5. Adapting to climate change in Europe - options for EU action (vote)


Membership of Parliament: see Minutes


20. Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (


17. Audit policy - lessons from the crisis (


Control of the budgetary implementation of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (short presentation)
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on Control of the Budgetary Implementation of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) in 2007.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to reiterate that the instrument for pre-accession assistance is the Union's new financing instrument for granting pre-accession assistance for the period 2007-2013 and replaces the previous programmes for candidate and potential candidate countries, namely the PHARE, CARDS, ISPA and other programmes.
The new instrument includes five components which cover the priorities defined in accordance with the needs of the beneficiary country, namely transition assistance and institution building, cross-border cooperation, regional development, human resources development and rural development.
This report by Parliament is the first examination of the application of this new instrument and has a twofold objective:
firstly, to bring the project financed more closely into line with pre-accession priorities, especially for the environment, gender equality, nuclear safety and increased employment;
secondly, to avoid the mistakes of the past, such as those belatedly identified in the application of the PHARE, SAPARD and ISPA programmes in Bulgaria and Romania.
We believe that this can be better achieved if Parliament closely monitors the application of the new instrument from the outset, which is why we called for this own-initiative report.
Parliament expresses its satisfaction in this motion for a resolution at the high implementation rate of IPA commitments in 2007 and its regret at the considerable delays both in approving the relevant regulations and implementing the programmes which started in 2008. We would also point out that the objective of parliamentary control of pre-accession assistance is not only to examine if the funds available were used legitimately, but also to evaluate if they were actually allocated to accession priorities and if the desired results were achieved.
We call in our report for a better balance between projects earmarked for meeting political criteria and projects earmarked for bringing the country into line with the Community acquis and we call for horizontal and regional programmes to be strengthened. We also call for particular emphasis to be placed on combating corruption, organised crime and unemployment, especially unemployment among young people. We call for more funds to strengthen women's rights and equal opportunities in general. We also call for cross-border cooperation to be strengthened, in order to promote reconciliation and good neighbourly relations between beneficiary countries and between them and the Member States of the European Union to a greater degree.
To close, we consider that the instrument for pre-accession assistance is a rational and flexible mechanism for optimising financial assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries. However, in order to get the maximum return, it needs to remain firmly in line with accession priorities and the social and political conditions peculiar to each country. For this reason, Parliament hopes to play a fundamental role in the application and adaptation of this instrument.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of the Commission I would like to thank Parliament for giving us the opportunity to comment on the report on the control of budgetary implementation of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) for 2007, and to extend our thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, for the very valuable report that she initiated and prepared.
We can, overall, concur with the findings and recommendations of the report, which are fully in line with the views of the Commission on how best to use financial assistance for the Western Balkans and for Turkey.
The Commission acknowledges the late launch of IPA 2007 programmes because of the late adoption of the legal framework for IPA. I can assure you, however, that the Commission made all efforts to limit the delay of implementation on the ground, and that preparation of management structures and detailed project design were pushed ahead all through 2008.
Within this framework the Commission will ensure that the impact of IPA will become visible in the beneficiary countries.
Allow me to elaborate on some of the issues raised in the report. As regards the balance between political criteria and transposition of the acquis communautaire, the Commission has already increased the allocations for projects in the area of the political criteria in IPA 2008 in all countries, and will continue to do so gradually.
However, in the face of the current financial crisis, we will also need to strike an appropriate balance in the 2009 and 2010 programmes between continued support for political reforms and financial assistance to help the countries mitigate the consequences of the economic downturn.
In this regard the report rightly identifies the challenges generated by the financial crisis and the need for an EC response. To that end, the Commission has put together an IPA crisis response package of about EUR 250 million at the end of 2008 with the aim of leveraging some EUR 600 million in loans from international financial institutions.
Measures will focus on support to private sector SMEs, energy efficiency investments, and support to investments and infrastructure under national IPA programmes in close coordination with international financial institutions.
The Commission also fully concurs with the need to establish the decentralised management system as a step to promoting ownership and responsibility of candidate countries and potential candidates. Guidance and assistance is being given to them in order for these countries to build the required public management structures and public financial control systems.
According to the principles of IPA, environmental protection, good governance, civil society development, gender equality and non-discrimination are all cross-cutting issues and are an integral part of project design.
Civil society organisations are now more actively involved in the development and the initiation of projects. In 2008 the Commission launched the civil society facility as a tool for promoting civil society development and advancement of regional cooperation, for which an indicative budget of EUR 130 million is earmarked for 2008-2010.
The Commission also shares the rapporteur's views as regards the importance of education, regional and cross-border cooperation and gender equality, to name but a few issues.
The services of the Commission have fully taken on board the recommendations of Parliament and we look forward to reviewing progress with you during our regular rendezvous where we have the opportunity to discuss the financial assistance strategies and their implementation.
This will allow the further enhancement of the ongoing dialogue between our respective institutions.
The item is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 22 April 2009.


25. Community statistics on trade between Member States (


2009 budget: Parliament's estimates (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Lewandowski, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009.
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, in assessing the European Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009 we have taken account of the special circumstances and challenges facing us in the coming year. All of us here agree on what those challenges are: Parliament needs to be adapted to its increased powers after the expected entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; elections are in the offing, and the election campaign has to be funded; new rules on MEPs' remuneration are to be adopted, as well as - let us hope - transparent rules governing the employment and remuneration of parliamentary assistants.
Not every challenge of the year to come has been quantified and taken into account in the expenditure estimates. In cases of uncertainty, the obvious answer is a budget reserve, and this was precisely what we discussed at our meeting with Parliament's Bureau, referred to in our budgetary jargon as the 'preconciliation' meeting. I am pleased to be able to tell you that the atmosphere at the meeting was good and that many of our proposals were accepted. Specifically, the 65 new posts planned were integrated into the estimates, with some of the money placed in reserve. Also, a 'Lisbon reserve' was created to take account of the findings of the ad-hoc working group now assessing the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on Parliament's new needs. The Budget Committee considered the demands of the political groups and recognised the need to strengthen the support staff, but subject to the principles of budget discipline, i.e. reemployment must take precedence over the creation of new posts.
With regard to buildings and buildings policy, we await presentation of a long-term strategy in May, especially as the sums allocated and held in reserve for the time being, together with carry-forwards from the current year, are considerable. We found in the budget an appropriation of EUR 3.4 million for the removal of asbestos from the SDM building in Strasbourg. In view of the rather unfavourable publicity surrounding the conflict with the Strasbourg municipal authorities and the sensitivity of the issue, the matter requires clarification, and there are amendments to that end. They go so far as to demand a reserve to cover the necessary measures. I shall not go here into other issues involving a heavy financial burden, namely computerisation of the Visitors' Centre and additional services for MEPs. What should be stressed above all is the fact that we are still below the ceiling of 20% of the overall administrative expenditure of the European institutions. This figure of 20% is not an end in itself but a sensible self-imposed limit that increases our credibility when we call for budgetary discipline on the part of other institutions. I hope the expenditure estimates will prove to be close to Parliament's final budget. I hope that we shall maintain the climate of trust that is to a considerable extent the personal achievement of Secretary-General Rømer. Tomorrow's vote should go smoothly, as only four amendments have been tabled.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who have helped to make the pilot procedure - which was thought likely to prove troublesome - run smoothly so far. I hope it will continue to do so until the final adoption of Parliament's budget.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that only four amendments to the Lewandowski report have been tabled is ample evidence of the rapporteur's outstanding preparatory work and his sterling efforts to arrive at an understanding with the political groups. Perhaps it also demonstrates the purpose of what is known as the pilot process, in which we seek to take a first step this year towards a successful system of cooperation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, based on a division of responsibilities and preceded by very intensive discussions with both the Bureau and the parliamentary administration in order to eliminate the sort of misunderstanding and even incomprehension we have frequently experienced. Apart from anything else, we need to adopt a common approach.
It is also important, particularly at a time when the implementation of the Reform Treaty is under discussion, to re-emphasise that Parliament remains firmly committed to budgetary discipline and that it will not exceed the limit of 20% of heading 5 as long as the present situation continues.
It is likewise important to re-emphasise that it amounts to a virtual cultural revolution, and at least represents a good start, when the Bureau itself decides, as it has now done, to put the appropriations for certain new posts into the budgetary reserve and not simply to rubber-stamp an administrative proposal here and there but to engage in a more detailed substantive discussion of what lies behind the budget. That will also facilitate the work of the Committee on Budgets and make it easier for the Committee and the Bureau to engage with each other.
At first reading we must, of course, discuss in far greater detail the question of reallocating funds for the purpose of strengthening the committees and the political groups so that we can successfully perform the tasks assigned to us by the Reform Treaty.
To put it very plainly, I expect - not least on the basis of plenary decisions and of our preliminary talks with the Bureau - that this week, either today or on Wednesday, the Bureau really will take the essential decisions on the questions of the assistants' regime, the assistants' statute and on the other outstanding matters. There have been clear plenary decisions on these matters, and the Bureau need only implement them in order to respond fittingly to the internal and public debate.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) How much longer is at least one in ten of the MEPs' assistants going to be working here without any social security protection, in a maze of different kinds of contracts that is totally unclear and gives rise to a suspicion of fraud?
Whenever the Socialist Group in the European Parliament attempts to give the Members' assistants a proper contract, with all the usual social security guarantees, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats tries to stand in the way of such a statute for assistants. The word 'statute' really is taboo for the PPE-DE. This time the word 'statute' is to be replaced by 'regime'. That is not just a play on words. This Parliament should set an example with working conditions, but it is hopelessly behind what have long been perfectly normal standards. Without a uniform statute, our colleagues will never be given the protection to which they are normally entitled.
This one point, a statute for assistants, is therefore important, and the amendment aimed at scrapping it would be a blot on the otherwise excellent report by Mr Lewandowski. I agree with his comments and those by Mr Böge. The budget is still within the limits, despite the wider responsibilities Parliament is given under the new Treaty. Certainly more clarity is needed, firstly on the allocation of staff and secondly on the removal of asbestos from the European Parliament buildings. Clarity on those points must be an express requirement if the amounts we wish to place in reserve for that purpose are to be released.
Mr President, the Parliament's budget is not adopted until October, but with Mr Lewandowski's report we are in principle supporting the proposed budget for 2009 adopted by the Bureau in April, and in particular the dialogue on the details of the proposal, which is being carried out as a pilot project this year. I think that the initial experiences show that it is useful to have such a dialogue. It means that the budget will be reviewed in detail by those who are politically responsible, and that the Committee on Budgets is properly involved. This is good. The dialogue has focused very strongly on the staff requirements in connection with Parliament's new tasks arising from the Treaty of Lisbon, not least the matter of ensuring that needs are met through possible reshuffles before we start talking about increasing the number of staff. We have of course seen large increases in staff numbers with the expansion of the EU, and we must now have a period of consolidation while we review the staff requirements carefully.
We have also agreed to prepare a long-term strategic plan for buildings and their maintenance before the end of this month. Again, it is necessary to consider future policy in this area. The asbestos case shows that details are of interest. We are surprised that funding has been set aside for the removal of asbestos from the SDM building, as when Parliament purchased the building, we were told that there was no asbestos! The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe thus supports the proposal put forward by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament to put the money in reserve.
Last, but not least, I would also like to underline the need for us to adopt a regime for the assistants, as discussed with Parliament's Secretary-General, Harald Rømer. It must not go wrong this time. We must sort this matter out.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the motion for a European Parliament resolution on Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009 tabled by Mr Lewandowski, together with the preliminary draft budget, reconciles the achievement of Parliament's tasks in that year - the tasks imposed by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament elections, the new Members' Statute, buildings policy, the improvement of services for MEPs, energy saving, and so on - with further budget savings. What has always been said about the EU budget as a whole - that you cannot do more for less money - has now proved possible. The know-how and enormous experience of Mr Lewandowski and the rest of us, plus excellent cooperation with the Bureau, has worked a miracle. My group will be voting in favour of the motion for a resolution.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, on 21 April the Bureau adopted preliminary draft estimates totalling over EUR 1.5 billion for the cost of the European Parliament. 2009 will see the impact of the Lisbon Treaty - if indeed it is ratified by all Member States.
We were told that the Lisbon Treaty - in fact, the European Constitution by another name - was just a tidying-up exercise which would simplify the workings of Parliament. But EUR 2 million is being asked for by officials to cover the additional costs that will be created by the Treaty and 65 new jobs will be required in Parliament alone to help political groups understand it. This is all being approved before the Treaty is ratified in Britain and before the people of Ireland have had their say in a referendum.
Of course, Parliament has already decided that it will ignore the decision of the Irish people if they vote 'no', and, in order to encourage the Irish to vote 'yes', the EU has promised Ireland another EUR 332 million in funding. Let us hope that the Irish do not hold their freedom so cheap. But as that great Englishman, Ken Dodd, once remarked, every cloud has a silver lining, plus VAT.
The report notes that there is an additional need for more money for the Visitors' Centre. I have always thought that the more visitors that come to Parliament and see the great talking shop and legislative sausage-machine in action, the more they will turn against it.
If every European citizen could see the chaotic and shambolic way in which legislation is voted on in this Parliament, then there would be a party like the UK Independence Party in every EU Member State. That, at least, would be money well spent.
(EL) Mr President, I think we have made a very good start on the parliamentary budget for 2009. It is a realistic and politically astute start because it should not be forgotten that 2009 is an election year.
I believe the plan we are discussing today has three plus points that allow us to talk of a good start.
The first is discipline. Contrary to what we hear from the Eurosceptics, this is the third successive year that the European Parliament has kept below the 20% administrative cost limit. Parliament has disproved extreme European views by functioning in a disciplined, rational manner.
Secondly, human resources reflect for the first time our increased need for co-decision under the new Treaty. We have an organisational structure that is transparent and clear-cut.
The third positive aspect is the buildings policy. I think we should be generous here. When it comes to removing asbestos, we should be aware that we cannot put a cost on safety; price is irrelevant. We must therefore be generous and act wisely. Every one of us here as well as our fellow civil servants must work in an environment where health and safety in the workplace are guaranteed.
Of course, this is only the start; we are not ready yet and first reading will take place in the autumn. I think the excellent cooperation between the Committee on Budgets and the Presidency on these matters should continue. We expect the Presidency to stay in direct contact with us in order to give the forthcoming stages of first and second reading a truly sound basis.
(SK) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. This budget is specific in the way that it has to take several important new realities into consideration: ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, European Parliament elections, and introduction of the new status for Members of the European Parliament and, I believe, for assistants, too. However, we must also consider and set effective parameters for a property policy, including maintenance and environmental protection costs. In order to make the right decisions we need a long-term strategy in this area, which we will be able to consider as early as next month.
Our main task is to prepare good legislation. The proposed knowledge management system, interpreting and translation services, and the library analytical service will ensure higher quality services and save resources. That is another reason why we should have all the necessary analyses available to us before the first reading of the budget, so that we can prove to our citizens that we are using their money in a responsible way.
(NL) Just like many other people, I also think there should be a statute for MEPs' assistants as soon as possible. It could save us a lot of trouble in the future.
I should like to say something about the buildings. When we bought several buildings in Strasbourg some years ago, whether or not they contained asbestos was very important. An expert inspection was carried out and revealed that there was asbestos in the buildings - that was true of all buildings built at that time - but it was definitely not dangerous. We bought the buildings on that basis. There was never any suggestion that we would have to remove the asbestos as quickly as possible.
I therefore think that the administration is on the wrong track in asking for that now, because if it has to be done, Strasbourg council should pay for it. Whilst there is uncertainty on that point, I do not think we should start removing asbestos from the buildings at Parliament's expense. We need to clarify the position with Strasbourg city council first, because they must pay for it.
(PL) Mr President, I wish to make three points.
First, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all Member States, 2009 will be the first year in which Parliament will operate on the basis of that Treaty. Not only will the European Parliament have greater powers, it will also be obliged to consult the parliaments of the Member States with respect to proposed legislation. That will certainly mean a considerable increase in operating costs, with the employment of more staff, greater expenditure on expert opinions and consultation, etc.
Second, the year 2009 will see new elections to Parliament, and especially the introduction of the new Members' Statute, which will undoubtedly involve a considerable increase in Parliament's expenditure.
Third and last, experts estimate that the average annual inflation rate in the EU in 2009 will be around 4%, which will result in an appreciable increase in Parliament's administrative costs.
I trust all these factors will be taken into account in preparing the final draft of the European Parliament's budget.
(LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the European Parliament's 2009 budget estimate, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the fact that his rigorous approach to budget expenditure has been proved right and the European Parliament's total level of expenditure next year will not exceed 20% of total EU administrative expenditure. Thus, regardless of the changes to the European Parliament's work expected in 2009 - pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty, this will include a growing volume of legislative work, a change in the system of remuneration for MEPs, as well as a public information campaign in connection with the European Parliament elections - the total amount of expenditure will remain within the bounds previously set. Within the context of the 2009 budget we should also properly evaluate the return on individual ambitious projects. Firstly, there is talk about the European Parliament's web TV project. In order to assess the usefulness of this and similar projects, we ought to aggregate data on the popularity of the European Parliament's web TV and find out how many viewers are in fact attracted through these multi-million investments. In relation to the European Parliament's communication policy and the expected public information campaign, greater weight should be placed on decentralised communication through Parliament's information offices in the Member States. Communication with citizens of the various Member States takes place more effectively by this means than when it is centralised. Thank you for your attention.
(FR) Mr President, once again in this budget debate thanks must go to Mr Lewandowski for his very well balanced report. And once again I would remind you what an important year 2009 will be for European democracy: with both a new Parliament and a new Commission taking office, it will be a key year in terms of our institutions' communication with the public.
However, in order that members of the public should feel interested in, and affected by, European issues and should turn out en masse to vote, communication emanating from the different institutions will have to be consistent and clear. With that in mind and in the interests of greater efficiency, close cooperation among the three main institutions that are engaged in communication - either directly or on a decentralised basis through their representations in the Member States - is of the utmost importance with elections just a year away.
Such is the thinking behind Amendment 2 to Mr Lewandowski's report, which my group has tabled. Our aim is to be more citizen-friendly and that is a matter of real concern to all of us here in this House.
(FI) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lewandowski, for doing an excellent job, and I would like to focus attention on a few points.
Firstly, I would like to say something about the regime for assistants. I am in favour of what the rapporteur has proposed. He states here that this is an important issue and it must ultimately be resolved as a result of this report.
Now I want to turn to the issue of the asbestos problem which has been discussed here. Before any financing is granted it needs to be established who is responsible and how much money will actually be needed. There also needs to be a clear plan as to how to proceed. It is quite obvious that we cannot work in a building where, incredibly, we find there is asbestos after we have bought it.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that there has been talk about an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) for a long time now, although there are no clear plans regarding it. I also hope that the majority in Parliament have clearly decided that the administration should draft a proposal that we invest in more environmentally friendly vehicles for everyday use here in Parliament, but there are no plans yet for this either.
(FI) Mr President, I approve of Mr Lewandowski's report in principle, but we are abstaining because Parliament's budget will not be voted on in its final form until the autumn and Parliament's first draft budget is unsatisfactory. Our experience shows that by the autumn it will be clearer and so we cannot as yet adopt a position on the final wording, which will not be presented until then.
On a positive note I would like to draw attention to the statement by Secretary General Rømer, who said that travel expenses during the next parliamentary term will be paid entirely on the basis of genuine costs, and that no interim or temporary solutions will apply.
I agree with the criticism made by Mr Mulder regarding the Strasbourg building programme: in our view it will be a swindle if we have to carry out renovations due to asbestos.
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, in the first place, transparency in the rules governing the remuneration of parliamentary assistants that were are trying to achieve ought not to be an area for haggling and conflict among the political groups: it is the joint responsibility of Parliament as a whole, which will be asking next year for a renewed vote of confidence. Secondly, the climate of trust between us and the Bureau will be all the better, the more frequently and more fully we are informed in advance of undertakings with financial implications. Thirdly, the purpose of our work on the budget is precisely to prepare for the most likely scenario in the coming year. Where there is uncertainty, the answer is a budget reserve, and that applies also to uncertainty with respect to the Lisbon Treaty and its impact.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 20 May 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (FR) The purpose of the report before us today is for our institution to state its position on the estimated budget for the European Parliament for 2009.
It will be a crucial year: a year in which Parliament will be renewed; a year that will also see significant changes in the statutes for MEPs and their assistants; and, above all, the first year in which the Lisbon Treaty will be in force, giving our institution extra responsibility and the extra work that goes with it.
I wish to support the draft estimates that the Bureau has submitted. Taking account of the increased financial requirements Parliament will face, these draft estimates keep us below the threshold of 20% of expenditure under heading 5. Our administration must pursue its rationalisation drive with a view to further optimising our efficiency, notably through staff redeployment.
I would add that an impact analysis is being carried out of the needs that will be generated when the simplified treaty comes into force, and that adjustment of the estimates will be possible until the first-reading vote on the budget in the autumn.


Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes


9. Strengthening the OSCE: a role for the EU (


Parliament's priorities for the UN Human Rights Council (Geneva, 1-26 March 2010) (continuation of debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Parliament's priorities for the UN Human Rights Council (Geneva, 1-26 March 2010).
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council is an extremely important occasion.
I would simply like to mention one or two cases that are not addressed very often. Specifically on the subject of prisons, but not those for terrorists, I would like to point out the truly inhumane conditions of the prisons in Rwanda and in Libya, where totally innocent people held in detention are sentenced to death.
Furthermore, I would like to mention the issue of the Sahrawi people, which has remained unresolved for so long now, and I would also like to mention the rights of climate refugees who are driven from their countries by dramatic forms of climate change. These are all factors that must be taken into account, precisely because they are also the foundations of our society.
(DE) Mr President, for its 60th birthday in 2005, the United Nations gave itself two new structures. The first was the Peacebuilding Commission and the second was the Human Rights Council. While the Peacebuilding Commission carries out its work fairly effectively and has largely met expectations, the same cannot be said, with the best will in the world, about the Human Rights Council. It has been said here - and expressed in the resolution - that a reform is sorely needed. The work of the Human Rights Council is too one-sided - my fellow Members have mentioned this - for example, Israel is discussed from a one-sided perspective. To be honest, I am not happy that the only major issue that the Presidency has highlighted here is the Goldstone report, which is certainly worth discussing, but it is not the main issue.
If Mr Howitt says that the election of Iran - if successful - would be a death blow to the Human Rights Council, then I would like to know what that means. I would like a uniform position to be taken on this by our Member States and also by the European External Action Service because I believe that, if things continue in this way, we will need to seriously consider putting the focus of our human rights work in the United Nations back onto the Third Committee, which at least has universal representation and greater legitimacy.
(NL) You know it, we know it, the UN Human Rights Council is one big farce. This Council is being held to ransom by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which is made up of countries which protect each other and which seek to provoke the fine state of Israel and to falsely accuse it.
Mr President, this so-called Human Rights Council opposes everything that human rights are about, in particular, freedom of expression. It is outrageous and despicable that this Parliament should take this terrible Council seriously. Mr President, if this House really does believe in human rights, then it should condemn the steady stream of resolutions which seek to strangle freedom of expression, as well as flagrant human rights violations committed by the countries which make up the Human Rights Council. Mr President, in addition to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt, who are amongst the gravest violators of human rights in the world, now Iran, too, wants to become a member of the Human Rights Council. Well then, we just need North Korea to join the club and we will have pretty much all the rogue states happily sitting alongside each other.
Mr President, for my party, one thing is clear: the UN Human Rights Council is a dreadful body and one that cannot be taken seriously. This House must distance itself immediately and directly from the Human Rights Council and absolutely refuse any dialogue with this bunch of villains.
(RO) I wish to begin by reminding you that, when it was created as a unique body dedicated to human rights as part of the United Nations system, the Human Rights Council inspired hope, namely, the hope of increasing protection for fundamental rights at a global level.
The introduction of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which is the most important innovation in relation to the now defunct UN Commission on Human Rights, was intended to resolve the relevant problems, the excessive politicisation and selective approach in handling cases of serious human rights violations. This mechanism is vital so that the Human Rights Council can fulfil its mandate in whatever way possible. However, it must be emphasised that the old demons have not disappeared entirely and excessive politicisation continues to affect the work of this body. On the other hand, we must say that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism is not sufficient to ensure effective protection for human rights.
When the Council does not react with sufficient alacrity, as happened in the case of Guinea, to let me give you just a single example, this has extremely serious consequences. This can make the perpetrators of human rights violations simply feel that they have nothing to worry about. This Council's credibility depends therefore on its ability to take firm, rapid action when serious human rights violations occur.
In this respect, it is important for the European Union to promote the creation of mechanisms at Human Rights Council level specifically designed to respond to crises such as those, if we take current examples, in Afghanistan, Guinea Conakry, Iran, Yemen or Iraq. I believe that it is in the European Parliament's interest for this body, the Human Rights Council, to be as powerful and effective as possible, because I would say that we need a credible partner in the dialogue on human rights.
(RO) I would like to talk about the situation in the Gaza Strip which, as you know, is a constant source of concern in terms of respect for human rights, especially after the deterioration in circumstances as a result of the clashes last winter. I do not believe that we can measure who has suffered more in this conflict. Military actions by both sides have meant that mainly civilians suffer, unfortunately. However, in the context of the situation on the ground, it is extremely difficult to differentiate between soldiers and civilians among Palestinians. On the other hand, the rocket attacks launched by Hamas have terrorised Israeli civilians.
I visited the area during the conflict and saw the problems and fears facing both sides. I believe that any attempt to pin the blame for the events which have occurred on just one side is at variance with the reality. The bloody clashes in the Gaza Strip and the tragic humanitarian consequences are a painful plea for concentrated action in all the hot spots around the globe, in particular, against the causes responsible for making defenceless civilians suffer, and for more extensive and effective involvement by international organisations, with a view to giving impetus to the dialogue for peace. This is an area where the European Union has not only the necessary capacity and credibility, but also the duty to take more robust action globally.
Mr President, one parliamentary priority is also to address an alarming situation where the Human Rights Council's activities have resulted in extreme politicisation. It is therefore of utmost importance that the EU member delegations should stand up for the establishment of criteria for becoming a member of the Human Rights Council. That applies especially to minimum requirements of cooperation with special procedures, and resisting the use of 'no action' motions which have prevented the adoption of resolutions on certain states who are keen to avoid criticisms of their human rights policies.
I would like to refer to two other parliamentary priorities. Firstly, Belarus. Contrary to expectations, the human rights situation has not improved, but is worsening. I would like today to stress Mr Milinkevich's message. The EU has now got real leverage to put pressure on Lukashenko's regime to make him bring about genuine improvement as a condition for further EU economic aid and cooperation.
Secondly, I would like to call for support for last week's public address by the 18 Russian human rights activists, including Sakharov Prize winner Kovalev, who are extremely worried about a further clampdown on independent satellite information in the Russian language, which the Kremlin has achieved through applying pressure.
It is really damaging to the values of the EU to praise human rights advocates like Kovalev and, at the same time, to surrender to Mr Putin's claims that broadcasting alternative information in the Russian language by European satellites is something hostile.
(RO) I would like to draw your attention during today's debate to the case of Israeli soldier Ghilad Shalit, who was kidnapped in Kerem Shalom in June 2006, aged just 19. Last week, I was part of the official European Parliament delegation in Israel and one of the meetings was with Ghilad Shalit's father, Noam Shalit. In spite of Articles 13, 23 and 126 of the Geneva Convention on the rights of prisoners of war, Ghilad, who also holds French citizenship, has not had his rights respected in terms of receiving visits from his family and the International Red Cross, receiving humane treatment and having the exact location where he is being held prisoner disclosed. I must emphasise that even Article 77 of the Goldstone Commission report, which is otherwise critical of Israel, recommends that Ghilad Shalit should enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention. On the other hand, Israel respects the rights of prisoners.
(HU) At the March session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the European Union must unequivocally state that the international community cannot keep silent about human rights violations, not only those occurring in developing countries but also the contraventions that may be observed in developed countries. The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1992, is equally binding on developing and developed countries, including EU Member States. The first paragraph of the Declaration's second article states that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to use their own language, in private and in public, without interference or any form of discrimination. At present, this article is often honoured in the breach in EU Member States as well. The EU can only be credible if it finds a solution that deals with human rights contraventions within European Union territories in a way that sets an example for the whole world.
(EL) Mr President, the next two years will be crucial in crystallising the role of the UN in the human rights sector because, as you know, the intergovernmental review of the Human Rights Council will be published in 2011.
There is a danger, during this period, that the countries to which my fellow members referred and which do not set particular store by this sector, will try to limit the role of the UN.
I should like to add the following to what has already been said: firstly, as the European Union is - and I trust that it will continue to be - one of the most important factors in terms of the defence of human rights, one of our priorities must be for us to speak internationally with one voice and, where possible, to avoid discord.
Secondly, we need to step up our cooperation with the United States of America in the defence of human rights.
Thirdly, and lastly, the European Parliament must - and can - carefully monitor the specific procedures that will follow in terms of the universal periodic examination of the Council, so that there is a real and substantial contribution on our part to the promotion of human rights in all the Member States of the United Nations.
(FR) Mr President, Mrs Georgieva, Mr López Garrido, I would like to draw your attention to point 13 of this resolution on Iran's candidacy in the United Nations Human Rights Council.
On 15 February, Iran was subjected to a universal periodic review, which reviews the situation regarding the protection and promotion of human rights in the country. The Iranian regime asserted that respect for human rights is guaranteed there. I would like to underline various facts regarding these assertions by the current regime.
Only yesterday in Parliament, Mrs Radjavi gave us an overview of the arbitrary arrests and acts of torture inflicted on Iranian women and opponents of the regime. We also deplore the political conditions prisoners must endure, and Camp Ashraf has become the symbol of non-respect for human rights. My parliamentary colleagues provided several eyewitness accounts during the January part-session.
Today, we cannot accept Iran becoming a member of the highest authority for the defence of human rights. Consequently, I wonder what message we are going to send out to other states that genuinely respect human rights. Europe must speak with one voice, demonstrating its consistency, and, as Baroness Ashton said in her statements, let us say that, at this stage, Iran's candidacy is inconceivable.
(SV) Mr President, as regards our group's joint resolution on the UN Human Rights Council I am particularly pleased about paragraphs 6 and 25, in which we repeat the EU's strong support for country-specific resolutions. In those cases where human rights are systematically abused, country-specific resolutions are an incredibly important instrument, both in the Human Rights Council and in the UN General Assembly. In many cases where the government of a country has long failed to participate in dialogue or programmes to improve the situation in question, country-specific resolutions represent the only remaining action that the international community can take against these crimes.
It is not about naming and shaming, as some critics believe; neither is it the case that we in Europe enjoy poking our noses into other countries' internal affairs. It is quite simply a matter of signalling that we will not accept a regime's systematic abuses and oppression of its own people. It is about showing that we side with liberty, not with oppression. That is why it is important that the EU camp continues to defend the existence of country-specific resolutions within the UN system.
Mr President, the countries of the European Union should put their own houses in order before pointing their fingers at others. Many European Union members prosecute and imprison people for non-violent freedom of speech. In particular, they seek to make any opposition to immigration a criminal offence. Book-burning is alive and well. Political parties are banned, as in Belgium, or their ban is sought on invented evidence, as in Germany, or a backdoor ban is sought, as in the United Kingdom, where my own party has been banned, by a court order sought by the government, from accepting new members for an indefinite period.
It is not enough for countries to call themselves democratic: they must also respect freedom of speech, they must respect freedom of association and they must respect freedom of elections.
Mr President, I am grateful for the speeches by Members regarding this absolutely essential and crucial issue, which, as I said in my first speech, is one of the core elements of the European Union: defending human rights.
In this respect, we believe that participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council, including support for the existence of the Council, is a position that must be upheld by the European Union. The European Union has always advocated that a Human Rights Council should be established to replace the former Commission, as I said before. Furthermore, it has believed that it should be an instrument that can adequately deal with human rights situations worldwide, situations which require the United Nations and its members to take action, adopt a position or make the corresponding declaration.
In fact, the Presidency of the European Union, the Presidency of the Council, has always systematically taken part in the discussions at the various part-sessions of the Human Rights Council on behalf of the European Union, and this will continue to be the case. The Presidency of the Council of the Union will take part in the next part-session of the Human Rights Council on behalf of the Council of the Union. Naturally, this is perfectly compatible with the declarations and positions of each of the Member States of the Union and of the European Commission, as another institution of the Union.
I therefore would like to say that we are in favour of the existence of this body, and in favour of drawing on all of its potential, which, in some cases, is achieved, and in other cases is not: obviously, there are certain situations in which, as a result of the votes that take place, the European Union and its Member States do not achieve all their objectives. There are really positive cases, for example, the position on Somalia: there are violations of human rights in that region. There are other cases in which the objectives have not been achieved, but the positives always outweigh the negatives.
I would like to say that we are going to talk about some of the cases of countries that have been mentioned in the various speeches.
I do wish to talk about the case of Iran, because there have been repeated allusions to the subject of Iran's candidacy. As you know, declarations have constantly been made on this subject. Here in front of me, I have three declarations made this year alone by the Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, regarding the situation in Iran, condemning and expressing her concern about cases of human rights violations and executions that have taken place in Iran.
Regarding the question of the candidacy, we first have to say that this is a matter that is currently still one of national competence (the position regarding candidacies of countries to join the Human Rights Council). In any case, the matter of the human rights situation in Iran and the human rights violations, and therefore the question as to whether or not Iran's candidacy for the Human Rights Council will be accepted, must be managed carefully in order not to cause the opposite of the desired effect. We therefore understand that the European Union, here, must try to have the most coordinated position possible (which is what is happening at the moment), while respecting national competence and, as I said, exercising caution.
In short, Mr President, we consider the Human Rights Council to be a place where we must defend the European Union's position, and we think it is the right place to do so. Furthermore, our commitment to it has always been to ensure that it does not cause the universal movement defending human rights to take steps backwards, to regress, especially in terms of humanity's achievement, which is considering human rights to be a universal value, a universal value that should be defended over and above borders, traditions and diversity, because it is something that is linked to the very essence of human beings.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you very much to all Members of Parliament for the recommendations they have conveyed. We will make sure that we share these with the High Representative.
Let me make four points in response to specific questions and comments.
First, on Iran and the candidacy of Iran: I very much support the view expressed by the Spanish Presidency. I can only stress that each and every elected member of the Council is expected to display in practice the highest commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.
On the very sad case of the loss of human life in Cuba, the death of Mr Orlando Zapata, I would like to express the condolences of the Commission to his family and strongly condemn the continuous imprisonment of more than 200 political dissidents in Cuba as well as other expressions of disrespect for fundamental human rights. The Commission calls upon Cuba to change its policy and to live up to its obligations under international law. We will continue to address the human rights issue in the dialogue with Cuba, with the authorities there, and we will use this dialogue as a vehicle to press the issue of human rights.
On the calls by many for the EU to speak with one voice on human rights issues, the Commission is very strongly in support.
The fourth point, on Gaza: I think it would be more appropriate to take up this point in the next discussion on the Goldstone report.
I have received six motions for resolutions to wind up the debate in accordance with Rule 110(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I have many reservations about the UNHCR's overall credibility. In any case, I hope that the presence of a delegation from the Subcommittee on Human Rights at the next session of the Council will provide the European institutions with an opportunity to raise the urgent issue of Christianophobia. We are well aware that we do not need to turn back the clock to find serious cases of anti-Christian persecution: we are not in fact talking about the past, but about the present, and unfortunately, in all likelihood, also about the future, because, every day, from every corner of the globe, we receive worrying, tragic news of Christian believers being attacked, discriminated against and killed. We also know that the issue is a sensitive one, and that although it has not been addressed properly up to now, this has happened not only because of the diplomatic balance that the participants have to maintain in meetings such as the UNHCR, but obviously also because of the anti-Christian policy pursued by countries which, whilst they are not exactly enemies of Christianity, do at least traditionally tolerate anti-Christian acts.
It follows that the EU and this House, on an occasion illuminated by the spotlight of world politics, should promote within the international community a new approach to the issue of Christianophobia, so that it is universally and immediately recognised as a serious violation of human rights and of religious freedom, and so that the community takes action to halt its worrying spread.
in writing. - I support this resolution which calls, inter alia, on the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Member States to work towards a strong EU common position on the follow-up to the Goldstone report and demands the implementation of its recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes, and urges all sides to conduct investigations that meet international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness, in line with United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/64/L.11. It further stresses that respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law by all parties and under all circumstances is an essential precondition for achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. The resolution also calls on the EU High Representative and Member States to actively monitor the implementation of recommendations included in the Goldstone report by means of consultation of EU external missions and NGOs in the field and calls for the recommendations and related observations to be included in EU dialogues with all parties, as well as EU positions in multilateral fora.


2. Integrated pollution prevention and control (codified version) (vote)
- Wallis report


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.30 p.m.)