Cooperation between the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe (debate)
The next item is the report by Adamos Adamou, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision relating to the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe - C6-0311/2007 -.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament and, particularly, the rapporteur, Mr Adamou, for the continuous and constructive cooperation as well as the support in reaching this very important cooperation agreement.
The establishment of the Agency for Fundamental Rights was a big success for the promotion and respect of fundamental rights in the European Union. It is also a success in terms of interinstitutional cooperation. I have always been committed to ensuring that this important initiative is fully supported by the three institutions. Smooth cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe is crucial for ensuring the success of the Agency.
The draft Council decision reflects this objective. It represents the genuine will of the two organisations to work together, and I am delighted to see that the negotiations for the agreement have been swift and made in a very constructive way by both parties.
This important agreement will enable the Agency to work to the best of its capabilities. Indeed, in order to be fully operational, a number of measures have already been taken, and some are still in the pipeline. This agreement will help foster a comprehensive cooperation framework. It will help to provide a structure platform for both bodies, making mutual dialogue and common action both more possible and more efficient.
It will also help avoid the duplication of work between the two bodies. The agreement provides for regular contacts and meetings between officials of the Agency and the Council of Europe, as well as for the regular exchange of information. The appointment of an independent person to sit on the management and executive boards of the Agency fosters an exchange of views and cooperation.
Finally, this agreement reinforces our shared objective to promote and to protect fundamental rights in the European Union.
rapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, fellow Members, I would like to begin by expressing my satisfaction at the excellent cooperation so far, between the European Union's Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, especially in achieving an agreement with which both sides are satisfied. I hope their future cooperation will continue smoothly on the same basis.
Despite the prolonged discussions and consultations with the shadow rapporteurs on the substantial content of the report, we were informed by the Tabling Office that under Rules 83 (7) and 51 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, it was not possible to amend the text of the Agreement and, in respect of the report itself, only procedural amendments would be admissible, a circumstance which led a number of members of the LIBE Committee to give their vote for the report under protest. My report therefore simply approves the conclusion of the Agreement between the Council of Europe and the Agency for Fundamental Rights.
The EU's system of principles for the protection of fundamental rights has been developed mainly through the case law of the European Court of Justice and confirmed by the express recognition contained in the EU treaties. However, it is particularly important to ensure that this system of human rights protection is further strengthened whilst safeguarding basic principles such as non-discrimination, non-exclusion, respect for freedom of expression and religion, freedom of conscience, and social and economic rights.
The European Agency for Fundamental Rights could provide the relevant institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Community and its Member States with these safeguards during the implementation of Community law. It is important to recognise that it is the Council of Europe that has developed, through its advanced work in this field, a comprehensive system of norms and legal and judicial instruments for the protection and promotion of human rights and the rule of law and has gathered extensive experience. Therefore, the common aim of protection of fundamental rights, shared by the Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, has to be achieved in a significant and positive manner, avoiding duplication and any risk of fragility in the well-established judicial and non-judicial system put in place by the Council of Europe for the protection of human rights and individual rights. We must take care to ensure that there is no challenge to the legal precedent and the substantial content of human rights protection as established by the Council of Europe, an organisation with 47 member states.
I would also like to emphasise that any dangers of duplication of powers and procedures must be countered to avoid confusion as regards the aims and responsibilities of the two bodies, so that we can achieve harmonious cooperation between them. This must be reflected, above all, in the Agency's annual work programme, and in the strengthening of cohesion and complementarity between the two institutions.
As regards the exchange of information between the Council of Europe and the Agency for Fundamental Rights, it is of the utmost importance, as far as possible, that such exchange should take place under conditions of absolute confidentiality observed on both sides. The Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe should agree on more precise rules regarding the implementation of Article 15 of the Agreement, which provides for grants to be received by the Council of Europe from the Agency, with the aim of achieving full transparency and avoiding any insinuation of excessive interdependence between the two institutions.
It is also essential to implement Article 7 of the Agreement in a way which will allow the two institutions to exchange, by mutual consent, as much information as possible, with due regard to their rules of procedure, as far as this is possible under the confidentiality rules in force. This information should not be used by institutions other than those directly involved in the examination of the issues at stake, nor should it be made available to institutions or agencies of third countries, in the absence of guarantees and controls regarding its use.
As I have said, the cooperation between the Commission and the Council of Europe during the negotiations for the Agreement has proved fruitful, and it is expected that the two institutions will continue in future to work efficiently together, in the same spirit of cooperation, transparency and complementarily. However, it is enormously important that the European Parliament should participate in this process, through periodic reports, and that the Council of Europe should be called on to state its opinion on all the surveys and assessments carried out, with a view to complementarity, non-duplication of work, and the transparency of the operations of the two institutions.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group . - Madam President, I am glad to speak today as shadow rapporteur for the PPE-DE Group concerning this report on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe.
We have had long debates and a lot of questions whether there is a need for an Agency; whether the Council of Europe can accept this; whether there will be real, useful cooperation between the two.
All the time both Parliament and the Commission said clearly: yes, we need the Agency, we see the sense of this institution and we foresee good cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Agency.
Therefore I welcome the fact that, now this Agreement is here, we can talk about institutionalised cooperation. On the other hand, I am sorry that we could not really improve this text by amending certain aspects, because I would have underlined the need to take into account, whenever the Agency is dealing with concrete issues, all the experience, the expertise, gathered by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, with its reporting system in its various committees, for example in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights where there is excellent expertise and experience in dealing with these issues.
But nevertheless I am glad, because the conclusion of this Agreement is signalling the need for this body, for the Agency, to start its work as soon as possible. The Agency was officially inaugurated on 1 March but it still does not have its operating and management structure in place. It is imperative to proceed and improve the situation so as to go further.
I have been following this dossier since the very beginning of my mandate, noting the extreme difficulties of designing its scope, area of competence and decision-making structures to the satisfaction of all actors involved.
We are all concerned since the Agency will gather and compile data and prepare recommendations to the institutions in the field, a remit that is hard to define in its boundaries, which is horizontal and which cross-cuts all Community policies.
We can only be satisfied if we create a credible and responsible Agency that is entrusted with enough power and an adequate budget to cope with its task. This Agreement can help this.
We will ensure that any overlap of these tasks and duplication of work is avoided. Let us hope that the solemn proclamation of the Charter on Fundamental Rights today will stand as one side and the Agency will stand as the other side of the same coin: a first practical step towards a future Union policy on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Madam President, what we are discussing today is an atypical procedure, as the European Parliament is pronouncing on the advisability of a cooperation agreement between the European Union and the Council of Europe. We have no opportunity to intervene in this agreement: we are simply assessing it and giving our opinion.
The Council of Europe is the oldest European organisation concerned with human rights and the promotion of democracy. No one here needs reminding that cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union - and previously the European Communities - has existed since the beginning. Accession to membership by a state wishing to join the European Union is conditional upon respect for values that are inscribed in the Statute of the Council of Europe: the rule of law, democracy and, above all, respect for human rights.
It is thus good that these two institutions, the European Communities - now the European Union - and the Council of Europe, should cooperate, not only by sitting side by side in Strasbourg but by engaging in common fields of action. The agreement we are discussing today is neither highly original nor new, just as the Agency for Fundamental Rights is not an entirely new institution.
As we know, the Agency for Fundamental Rights replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, based in Vienna, and the Centre had a similar cooperation agreement with the Council of Europe. That agreement, concluded in 1999, respected both sides and was in force to the present time, i.e. to the moment when the Centre was replaced by the Agency for Fundamental Rights.
However, since a new EU body is involved, we must examine the new agreement on cooperation with the Council of Europe to ensure that what appear to be two similar institutions do not compete with each other but cooperate.
I have to say that the agreement was negotiated quickly but well. We have no great reservations concerning its content, nor could we have. It establishes a framework for cooperation, provides for regular contacts and, most importantly, creates personal links, since it provides for the Council of Europe to call upon an outside person - and a deputy for that person - sitting on the Agency's management and executive boards. All of which inclines me to full support for the motion and acceptance of the agreement, which will serve both institutions well.
(SK) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak. The report deals with possible conflicts of interest between the European Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe. In my view, this issue is secondary. The real difficulty arises between the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Both these Courts have the authority to act in the area of breaches of human rights and there are some rulings where the two bodies contradict each other. The majority of these cases relate to Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and concern proceedings on infringements of competition rules, such as the cases involving National Panasonic, Hoechst AG, Niemetz, etc.
Finally, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, endorsed by the European Union, are two similar yet distinct documents. The European Fundamental Rights Agency's competences focus on monitoring and support. The Agreement concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which will clarify individual competences, is therefore to be welcomed. The fact that the Council of Europe will have a representative on the Management Board is also to be welcomed.
As the Agency's competences are limited, I believe that its activities will complement rather than compete with those of the Council of Europe. In any case, we will have to continue debating this topic in the light of the changes to the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, in recent months, four decisive steps have been taken by the European Union to promote and protect human rights. Firstly, the special Agency for Fundamental Rights has been set up. Secondly, a clause on the legally binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a clause on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 have been included in the Reform Treaty. Thirdly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been solemnly signed in Parliament today; with its formal proclamation, it becomes part of the European acquis. A modern code of human rights! Fourthly, the conclusion - which we are discussing today - of the agreement between the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, signals exactly what the European Union stands for - the promotion of human rights - and shows that this element is fundamental to every modern society, to every modern state.
We see no subordination, no duplication, no replacement of the role of the Council of Europe, which is secure in its place as an international guardian of human rights. On the contrary, a new phase of cooperation, not antagonism, has been initiated. I therefore agree with my compatriot, the rapporteur, on everything he has said on this issue, and fully endorse his report, and I congratulate him on this.
I am an honorary member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I feel to be an honour; but today I also feel great pride and joy because the two institutions, the European Union and the Council of Europe, are inaugurating their cooperation in this area, and I hope this century will earn its place in world history as the century of human rights.
(PL) Madam President, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna is yet another costly institution that, in addition, arrogates to itself the right to monitor and lecture the Member States on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other matters.
It is hard to resist the impression that European taxpayers' money is being given over to yet another agenda for strengthening the authorities in Brussels and the emerging Eurostate. The Council of Europe and the OSCE are existing institutions that deal with the same matters at international, not supranational, level. What we are seeing is a duplication of already existing institutions that increases the powers of the European Union and the EU bureaucracy.
The countries of Europe - including my own country, Poland - are obliged to protect and promote human rights by complying, inter alia, with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Agency for Fundamental Rights, however, alongside other agencies that are being set up at an impressive rate, is not only a waste of money but a further dubious, not to say harmful, initiative on the part of Brussels.
(RO) Ladies and Gentlemen, this plenary session was marked by various European actions in the field of human rights, as well as by the possibility to achieve their assessment for the year 2007.
At the same time, with the creation of the Agency for Fundamental Rights and the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the decision to conclude a cooperation agreement between the above-mentioned agency and the Council of Europe is part of the European Union's efforts to consolidate its performance and role of human rights promoter, both internally and externally. I would like to point out two aspects I believe important in this field.
First of all, I welcome the intention to achieve a double objective by this agreement, namely, on the one hand, the efficiency and consolidation of the European policy in the field of human rights and coherence and avoidance of duplication, on the other hand. This is the only way in which we will be able to continue to promote the respect of the fundamental principles established by the European Convention for Human Rights and supplemented by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including by consolidating our own mechanisms for this purpose.
Secondly, I welcome the intention to consolidate cooperation in the specific human rights protection projects launched by the Council of Europe. This type of interaction will allow us to further contribute to improving the human rights situation, acting in specific cases, both internally and externally. I would like to draw attention to the fact that such cooperation should be promoted especially in the European countries bordering the European Union, in order to create a true area of democracy at the external border of the Union.
As rapporteur on the Black Sea regional cooperation, I ask the European institutions to support the regional cooperation projects. I consider the initiative to create a Black Sea Euroregion for promoting democracy at regional level, which was launched by the Council of Europe, a good starting point in this direction and I invite the Commission to manifest its entire support for their success.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 December 2007.


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes


Via Baltica (debate)
The next item is a statement by the Commission on Via Baltica.
Member of the Commission. On behalf of the Commission, and replacing my colleague, Commissioner Dimas, who is unable to participate today because of serious health problems, I would like to make a presentation on the situation and to explain why the Commission applied to the Court.
The Polish authorities gave the green light to the construction of the Augustów bypass, which cuts through the unique Rospuda valley in a forested Natura 2000 site, despite the initiation of previous infringement procedures. A letter of formal notice, covering the Augustów bypass among other things, was addressed to Poland on 15 December 2006, while the decision authorising the start of the works was issued by the Polish authorities on 2 and 9 February 2007.
The Rospuda valley is the last peat bog system of its kind in Europe. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that, if the project is executed in its current form, it would be in breach of the directives on birds and habitats. On 28 February 2007, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on an urgent basis requesting Poland to comply with EC environmental law within a week. Having found the response of the Polish authorities unsatisfactory, the Commission decided on 21 March to refer the case to the Court of Justice. The decision provides for a request for interim measures, which means the suspension of construction works until the judgment of the main case is delivered, in order to avoid irreversible damage to the Natura 2000 site concerned.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, perhaps first we could send our good wishes to Commissioner Dimas and wish him a speedy recovery.
Secondly, let me say to my Polish friends that this is not an issue which is getting at Poland. There are many Member States who have been subject to pressure from Parliament and the Commission when a development proposal is potentially damaging to the environment.
I think in this case, though, we have a serious case which is going to be a test of will of the Commission, of the policy and certainly of this Parliament too. We have irreversible damage in prospect for the habitats of a large number of species from eagles to woodpeckers, to capercaillie, wolves and lynx. I welcome the Commission taking the steps of going to the ECJ and I certainly welcome the subsequent decision to seek a special procedure from the ECJ to make an order urgently requiring Poland to stop the works pending the proper full decision. That is sensible. The ECJ President granted that on 18 April and I hope that is a very strong message to the Polish authorities who are involved with this scheme. But regrettably, it appears that Poland is ignoring that and proceeding, at least in part, with construction works for two of the projects in north-east Poland.
So my request to the Commission is to insist that we look seriously at alternative routes, because we believe, and my committee believes, that there are alternatives which would be much better for the environment. We believe that they must be fully explored, they must use the strategic environmental assessment principles and that only if those are complied with should we agree to this road corridor proceeding.
I hope the Commission will take that message to her colleague. I hope it will make him better. It will certainly make it better for the Polish environment if we comply with the rules.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Madam President, my group supports the Commission in this dispute with the Polish Government.
With its environmental directives, including the Habitat Directive and the Bird Directive, the European Union has made a vital step towards the sustainable development of our continent. The directives are a great success. The areas where they apply often form part of Europe's Natura 2000 network, which network of protected nature conservation sites located in the Member States is at the heart of the EU's environmental policy and of the preservation and recovery of biodiversity. They give the protection of nature and the environment an enormous boost.
In some cases, this goes against the local and national grain. Politicians easily yield to pressure on the basis of short-term economic interests, instead of standing up courageously for a clean environment for the sake of future generations.
Needless to say, the Via Baltica is of major economic importance. This is beyond dispute. Moreover, it is essential to open up Northern and Eastern Europe, and to link up the Baltic states with the west of Europe. Increased prosperity and wellbeing in Poland are in the interest of the whole of Europe.
This is why billions of euros from the Structural Funds are being invested in that country, and everyone will understand that the residents of the city of Augustov are keen to see the end of the dangerous, noisy traffic pollution caused by lorries.
Traffic will need to be diverted away from the city centre. At what cost, though? The Rospuda valley is a unique area, a special protection zone under the Birds Directive, and it should, on account of its extraordinary value, also fall within the scope of the Habitat Directive. Poland has enormous natural resources, with a landscape of outstanding natural beauty. It is these resources that hold the key to Poland's economic future.
In the Netherlands, we faced a similar situation not so long ago, with the construction - that was subsequently turned down - of a new motorway cutting across some of the Naardermeer, the Naardermeer being the oldest nature conservation site in our country which falls within the scope of the European Birds Directive. This situation was comparable to the Polish nature conservation area where the Via Baltica is planned.
The Commission was right to warn the Polish Government against the construction of this section of the motorway. As a European Member State, Poland has the duty to protect the Rospuda valley, and, whilst it has proposed measures that are intended to compensate for the destruction of part of the nature conservation area, this compensation is inadequate.
The study into possible alternative routes has not been carried out fully. There are other routes conceivable that could prevent irreparable damage being done to the area.
In mid-June, this House's Committee on Petitions will be sending out an inquiry mission that will be looking into the complaints by Polish citizens who do not want to see the valley destroyed.
Although we will hear all parties and weigh up all arguments, one thing will be paramount: that the Via Baltica should not be allowed to damage one of Europe's most attractive nature conservation sites. The construction of this road should not contravene European environmental laws which Poland has also signed. Pacta sunt servanda: treaties are there to be complied with.
Madam President, we can view the case of the Via Baltica and the Rospuda Valley from two different perspectives which should not be contradictory.
The first point of view is a practical one, involving the people who live there and who use those roads. It is not only Poles who are affected, but also the inhabitants of the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It is a real problem which we cannot ignore. Many people die on these roads. These people have a right to roads that are built to the highest standard possible and they have a right to travel in comfort and safety.
The other issue at stake here is that of the authorities taking responsibility for decisions that they make. It is not true, in spite of attempts to prove to the contrary, that there is no alternative route. There is an alternative. It is possible and practical to implement and needs only the necessary political will. In Poland, this issue has been debated for many years. We, together with a group of Members of the European Parliament, drew attention to this problem last year when we tabled a question to the Commission and appealed to the Polish Government to stop this project from going ahead, as it would be a good idea for the project to already comply with European standards at the planning stage.
The second issue is that of lessons learnt. This is the first case of its kind in Poland, and sets a precedent. We, as Members of the European Parliament, and the European institutions should take care to ensure that, for the good of citizens and in order to improve their safety, all Member States plan their investment projects properly, in line with European Union directives and environmental protection standards.
This can be achieved. There are no contradictions. This lesson has to be very effective. We, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, therefore strongly support a solution that will allow the Via Baltica to be built as soon as possible. However, this solution also needs to quickly lead to a breakthrough based on the fact that it is pointless to insist on bad decisions that damage the environment.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Madam President and Mrs Grybauskaitė. First of all, I would like to say that, on becoming acquainted with the history of this section of road, it certainly seems to me, as a Latvian citizen, that it has been known for several years that this stretch of road was going to be built. It is possible that the agreement of the Natura 2000 territories by the previous Polish Government was perhaps not conducted in the best manner. As a result, however, this delay is causing not only residents of Poland to suffer, particularly those in the eastern region, who may use this stretch of road every day, but also three entire European Union Member States - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - and not only citizens travelling to the European Union but also a large section of industry, since 4 500 lorries pass through the town of Augustów daily via this stretch of road. I would really very much like a compromise to be reached that would not further delay the already delayed construction of this road. It worries me that these three Baltic States are in fact not connected with the European Union via a normal, modern highway. These three Baltic States are not connected with the European Union through Poland by rail, since it seems that the Rail Baltica section in this region will encounter the same difficulties in complying with environmental requirements. Nor are these three Baltic States even connected with the European electricity market at the Poland-Lithuania border. So I call on the Commission and all other parties, including the Polish Government, which can reach these decisions within a reasonable length of time, to reflect upon this issue not only from the viewpoint of Poland and Europe's environmental needs, but also from the point of view of the interests of these three European Union Member States. Thank you.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Madam President, the Polish Government is issuing a challenge to the European Institutions.
European environmental legislation must be applied. The directive on natural habitats is there to be applied. The way we deal with this issue will be crucial. We must either take Community law seriously, and take the application and use of European funds for great infrastructures seriously, or the whole thing will gradually become pointless.
I have had the pleasure of visiting the beautiful and unique area of the Rospuda Valley, and I can state that this project is absurd. It is also practically impossible from a technical point of view, given the marsh area that it has to cross. At the same time, I can state that there are clear alternatives which are more viable, more economical and which could serve the same purpose as this road.
People suffering from lorry traffic in Eastern Poland, in Augustów, are hostages to the political game being played by the Polish Government in relation to other issues. It is a political challenge to the European Commission, which is combined with other political issues. It is the inhabitants of the area and nature that are going to suffer as a result.
Furthermore, the alternatives to this road which runs through the forest have the support of the preliminary study, the strategic environmental study, carried out by the Scott Wilson consultancy, which is a highly prestigious international consultancy. It is not true, therefore, that the option of this road via the Via Baltica through the Rospuda Valley is the only possibility. Not at all.
The seriousness of this Parliament and the seriousness of European environmental legislation is at stake. I hope that the European Commission will stand firm, and that means not sending any more regional funds until Poland realises that being part of the European club means obeying the rules.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, most of the EU Member States that acceded in 2004 and 2007 possess well-developed railway networks.
Unfortunately, this railway network has, in the last 15 years, been pared down, and there have been cutbacks also in the maintenance of it. Moreover, in many cases, the old railway companies have not received from the state the compensation they thought they could count on beforehand for their operating shortages, and this has the effect of deterring new enterprises that would otherwise be keen to take part in tenders, and so the likelihood is that the railway network will be used less and less and that rolling stock will become unusable.
These countries once had a huge head start over the west of Europe in the area of rail transport, but it has thus been lost, and their environment is particularly vulnerable too.
Fewer tracks does not mean less traffic. In order to channel this traffic elsewhere, all attention is now focused on investments in motorways. Roads like these were around 15 years ago, except that they were limited to the busiest routes, particularly around the big cities. New roads of this sort will now be built very quickly.
In an effort to limit costs, the interests of nature and the landscape are often overlooked. The shortest possible route cutting through areas considered empty is preferred, and there is no money for diversions, tunnels or bridges for wildlife.
Poland is not the first, or only, country to face this problem. The same thing occurred years ago in the Czech Republic, which planned a connection from Prague to Dresden and also in Bulgaria when a link was planned between Sofia and Thessaloniki.
The way in which valuable nature conservation areas are handled does not only make the national, but also international, news, as international nature and environmental organisations draw attention to this. They also point out that the European Union is partly responsible for destroying the environment if it helps to finance bad projects of this kind. I have been urging the European Union to refuse any responsibility in this matter for years.
On 2 July 2002, Commissioner Wallström stated by way of response to my written requests that Poland should adapt its Via Baltica plans. I would remind her that, according to the original plan, the Via Baltica avoided this vulnerable area, but that these plans were subsequently reviewed in a bid to better serve other cities. What the European Union should insist on is a return to the original plan that was drawn up a long time ago.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, it is a good thing that we, despite the urbanisation that goes hand in hand with increasing prosperity, still boast valuable nature conservation areas within the European Union's borders. These areas form part of the Natura 2000 network, which does something very important by ensuring that nature in the European Union is accorded a protected status, and, for example, by helping to maintain biodiversity.
We approved Mr Adamou's proposal only this week, in which a stand is made for maintaining biodiversity. Moreover, the Natura 2000 status ensures that the nature conservation areas remain intact for posterity.
At least, that is how it should be. Not every government appears to realise this, as was evident last year. The Polish Government seeks to build the new road, the Via Baltica, right across the Natura 2000 area of the Rospuda Valley.
Along with a delegation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I have visited the Rospuda valley and was able to see for myself how unique and valuable this Polish nature conservation site is. It is totally beyond me that it is the Polish Environment Minister, no less, who is in favour of this project, even though sound alternatives are available. He, of all people, should surely realise what disastrous effects this project could have.
By way of compensation for the construction of the road, it is intended to plant a million trees to the north of the region, despite the adverse effects this will have on nature. I know that this is a very sensitive issue in Poland. For traffic safety, it is necessary for the Via Baltica to be in place soon, provided it is tailored to regional circumstances with minimum adverse effects on the environment.
I am delighted that the Commission has issued warnings to the Polish Government, and that, when it received no response to its demands, it brought the matter before the European Court of Justice. It is to be hoped that the Court's ruling of 18 April, according to which the Polish Government should stop the compensation measures with immediate effect, will be a message for the future - a message that Member States cannot simply tamper with valuable nature conservation sites.
- (PL) Madam President, the planned construction of the Via Baltica has caused a lot of controversy, as have many other trans-European transport routes. Having studied the Commission's statistics on the subject, it is clear that a number of Member States have considerable problems related to planning infrastructure projects in the areas covered by the Natura 2000 network, namely Austria, Spain and Portugal.
At the moment, the Polish Government still wants to continue the construction of the Augustów bypass which will pass through the Rospuda Valley. It argues that the decision regarding the project was made before Poland joined the European Union, when Poland was not bound by the strict requirements of the European Union directives on birds and habitats. The European Commission is accusing Poland of infringing these directives as a result of its investment in the road building project. For Poland, road safety is the argument that speaks in favour of constructing the bypass. However, the environmental criteria that need to be fulfilled in the implementation of this project, seem to have been forgotten.
However, in spite of the current situation, we cannot allow talks on the issue of the ring road to stall. The problem has to be solved in the form of a compromise which will be satisfactory for both sides. Both arguments, namely those concerning environmental aspects and road safety, are equally important and will affect hundreds of similar projects in Poland and elsewhere. We should make cooperation mechanisms more efficient at various levels and adapt the regulatory criteria to the current environmental and social situation.
However, I would appeal for similar requests for debate to be treated equally in the future. To this day, in spite of the support of over 60 Members, no permission has been granted for a debate on the biggest environmental threat resulting from the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline under the Baltic sea. I would like to remind you that over 10% of marine areas are part of the Natura 2000 network and no one, literally no one, has taken this issue up in the European Parliament.
At the moment, when important areas of biodiversity are being destroyed before the very eyes of environmentalists and the whole of Europe, there seems to be no will to discuss the issue of the environmental threat to our only internal sea, namely the Baltic.
(PL) Madam President, the Polish PSE delegation in the European Parliament has stressed the need for the construction of the Augustów bypass for a long time.
However, the chosen construction plan for the new road, which will pass through the Rospuda Valley, will certainly have a negative impact on the ecosystem, which is unique in Europe and is located in an area that is protected by the Natura 2000 programme. Allowing the Augustów bypass to pass through the valley will cause irreparable damage to the natural environment, including the destruction of 20 000 trees and the disappearance of extremely rare plants and animal species. Sadly, we need to be aware of the fact that any alternative to the ring road will have an impact on the natural environment in that region. We should opt for the project whose negative impact on the unique fauna and flora in the Rospuda Valley will be as small as possible.
Representatives of the Law and Justice party, which currently governs Poland, assured us before the elections that the Via Baltica, which includes the Augustów bypass, will avoid the most precious natural areas. Now they are breaking their promise. The Polish authorities have had time to reconsider the location of the bypass. However, they have ignored the environmentalists' suggestions that changing the route of the motorway would avoid damaging the environment and would save money. The Minister for the Environment did not take advantage of opportunities to reconcile the interests of the residents of Augustów, who are campaigning for a motorway, and those who seek to protect the environment. The Polish Government is ignoring the problematic fact that this investment will be incredibly expensive and will place a large burden on the Polish taxpayers, as the European Union will not contribute to the construction of the road in an area where, according to the habitats directive, it is forbidden to destroy the environment. Moreover, given the European Commission's negative assessment of the project, further work on the construction of the road may make Poland liable for fines amounting to millions of euros. This will be a burden which Polish taxpayers will have to bear.
In my view, Prime Minister Kaczyński's proposal to hold a local, regional referendum on the Augustów bypass, and its route through the Rospuda Valley, is simply a sign that the Polish Government wants to shirk its responsibility for home affairs and is an unnecessary bone of contention for Polish society. The referendum was held because local government elections were being held in the Podlasie Voivodship at the same time. However, it was obvious from the start that the result of this referendum would not be binding for the European Court of Justice, which is currently dealing with the matter. It is therefore irrelevant and these kinds of activities only serve internal political ends. In addition to this, I would like to point out that, according to Polish legislation, a referendum is only valid if the turnout is over 30% of those eligible to vote. The turnout on Sunday did not exceed this threshold.
The natural environment is one of our greatest treasures, and yet we do not do enough to protect it. I think that the Polish Government should make a real effort to draw up alternative solutions to the problem as soon as possible.
(LT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Augustavas bypass should become part of the Via Baltica. This is very important to the city of Augustavas, where about 1.5 million vehicles annually drive through the centre of the city.
The European Commission has appealed to the European Court of Justice against Poland's building of the Augustavas bypass on the Via Baltica, which was commenced before Poland joined the EU. The appeal is based on claims that the environmental protection requirements of the Rospuda Valley, through which the projected viaduct must pass, will be violated. The territory is protected by the Natura 2000 programme.
However, no such environmental protection issues have been raised concerning the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which is projected to pass through Natura 2000 territory and which may lead to unpredictable ecological consequences.
Poland is seeking ways of solving the problem, perhaps by building a considerably more expensive tunnel. However, the people of Augustavas want to live quietly. No one is concerned about the residents suffering from pollution.
I have asked the Commission what solution there might be, apart from a prohibition on building the bypass, and what help Poland might get. It was explained to me that in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is not empowered to dictate concrete solutions to Member States nor to prescribe expenditure.
Perhaps it is time to review the Commission's powers?
Will residents of the Baltic countries be obliged to travel to Europe only by air?
(PL) Madam President, the natural environment is very important. Indeed, it is one of the most important issues today. The natural world is an independent part of our surroundings. We did not create it and we should certainly protect it.
However, protecting the environment cannot become an alibi for certain small groups of environmental activists who resort to blackmailing specific regions and governments. For reasons that are rather more political than environmental, and due to expected material gains, these groups are trying to block the construction of roads, bypasses and airports. A classic example of the misuse of environmental arguments is the campaign against the construction of an airport in Świdniku, near Lublin, in Poland. The colony of marmots is the reason given. However, no mention is made of the fact that this was not their original habitat and that, according to experts, they could be safely relocated to another site.
Similarly dubious arguments are used by environmentalists to argue against other planned investments in Central and Eastern Europe, including the Via Baltica. No mention is made of the fact that a referendum in Poland produced a definite majority in favour of the project in the region where the bypass is supposed to be built.
European environmental regulations cannot be applied automatically, without acknowledging that specific cases exist. We should use our common sense and not be led by ideological feelings. Use of the environment as a scarecrow could be prevented by more investment in infrastructure in the new Member States. Let us not forget that these investments really do influence peoples' quality of life, and that their right to good quality infrastructure is at least as important as environmental considerations.
- (PL) Madam President, it is true that Poland, which has done a lot since starting its programme of reforms 18 years ago, has unfortunately neglected the building of roads. That is a fact.
We are now quickly trying to make up for lost ground, although this is clearly far from easy. One of the hurdles in our path consists of environmental restrictions. We should bear in mind that when Western Europe was building roads that covered a significant proportion of its territory, no such restrictions existed on the construction of transport networks. Now, a conflict has erupted.
However, nature is not mute in this conflict. Various environmental groups speak on behalf of the environment. Indeed, they often speak too loudly, forgetting that man is also an important, if not the most important, part of this ecosystem. Indeed, it is man who needs to be protected, first and foremost.
It is regrettable that the conflict surrounding the construction work in the Rospuda Valley has escalated to such an extent and that it has become so complicated, including its political dimension. Is there a way out? Is there a sensible solution which could satisfy both sides? I am afraid that the answer is no and that the Commission has to choose. A decision has to be made.
I personally think that the road should be built. However, permission for the work should include a strict list of conditions that have to be met in order to minimise damage to the environment. This is because, let us admit, losses cannot be avoided. They accompany civilisation, as progress is never free. Everything has its price.
(PL) Madam President, the Via Baltica is most important in terms of increasing cohesion within the European Union. It is important in terms of decreasing the temporal distance separating the Baltic states, namely Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and indirectly also Finland, from the rest of the European Union, by means of access through Poland. The benefits for the Union and for Europe seem to be significant and measurable.
I am also aware of the very difficult situation in which the inhabitants of Augustów find themselves, as an increasingly large number of lorries, passenger vehicles and buses continues to pass through the town. Those people cannot continue to live like this. This region of Poland is very rich in natural resources: flora, fauna, lakes, forests and the entire landscape. Any road in this area will have a negative impact on the environment. However, it is simply impossible to avoid this region altogether. The road will give Europeans access to these landscapes and bring them closer, while not building the road will mean that the region will remain an inaccessible fortress.
In spite of the fact that the current Polish Government's stance has sometimes been less than professional, I would like to ask the Commission to take these aspects into account. It is possible and necessary for the Commission and the Polish Government to effectively seek a solution that will be beneficial to the Union, the citizens and bring relief to both the inhabitants of Augustów and the drivers of the vehicles passing through the area, without causing too much damage to the environment. During the mid-1990s, I was the Minister of Transport in Poland. I supported the project then, as I thought that it was necessary. Today, I continue to support the construction of the Via Baltica.
(PL) Madam President, it is my duty as a Polish Member of the European Parliament to inform my colleagues that the case of the Via Baltica has two sides to it. The first is environmental and the other is political.
The worst thing in this case is that the European Commission has also become involved in local electoral conflicts. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the fact that the European Commission has recently become too frequently and unnecessarily involved in matters which fall within the remit of Polish national and local government. That is why we will soon be hearing a lot about the E-19 road.
This begs the question: what does the Commission want? In Poland, people say that it wants to block resources allocated to Poland for the construction of motorways. Perhaps it would be better for the Commission to deal with issues such as GMOs in Europe, as this is the reason why we are facing the threat of an environmental and biological disaster, or perhaps the Schmidt farms, whose increasing pollution of the environment continues to go unpunished. There is much to do and there is no need to interfere with those who are doing an honest job.
(PL) Madam President, the European Commission decided to file a case against Poland at the European Court of Justice because it began to build a section of road that was 1 500 metres longer than the road that is currently used by lorries and five kilometres of which infringes on land protected by the Natura 2000 programme. The current state of the road is so appalling that residents have dubbed it the 'road of death'. In 2006 alone, 14 people died and 25 were injured on that stretch of road near the small town of Augustów. Postponing the construction of the road by three to five years, as this is the minimum amount of time that the Court will need to deal with the case, and perhaps having to start from scratch with the investment process, may lead to another 40 to 70 deaths.
I would also like to mention the noise pollution created by the thousands of lorries which pass through Augustów and the potentially lethal threat of accidents involving lorries transporting dangerous goods through built-up areas.
The habitats directive permits investment in projects on Natura 2000 land in exceptional circumstances, if compensation is offered. Last Sunday, nearly 92% of local residents voted in a referendum in favour of the designated new route. Is this stance on the part of the residents not enough reason to withdraw the case filed at the European Court of Justice?
If the Commission does not decide to withdraw its complaint, it will show that it has not been able to fairly balance the opinions of a small but significant minority in the Directorate-General for the Environment, environmental groups and eco-terrorists, as well as the expectations and needs of the inhabitants, which both the mayor and the Marshall of the Voivodship presented to the Commission.
In this situation, if the alternative methods for building a bridge across the Rospuda Valley do not satisfy the Commission, a serious conflict may erupt, which threatens to permanently paralyse and block the road that is currently used. In view of how determined the local residents are, and I know that they are because I, unlike the others here, actually live in that area, anything is possible. If the aforementioned road is not going to be built soon, we should perhaps consider opening negotiations with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, with a view to diverting transit traffic from the Baltic states through these countries.
(ET) Madam President, as a representative of Estonia, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Via Baltica. Historically, this has, for us, been an important connection with European countries, and it must be developed so that it becomes quick and safe. Today it is neither.
This spring, for instance, it took more than 12 hours to get from Tallinn to Warsaw by car, and this is not as it should be. Thus we wholeheartedly welcome the opportunities offered by the Tenth Framework Programme for the construction of the motorway. That being said, a good road does not justify abandoning all environmental requirements. Nor are such roads likely to lead us to a happy future. Unfortunately, the Polish incident casts a shadow over the entire Via Baltica project, which is of vital importance for the Baltic region in particular.
We hope that the European Court of Justice will soon make its decision and that a compromise can be reached between the Commission and the Polish authorities as soon as possible. I would like to reiterate the importance of all connecting links between the Member States of the European Union - whether they be roads, railways or power lines. We cannot feel like full members of the European Union if these connecting links are virtually absent or in very poor condition.
Madam President, I understand the sensitivity of this issue. We are talking about trans-European networks, about trans-European works and roads and people who are living near these roads.
We understand that this project started before the entry of Poland into the European Union. However, I would like to stress, on behalf of the Commission, that certain procedures need to be followed before large programmes can be started, in particular impact assessments. The Commission is urging Poland - as it is now its responsibility - to complete the impact assessment as soon as possible.
In comparison, and in reply to the question on the North Stream proposal, the project concerned has not yet started; the impact assessment is ongoing and this project can only start after the impact assessment is completed. That is a different matter. It is the opposite with the Via Baltica situation. There has been no impact assessment; the process is only halfway through, but the works are ongoing.
The works are ongoing outside Natura 2000. We do not have any information that Poland is breaching any decision of the Court. I can also confirm that no European financial resources have yet been given to the project.
There were some comments concerning the Commission's responsibilities and powers. They are outlined in the European Treaties. If you want to change them, then you will have to change the Treaties.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (PL) Madam President, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia need both the Via Baltica and other investments in road-building projects, as well as measures to protect the natural environment, including the Rospuda Valley. We cannot cut certain areas of the Union off from other regions and countries simply because of environmental protection requirements.
However, we cannot ignore the environment and use the need for infrastructural improvements as a way of justifying any decision we make. Experts tell us that there are alternative routes that do not damage the environment as much as the current plans. If that is the case, then we should focus on bringing forward their implementation, rather than stubbornly sticking to this less than ideal solution.
This problem is stirring up a lot of emotion in Poland. It seems that it would be more sensible to find a solution that is based on facts. The coalition governing Poland has made the issue extremely political. It has even forced a local referendum, which it is difficult to view as anything other than an attempt to use the issue of the route of the Via Baltica for their own purposes as the referendum took place at the same time as the regional elections. Furthermore, the referendum is not binding either for the European Court of Justice or even for the Polish authorities.
The best solution for the inhabitants of the region and future road users would seem to be a compromise at a European level, in order to make sure that the principle of sustainable development does ring hollow.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.35 and resumed at 12.00)


1. Malaysia: the practice of caning
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Malaysia.
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, Malaysia is a wonderful country with age-old traditions and cultural riches. As members of the ASEAN delegation, we have frequently seen for ourselves how quickly and remarkably this country has grown. The resulting increase in economic power has led to Malaysia achieving top ten ranking when it comes to world growth rates, a fact that has greatly impressed us. It is for this reason that I would like to state on behalf of my own group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, as well as all those here who signed the resolution, that we find it impossible to understand why Malaysia still practises this outmoded method of chastisement, which harkens back to the country's colonial past and which seems almost mediaeval to us in Europe.
We are not alone in voicing this criticism: lawyers in Malaysia itself are equally opposed to the practice. Caning violates all United Nations human rights agreements and we believe that things need to change quickly.
We welcomed the charter of the ASEAN states, which emphasises in several articles and the preamble that - and I quote - 'the promotion and protection of human rights' is among the essential requirements of the ASEAN Charter, which has also been ratified by Malaysia.
Malaysia has long espoused democratic principles. However, this also involves the rule of law with universal standards. This is something we shall repeat again and again when we are in Malaysia and the ASEAN states, and the European Parliament will underline this with this resolution.
author. - Mr President, the practice of caning - the hitting of a person with a cane - is a form of corporal punishment that is often applied in Malaysia and this is a reason for concern, because tens of thousands of people are subject to this kind of punishment, particularly immigrants, and the list of offences that can lead to caning is growing. Malaysia is thus violating its commitment to Resolution 8/8 of the UN Human Rights Council, which states that corporal punishment can be tantamount to torture.
The legal process leading to this form of punishment is often lacking and immigrants are not being informed about the charges against them, or are being denied the right of access to legal counsel.
We welcome the outspoken call by the Malaysian Bar Association - which represents 8 000 lawyers - for the abolition of caning. The European Parliament calls on the Malaysian authorities to enact a moratorium on caning and all other forms of corporal punishment, while working on the abolishment of this law in letter and in practice.
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia and the Malaysian Law Reform Committee should make adequate recommendations to the government concerning the abolition of corporal punishment laws.
Mr President, this resolution condemns the practice of caning in Malaysia. The term caning should not be understood to mean an outmoded, harmless educational instrument, but is rather a horrific, demeaning and humiliating punishment, which is banned under the UN Convention against Torture. Anyone who doubts this should take a look at a video showing how this punishment is meted out in Malaysia. In terms of their brutality and horror, these images are nothing other than documentary evidence of torture. Malaysia uses this horrific and humiliating practice to punish at least 66 misdemeanours and approximately 1 000 people are beaten in the country's gaols every year. In addition, in recent years, this brutal treatment has also been extended to migrants entering the country without papers and to drug addicts. It is estimated that a group of between 350 000 and 900 000 people are affected. We therefore urgently call on the Malaysian Government immediately to desist from this horrific, demeaning and humiliating practice and to repeal the relevant laws in the medium term.
Malaysia is a member of the UN Human Rights Council. As the previous speaker pointed out, this body also equates the application of corporal punishment with torture. For this reason, Malaysia would do well to remain in this body, but also to uphold the principles represented there.
author. - Mr President, Malaysia has moved towards a more Islamic form of governance in recent years. This is of some concern because Malaysia could be an important ally for the EU, being a strategically placed democratic Asian country with a developed economy.
Sadly, Western concepts of human rights are less developed in Malaysia. However, I am unsure as to why we have singled out Malaysia here. Malaysia is a Muslim majority country and such punishments are commonplace in many Sharia law-based countries, and are mandated by the Koran which serves as the ultimate legal authority for all Muslims.
Indeed, caning is a relatively mild punishment compared to some of the other extremely brutal methods of punishment used in some Muslim countries, including amputation, lapidation and beheading. Caning should also be seen in the Asian cultural context: for example, neighbouring secular Singapore also sentences criminals to caning, and the Indonesian province of Aceh, which receives a lot of EU aid, has recently introduced caning under its Sharia law policy.
In EU Member States, traditional implementation of corporal punishment is rightly banned, and let us hope that Malaysia one day will follow our enlightened example. But it is not at all clear in my mind that caning is illegal under international law, as stated in the resolution.
Mr President, when you love someone, you have certain expectations of them. It is the same when it comes to relationships between states. States with whom we have a particularly close relationship do not fall into the same category as some terrible dictatorships on other continents.
Malaysia is a valued close partner of the European Union. Its constitution is, in some respects, an example for a European constitution. That is why we view what is going on in Malaysia so seriously.
Mr Tannock, caning in Malaysia was not introduced by Sharia law, but is a carryover from British colonial times. Just as British colonial power no longer exists and Great Britain has changed in the meantime, Malaysia must also change and try to abolish this antiquated and barbaric punishment, which violates international law and human rights.
I want to be very clear on this. For decades, Malaysia has been a country characterised by tolerance between the various ethnic groups and religious communities. The country should stick to this path and it will do so as a particularly close partner of the European Union, which we hope will succeed in banning this barbaric form of punishment.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
Mr President, I would like to ask a question of Mr Posselt, for whom I have enormous respect.
I am not an international lawyer, but I can see no evidence whatsoever that international law forbids caning. It is very clear that it forbids war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and so on, but caning, in my view, is not forbidden by international law. The Convention on Torture, which Malaysia has not actually ratified, says that caning could amount to torture but is not always necessarily torture. So could Bernd perhaps explain to me why caning is illegal - as he stated again and as it is stated in the resolution - and against international law. If we do not stick to the facts, we bring this House into disrepute, in my view.
Mr Posselt, that was not, in fact, a question from Mr Tannock.
author. - (DE) Mr President, I interpret that last contribution as a question and would like to state in reply that caning does indeed constitute torture and that the prohibition on torture is integral to human rights and international law, irrespective of whether or not a particular country has ratified these principles.
Mr President, Malaysia is one of those states for which cooperation with the European Union, although recent and relatively modest, appears to be rather positive. This is particularly true in economic terms of course, but also socially, in relation to education, women's rights and the most vulnerable populations.
However, when it comes to democracy and human rights, the situation is far from ideal. Worrying signs persist. The situation we are discussing today is an unfortunate illustration of this.
While Malaysia has signed a number of international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), it still refuses to sign others and, in particular, the International Convention against Torture. Malaysia is one of the countries that apply the death penalty; indeed, this is a mandatory sentence for drug trafficking convictions. Corporal punishment is common practice in Malaysia and can be administered to anyone: men, women - notably those who are accused of illicit sexual relationships - and even children, for schoolchildren guilty of serious disobedience. What is worse, for those who are sentenced to receive such punishment, it is carried out with the help of doctors, in violation of their medical ethics, with said doctors being responsible for resuscitating the offenders before they suffer the rest of their sentence. Worse still, in recent years, the Malaysian Parliament has extended the list of criminal offences that are punishable by caning. Today, there are over 60 of them, including illegal entry into the country. In addition, since 2002, when this offence was created, thousands of refugees have suffered this punishment, this torture.
The Malaysian Government must stop these practices. At a time when the European Union's dialogue with Malaysia seems to be bearing fruit, should the European Union not do everything possible to persuade Malaysia to make progress in this area?
Mr President, I would like to begin by quoting some data from a study conducted by Amnesty International this month, in December 2010. At least 10 000 convicts and at least 6 000 refugees are caned each year in Malaysia. There are numerous canings in detention facilities, and Mr Tannock has said that, unfortunately, Malaysia is not the only country in which anachronistic punishments of this type are applied: there is also talk of Singapore.
What is, however, problematic in the case of Malaysia is the fact that a more significant number of crimes and offences attract a caning sentence: to be more precise, 66 in Malaysia, compared with 30 in Singapore. We are talking not only about violent or sexual crimes, but also drug taking, and especially infringements of immigration provisions. I concur, on the other hand, with the perspective that my colleague, Mr Posselt, has embraced, saying that we are talking about torture, which is absolutely prohibited under international law.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Parliament's resolution is timely and important. Thousands of people are subject to caning in Malaysia every year. Caning is an inhuman and degrading form of punishment which should be abolished everywhere in the world. Caning is a form of torture.
According to Amnesty International, a Muslim woman was caned last year in Malaysia where Sharia law is applied. The reason for the punishment was drinking beer. Amnesty International has also reported on the caning of refugees and immigrant workers in Malaysia.
We urge the government of Malaysia to abolish caning as a form of punishment. We also call on the Malaysian Government to ratify the Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Torture, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Mr President, we are pleased by Malaysia's economic development and the improved living conditions of the Malaysian people. At the same time, however, we are incredulous at Amnesty International's report describing the widespread use of the punishment of caning in Malaysia. This really is a harsh punishment, use of which is often over the top, as it is sometimes meted out for minor and very dubious offences. In my opinion, it is particularly cruel to hand down this sentence to illegal immigrants or people found on Malaysian territory without valid documents, including political refugees from Burma.
The ruthless nature of this punishment, however, conceals the unspoken truth regarding the traditional conditions and nature of the punishment of caning as practised in Malaysia. Many of the misdemeanours which carry the punishment of caning are related to violations of Islamic religious law and customs deriving from this law. An example of this is the case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, who was sentenced to caning in 2009 for drinking beer in a bar. The situation requires our response.
Mr President, traditional Islamic Sharia law, which is applied even in many moderate Islamic countries, permits corporal punishment for infringements of the law.
There was the notorious case from Malaysia of a punishment of six strokes of the cane imposed on the model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno for being caught drinking beer. After the announcement of the punishment, however, which was to have been performed with a rattan cane in a women's prison, the punishment of six blows of the cane, handed down to a 32 year old mother of two children, was commuted to three months' community service on the basis of a ruling by the Malaysian sultan, Ahmed Shah, who supervises compliance with Islamic rules in Malaysia.
Things went rather worse, however, for 46 year old Indonesian, Nasarudin Kamaruddin, who got 6 blows of the cane and one year in prison for the same offence. Judge Abdul Rahman Mohamed Yunos, who also sentenced Kartika Shukarno, said of the judgment 'The aim of the verdict is not to punish but to teach'.
A similar argument was used in defence of his ruling by Wee Ka Siong, Deputy Education Minister, when he justified the corporal punishment of children in schools, adding that the punishment could be carried out only by directors of schools or assigned persons, that parents would be informed about a punishment, and that a witness would be present when the punishment was carried out.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we are talking about is nothing exotic. It is everyday life in the so-called moderate Islamic world. We must therefore not hesitate to provide help to people in these countries in abolishing such mediaeval punishments and customs, if we can do so by means of diplomacy or in other ways.
(PL) Mr President, we absolutely should condemn the use of caning and all forms of corporal punishment and inhumane treatment. Malaysia cannot invoke its domestic legislation, under which at least 66 crimes carry the punishment of caning, in order to justify its ruthless methods, which are tantamount to torture and which are considered illegal by international law and conventions. Amnesty International reports of an increasing number of refugees and emigrants subjected to caning in Malaysian prisons are also alarming.
The European Union, which has had more effective methods at its disposal to facilitate the protection of human rights since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, should show greater initiative in the fight against the brutal treatment of people throughout the world. Furthermore, the observance of human rights should be a key condition set by the European Union for the development of further political cooperation with Malaysia.
(PL) Mr President, Malaysia is an economic tiger. It is a highly developed country which acts as a model for the entire region of South-East Asia. This tiger faces a major problem, however; namely, the use of caning as a punishment. Of course, one can talk of respect for cultural identity, and of the fact that we Europeans should be particularly sensitive when it comes to imposing our models on other continents. In this case, however, we really are talking about human rights, which are indivisible and transcend the borders of continents, races and religions. It is my view that the European Parliament not only should, but must, resolutely defend the fundamental right of human dignity, and caning most certainly violates this dignity.
Mr President, inflicting physical pain is against human dignity. Caning is a gross violation of human rights. It is against the right not to be tortured, but also against the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
In Malaysia, over 10 000 people suffer from this form of corporal punishment every year. Accounts show that the pain is so great that victims often lose consciousness. Reports show that a number of officers carrying out the punishment are eager to accept bribes to spare the victims. Therefore, in addition to gross human rights violations, we have government officials committing a crime by taking advantage of people's suffering.
I call upon the Commission and the Council, as well as on the Malay Government, to urgently work for an immediate moratorium on the practice of caning, followed by its elimination from the law. Beating up people and whipping people on behalf of the government must stop.
(RO) Mr President, I consider it regrettable that in Malaysia, the practice of caning has reached such high proportions and is following an upward trend. Instead of restricting this practice, the Malaysian Government encourages it.
The authorities invoke a groundless argument, according to which caning is legal and has a considerable effect, in the sense that it diminishes criminal activities. Moreover, prison officers receive financial rewards for caning prisoners. Estimates confirm that the situation is worrying: more than 6 000 refugees and 10 000 convicts are victims of this practice each year. I believe it is very important that victims from outside of Malaysia should have the right to a fair trial. Currently, they are refused basic services, such as interpreting or legal counsel.
(FI) Mr President, caning by order of a court, where the person receiving the punishment is tied to a frame and his or her back and buttocks are beaten with a stick, is unethical and violates human dignity. In Malaysia, this practice has reached epidemic proportions.
A state that considers corporal punishment an effective way to prevent crime is not one governed by the rule of law, and the EU should not extend additional trade benefits to such a country. Such cruel and inhumane forms of punishment should be ended, in whichever country they occur.
With this resolution, Parliament is quite rightly urging the Malaysian authorities to put an end to corporal punishment and torture immediately, both in its legal system and in practice.
(PL) Mr President, canings have been carried out in Malaysia since the 19th century, when Great Britain colonised the area. The Malaysian Government has recently added yet more crimes to the list of those punishable by caning, and the punishment is meted out for as many as 66 different misdemeanours. Prisoners sentenced to caning are detained in prison without any idea of when their punishment will be carried out. Amnesty International estimates that around 10 000 sentences of caning are handed down every year, and that 60% of those sentenced are illegal immigrants who do not even understand the punishment due to the language barrier. The country's authorities do not see any need to change the law, however, as they regard caning as an effective way to fight crime.
The European Union has been cooperating closely with Malaysia for eight years. EUR 17 million were earmarked in the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective to develop the Malaysian economy. It is therefore justified to call on our partner to ratify the UN Convention against Torture, and to condemn in no uncertain terms the practice of caning as incompatible with the position of the UN Human Rights Council.
(RO) Mr President, more than 10 000 citizens are whipped or caned annually in Malaysia, where the legislation stipulates this punishment officially for 66 infringements. The list of these crimes has been extended in the last few years, which indicates a worrying tendency. The victims are both local and foreign, with numerous and grave abuses being committed against the latter, from the absence of the necessary information or an interpreter to the violation of professional ethics by doctors and the absence of legal assistance.
I, too, urge European institutions to intensify their efforts in relation to the abolition of this punishment which, under international law, is the equivalent of torture, and to exert pressure to bring about the observance of the right to an objective and impartial trial in Malaysia and the end of the mean treatment of migrants and asylum seekers.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission condemns the use of corporal punishment. It conflicts with international human rights principles and norms, as set out by the United Nations. These principles are also reflected in the European Union guidelines for EU policy towards third countries on torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The recent report by Amnesty International on the practice of caning in Malaysia is worrying. However, the Commission would like to suggest widening the resolution to cover all countries where judicial caning unfortunately still occurs.
The European Union, together with the United Nations, has quite regularly raised the question of caning with Malaysia. Some Member States also did so in the context of the ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and during the UN Human Rights Council's universal periodic review, which took place in February 2009.
Only last week, at the United Nations seminar on the occasion of Human Rights Day, Malaysia was urged to ratify more UN conventions, in particular, the UN Convention against Torture. In early 2010, the same question was raised by the EU Head of Mission directly with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It is an issue to which we pay a lot of attention. The European Union and Malaysia will soon begin negotiations on a partnership and cooperation agreement, which will contain provisions on human rights. Once this agreement enters into force, it will provide a sound formalised basis for a reinforced and regular dialogue with Malaysia on human rights. In the meantime, we will continue raising this issue with the Malaysian authorities.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.


21. Specific programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Seventh Research and Training Framework Programme, 2007-2011) (vote)
- Before the vote:
Mr President, I am the shadow rapporteur for the PSE Group. Yesterday we had a vote based on information regarding Amendments 22 and 23. We knew that the different fusion associations held different views. I should therefore like to tell my group that we have received a letter from the Fusion Association stating it is unanimously in favour of the way in which we voted in committee. Therefore, I should like to ask colleagues to change their vote on Article 2(2) and vote against those amendments.


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


Voting time (continuation)
We will now continue with voting time.


32. Fuel efficiency: labelling of tyres (