian authorities have become so nervous about the very idea of a visa ban shows what a huge positive potential the EU really has to bring about changes in the situation.
Madam President, many of us in this House see Russia as part of the great family of European nations and had hoped that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we would see Russia moving closer to the European Union. Sadly, that has not been the case. The current Russian leadership has chosen its own path, and it is one which causes great distress to those of us who wish to see freedom and democracy and the rule of law for the Russian people.
The Commissioner here today has more experience than most of us in dealing with Russia, and no doubt will have his own experience there, but I hope that the Commission will put pressure on the High Representative to adopt a new policy towards any country whose leaders constantly flout the values we hold dear. Let us talk to them and engage with them on trade, as we need to. Let us endeavour to discuss with them human rights, as we should, but let us not allow their leaders to launder their money through Europe's banking systems, to educate their children in our schools or universities, or to take holidays in our holiday resorts. If we applied that equally to all authoritarian leaders across the world, we would start moving towards what one could call an ethical foreign policy.
Madam President, I join with colleagues who are saying that we need smart measures to deal with authoritarian regimes which violate human rights.
I would like to ask the Council and Commission Representatives here whether they are prepared to take measures against those who violate human rights, in the manner indicated in Parliament's resolution of 16 December 2010, which called for an asset freeze and visa bans on those 60 officials implicated in the case of Mr Magnitsky, who unfortunately died in prison in Russia.
Would there be one or two courageous foreign ministers - or indeed Ms Ashton's representatives - who would take up this initiative, and if it proved to be true that Judge Viktor Danilkin did write the verdict on Khodorkovsky and Lebedev taking direct orders from the Moscow city court, would such a judge be on their list?
(SK) Madam President, Russia is one of the most important and most stable partners of the European Union. It is a country where democracy does not have a very long tradition, and it might be said that Russia is still getting used to democratic rule. We must also remember that it is a country which is still struggling with relentless Islamic terrorism, and the social standing of the security services is therefore higher than it is over here. From this standpoint, it is necessary to judge the frequent departures from our usual standards for the democratic functioning of a state in a principled and sensitive way. It is good to have proper discussions with our Russian friends on all of the issues that concern us regarding the running of the country by the Russian authorities. However, this dialogue must be businesslike, in a spirit of partnership, and motivated by an effort to improve the functioning of the democratic system in Russia, rather than by the lecturing of a self-styled custodian of global democracy. Let us negotiate with Russia as with a friend, in a correct manner, openly and decently. After all, we have a common interest in the peace, harmony and prosperity of Europe.
Madam President, in my opinion, Mr Werner Schulz has drafted a resolution which is very well founded with arguments and draws correct conclusions. However, I am not sure that I understood the point made by Mr Fleckenstein. If the Rules of Procedure do not allow me to ask a question any more, I would still like to put this to him. Was he suggesting that we should refrain from supporting this resolution, or was he expressing the opposite, namely, wholehearted Socialist support for adopting it right now?
Madam President, I am sorry, I was not listening.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
Madam President, I was not sure whether Mr Fleckenstein was suggesting we support this resolution by Werner Schulz and others, or calling for us to refrain from adopting it at this part-session?
Madam President, I will vote for the resolution, yes.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank all the Members for the pertinent questions they raised during the debate.
I very much share the concerns expressed here by many of you. I believe that the European Union as a whole will have to continue raising these concerns at all levels with our Russian interlocutors. We should not shy away from speaking directly when we have real and concrete issues to raise. If we are to act as strategic partners - and I believe that we are strategic partners of Russia - we must also be prepared to tackle difficult issues.
Two things in particular delighted me during this discussion. The first is that nobody questioned the fact that Russia is an important strategic partner for the European Union. Second, there was a general consensus in this room that modernisation and the establishment of a fully-fledged democracy and the rule of law has not yet finished in Russia, and there are many problems with the workings of democracy there.
I will certainly bring all the points raised to the attention of the High Representative in order for us to follow through the various means at our disposal. I am sure the coming visit of the Russian Government to Brussels on 24 February will provide us with a good opportunity to reiterate our concerns.
Russia is a permanent issue on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council. You may know that since last year, a regular European Council meeting has been dedicated to discussing issues with our strategic partners. This happened first - and most recently - in September 2010, and I think Mr Van Rompuy will do the same in the course of this year.
I shall now answer some of the specific questions Members have put to me. First, on Ms Hautala's question on human rights, I would point out that the High Representative takes Parliament's resolution of December 2010 very seriously. The circumstances surrounding the deaths in pre-trial detention of Sergei Magnitsky and Vera Trifonova must be duly investigated and the Foreign Affairs Council will, of course, pay special attention to that. We continue to raise these and other concerns at all levels, not only in the twice-yearly human rights consultations, but up to summit level, insisting on Russia upholding international commitments. Any decision on restrictive measures would be for the Council to take. Such instruments should be wielded wisely on the basis of clear evidence. First of all, we keep calling on Russia to ensure a proper investigation.
I would say to Ms Oomen-Ruijten that human rights are at the core of the negotiations on the new agreement and will be addressed on a number of fronts. We can assure you that the commitments of the EU and of Russia to uphold human rights, including those of persons belonging to minorities, will figure very prominently in this agreement and indeed constitute an essential element of the future agreement.
In conclusion, I will briefly sum up some of my previous points. The rule of law and independence of the judiciary must remain an integral part of the modernisation effort currently under way in the Russian Federation. The European Union must stand ready to support Russia in these efforts. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are the building blocks on which all Western democracies rest. Russia should uphold the legal commitments which it has entered into as a member of the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the OSCE.
The North Caucasus region remains a source of deep concern for us. We must encourage Russia to seek a sustainable solution to this endemic problem in the region. The important thing to bear in mind is that, in spite of the many concerns we have and the number of challenges Russia is currently facing, there have also been a number of positive developments. We must take President Medvedev at his word and continue to engage in a serious dialogue with Russia on human rights. So if there are cases, we have to be alerted and we have to follow what is happening in Russia very closely.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The High Representative will be duly informed of your opinion.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at midday on Thursday, 17 February 2011.
(The sitting was suspended at 11:45 and resumed at 12:00)
Written statements (Rule 149)
The international press has discussed at length the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and there actually seems to be every indication that this case has been exploited for political purposes. The recent statements made by Judge Danilkin's press officer clearly show the Russian justice system's lack of independence. On the other hand, it is important to stress that this is not an isolated case. On the contrary, the NGOs operating in Russia regularly report that the standards for a fair trial are not met in this country. Furthermore, in September 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly asked the authorities in Moscow to adopt reforms to guarantee the independence of the justice system and to end the harassment of lawyers. Lastly, it is important for us to stress the critical situation in the North Caucasus, a region where a climate of impunity reigns and where, even worse than this, victims are afraid to defend themselves so as not to put themselves even more in danger. If they want to show their credibility through announcing their intention to respect the rule of law, the Russian authorities clearly need to make greater efforts than they have done so far.
in writing. - The rule of President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin is not compatible with the rule of law. For more than 10 years, Putin and Medvedev tolerated, and possibly protected, an appalling catalogue of abuses and crimes, including stage-managed trials, press control and political murder.
The horrendous record of lawlessness in Russia is not a question of private delinquency. The real problem is state-sponsored lawlessness. The Russian justice system, and indeed the Russian state, never dealt with crimes aimed at journalists, human rights campaigners and whistle-blowers in the army or in the judiciary. The lawlessness in Russia was regarded for too long as an accident or as a problem beyond state control.
EU policy should hold the Russian authorities responsible for their collusion with criminal elements. Recent developments seem to indicate that the second Khodorkhovsky trial was conducted at the behest of high political figures. The extrajudicial record of the Russian state is already a tradition. The EU's policy should take stock of this deplorable practice.
The usual soft EU rhetoric is not appropriate. It should be replaced by a resolute policy, including credible warnings that future cooperation with Russia requires an immediate improvement in Russian law enforcement.
At the start of his term of office, Mr Medvedev promised Russians a 'dictatorship of law' and full democracy. The Russian President is, I think, aware of the fact that his country is struggling to build a democratic state under the rule of law and to create a modern economy which can respond to global challenges. Recent events in Russia, in particular, the numerous attacks on journalists and representatives of independent non-governmental organisations, and the judgment handed down in the Khodorkovsky case, mean that there are grounds for wondering whether there is any real understanding of human rights and fundamental freedoms behind the noble-sounding demands. Russia's observance of its international obligations can also be considered controversial in a number of respects. The unresolved conflicts in regions such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be ended as soon as possible, in accordance with international law and the obligations undertaken by Russia. Russia should fulfil unconditionally all the provisions of the 2008 agreement between Russia, the European Union and Georgia. In particular, the representatives of the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) must have guaranteed and unlimited access to the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in order to guarantee peace and stability in these regions.
in writing. - The problem of independent courts and the imitation of democracy, free speech and rule of law seems to be understood by a wide audience. After all, the EU should know how to recognise such a problem. Nonetheless, it seems bizarre that at the same time, some Member States wish to override common understandings and even agreements, such as the EU Common Position 2008/944/CFSP. Ceterum censeo - France has decided to sell a Mistral class warship to Russia; we believe that it will sincerely regret its action.


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes