4. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2011/001  AT/Lower and Upper Austria/Austria (


European Institute for Gender Equality (debate)
The next item is the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (10351/1/2006 - C6 0314/2006 - (Co-rapporteurs: Lissy Gröner, Amalia Sartori)
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, I start with many thanks to my co-rapporteur and to the Commission. We have worked together very well in attempting to get the Institute up and running as soon as possible, and we have been very successful in this. I would, however, ask, Mr President, that all services be again reminded to check that versions of the report in all languages use gender-sensitive language, which is not universally guaranteed in my own language - German - despite repeated calls for this.
For as long as the European Parliament has been in existence, we have presented ourselves as an engine of equality. For ten years now, we have been discussing how best to facilitate the establishment of an institution that would pursue gender mainstreaming and draw on the best outcomes from all countries in performing its horizontal task. Following a feasibility study, demands were made for the Gender Institute, to which the Council acceded nearly two years ago now, when it resolved that the Institute would be set up, and on a budget-neutral basis. What does that mean? In practice, it means that the Gender Institute will be funded from what was the gender equality programme. The Budget was halved, and what was left of the programme then became part of the social action programme 'Progress'. Such is the price that women have had to pay. If certain parties are going to claim that the Institute costs too much, the response will have to be that, on the contrary, women have paid a lot for it.
Here in this House, though, with a great deal of support from women's groups, we have managed to advance the Institute's cause. We want it to work independently in facilitating the centralisation of information on tried and tested model procedures for the best possible equalisation of opportunities. We would like to see these examples collected from all countries and the abolition of the gulf between the legal position with regard to equality of opportunity - as found, for example, in the European treaties, as Article 3 once more confirms - and the discrimination that actually goes on from day to day.
We want women no longer to earn something like 30% less than their male counterparts. In the case of those who preside over this House, that may well not be so, and may even be cause for amusement, but when a woman working on a production line earns 30% less than her male colleagues, it is not funny any more. We want all the Member States to have access to information on how to successfully combat violence, forced prostitution and sexual exploitation, along with a Europe-wide exchange of information on how discrimination based on gender may be brought to an end in the twenty-first century.
I have already stressed that the agreement we reached in committee came about rapidly. The Commission was highly supportive in accepting at once 35 of the 50 amendments that we adopted at first reading, although there were others for which we had to fight. We had to fight hard to get a hearing for the head of the Institute - and I want to emphasise that I am not gender-neutral about this, in that I expect the Director appointed to be a woman - but we did manage to get it, together with a smaller Management Board. It is far from clear why each and every Member State should be represented on the Management Board, for the end result of that would be that only 13 people would be doing the work, with 33 monitoring them, and that makes sense to nobody.
We want the European Gender Equality Institute to do groundwork of the European institutions, and the assistance of experts to enable us to do our work in this House more efficiently. How, though, can it be - and this I see as the big drawback - that the Council should decide, as it did last week, that the Institute should end up in Vilnius? That is a long way away from the places where decisions are taken. A working institute such as the Gender Equality Institute does not have any representative function and should not go where it can boost a country's image, but should, on the contrary, be close to our spheres of government; the effect of this is to weaken it. We wanted to see the institutions supported in their work and that work being efficient and helping to make equality a political reality.
That is why I think the proposal we produced is a good one, and am asking this House to agree to the compromise we have worked out with the Council, and for broad-based support for the European Institute for Gender Equality. We have opened up the way to an early agreement, and I again thank all those who had a hand in this, particularly the Commission, which made repeated attempts to bridge the gulf that divided Parliament and the Council on this. I reiterate my thanks to all those who worked with us, in particular the shadow rapporteurs from all the groups. One can expect the Gender Institute to achieve lift off some time soon, and that will represent the passing of a milestone, but there will still be much work to be completed if the great tasks are to get done.
Grateful though I am for the willingness to work together with us on this front, I do want to ask who would actually be able to head up this Institute; it would have to be someone capable of offering not only expertise, but also the necessary insider knowledge of the European institutions, and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality will take great care to ensure that the Institute does not end up with someone from the Council or the Commission who is incapable of performing this function. If we manage to get to grips with the maintenance of a large-scale network of women's organisations - which is what we envisage doing - that will make the establishment of this Institute an enormous leap ahead for the women's movement in Europe.
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group I would like to thank my colleague, Lissy Gröner, for the work that we have achieved together.
It was our strong wish that this institute should be created with the backing of the representatives of the two largest parties within the European Parliament, precisely in order to benefit from this strength and support. I have to acknowledge that throughout our work, even though there were at times strongly differing views, in the end we always achieved a nearly unanimous vote within the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. I believe that this point is worth noting.
Even in the Chamber, there are often reservations when we deal with the issue - which is unresolved at the European level too - of women, above and beyond the laws which provide guarantees, still not able to benefit in earnest from equal opportunities and the chance to take part at all decision-making levels. Despite this, we recently achieved - at first reading, what is more - a vote in favour which, I am convinced, will be repeated in this Chamber tomorrow.
I would just like to add a few points to my colleague's words: first of all I believe that it is not often the case that a decision succeeds in reflecting the positions of the preparatory studies as well as this one has done.
Following the Social Policy Agenda in early 2000, a decision was taken to begin carrying out preparations for the creation of this institute, and both Parliament and the Commission commissioned in-depth studies from management consultancies working in the field. I can go so far as to say that the result of our work, which the Chamber will vote on tomorrow, fully represents the positions contained in these two studies, namely the creation of a small, flexible, independent institute, structured around networks, capable of analysing the data and the reasons for the discrimination that still exists, examining good practice and finding and publicising innovative standards-based and legislative solutions in the field of women's rights and equal opportunities.
Above and beyond the debate regarding the location of the institute - in which we basically did not participate as a committee, and which has now been settled with the choice of Vilnius in Lithuania, which, I hope, regardless of its remoteness, will be able to provide us with a satisfactory outcome thanks to the wonders of science and technology - I would like to express my satisfaction concerning the fact that this institute will be launched immediately and that it will begin its work as early as 2007.
The work of this institute will make it possible to achieve further progress, which will benefit both the community of Europe as a whole and those outside Europe who look to us for guidance and a model in this particular sector.
Member of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that the debate between the Council and Parliament has made rapid progress and that we are now close to agreement. The establishment of the European Institute for Gender Equality addresses a genuine need to give European policy on gender equality new instruments enabling us to make further progress. This need was identified as long ago as 1999. Parliament and in particular the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality supported the idea of establishing this institute. This institute will help us - that is to say, the bodies of the Community and the Member States - to formulate and pursue policies by developing knowledge on equal opportunities for men and women. To this end, the institute will arrange the gathering, analysis and dissemination of objective, reliable and comparable data at Community level. It will also develop appropriate methodological resources for improving gender mainstreaming in Community policy.
The first reading enabled Parliament to refine and clarify a number of points contained in the Commission proposal. The common position also incorporates most of the amendments tabled by Parliament. At second reading we had to find answers to questions relating to the establishment of a management board, an issue on which the Council and Parliament had very different opinions. I am happy that both bodies endeavoured to find a well considered compromise, and eventually found one. The compromise that is on the table provides for an improvement to the common position. On the one hand, the system of rotating the members of the management board, and of issuing joint statements, has enabled Member States that had been in doubt to accept a medium-sized management board. This will enable the institute to work effectively from the point of view of its size and the performance of its tasks. On the other hand, amendments relating to the appointment of the director, the reinstatement of the experts' forum and the appointment of two experts from that forum by Parliament will strengthen Parliament's role. The Commission will therefore accept this compromise. I firmly believe that Parliament, which shares our wish to see this regulation adopted by the end of the year, will be able to accept them too and for this I am grateful to you.
Honourable Members, I should also like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Gröner and Mrs Sartori. I was able to meet with them very regularly and all of you can testify to their unstinting efforts. It is thanks to them that we are at the stage where tomorrow we can, I hope, bring this matter to a final conclusion.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. (SK) The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality did well to appoint two rapporteurs from the PPE-DE and PSE to draw up a report on the Commission's proposal to establish the European Gender Institute.
The resulting report is well balanced, and I would like to give my sincere thanks to you, Mrs Sartori and Mrs Gröner. It would be wonderful if we could announce today that there was no need to establish a Gender Institute, since all forms of discrimination against women had been eliminated. It would be good if we could say that there is no longer any discrimination in regards to women's pay, that the value of men's and women's work is fully recognised with regard also to responsibilities at home, and that mothers and fathers have freedom of choice as a result of the progress made in balancing life and work.
Alas, this is not the case, despite the fact that the European Union has a whole arsenal of legal instruments for protecting people's rights. Under these circumstances, the European Gender Institute may prove to be a useful instrument. Whether it will live up to our expectations will be seen during the evaluation exercise in five years' time. Will we have enough courage to dissolve the Institute if the evaluation proves negative? Will we have the courage to find more useful applications for the money that has been already allocated? I would like to caution against relying solely upon the Gender Institute to resolve all the problems associated with the lack of equal opportunities for men and women.
In the same way that a broad range of worldwide and European legislation has failed to resolve these problems for more than 50 years, the Gender Institute will also not be able to do this. Only the personal involvement of every man, woman, politician and non-governmental organisation will ensure that women are not discriminated against, and that all women, including the poorest, have access to justice, and that their value, honour and dignity are fully respected.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) Equality between women and men is one of the basic pillars on which modern Europe has been constructed. After a long battle, we are now on the verge of seeing the establishment of a public institute for gender equality in Europe. I would like to thank Mrs Gröner and Mrs Sartori for their work, and to congratulate them on the draft proposal, which represents the best outcome that can be achieved at the moment and has, not least, the support of the Commission and Council as well.
We have managed to ensure that the institute is independent, which is essential for it to carry out its work in a suitably professional manner and fulfil its role as an expert forum which will help the director in his or her work. The operation's budgetary framework is also guaranteed, along with transparency in how it will be managed. It will remain the task of the Commission and Governing Board to appoint the director, but I would point out that the director must appear before the European Parliament's commission. This will reinforce Parliament's role.
It is a source of great satisfaction that there will finally be a European institute which will continually analyse the issue of gender equality in society and collect data in a systematic way. I am sure that it will devise valuable methodologies of benefit to the equal opportunities policy and offer advice to the Community's other institutions and Member States, as well as help enforce Community policy.
I welcome the fact that a new Member State has been chosen as the venue for the institute's headquarters. It was really important to me during the process of selecting the headquarters to choose a venue that would offer a suitable environment. We can be sure that this will be the case in Lithuania, as the Lithuanian government proved its commitment when it provided the additional EUR 50 million, which will be available from Community funds for seven years.
The opening of the institute has marked an important step for us in the area of gender equality. Only time will tell how significant its role is, but its timeliness is highlighted by the fact that 2007 will be the year of equal opportunities in Europe. We have taken the necessary step and the institute is now ready to get down to work. But it is our job too to ensure that it operates effectively.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my pleasure at the decision of the European Union Common Affairs and External Relations Council of 1 December this year to establish the European Gender Equality Institute in Vilnius, Lithuania. This decision will be officially confirmed in the conclusions of the Council of European Leaders on 14/15 December.
This institute will be the first EU institution in a new Member State - Lithuania.
Although there is a long history of women's struggle for equal rights with men, there remains a large difference between men's and women's wages to the disadvantage of women. The real implementation of gender equality would mark the realisation not only of this EU democratic value, freedom of self-expression and interpersonal relations, but it would also help to solve demographic problems and to reduce poverty.
The most important tasks of the new Institute will be to gather information about gender equality, to analyse it and to offer recommendations on gender equality issues, and also to disseminate information about the state of gender equality in the European Union and third countries.
I am convinced that the European Gender Equality Institute, established in Lithuania, will operate successfully, since Lithuania has experience in cooperating with other EU countries and is well placed to share its experience with third countries, particularly Eastern neighbours.
The Commission accepted forty of Parliament's recommendations for extending the geographical scope of information gathering and analysis, and information supply, including both the newly joining countries and candidate countries.
However, the scale of discrimination against women in some EU countries is so great that no one should be happy about the reduction of the Institute's expenditure. I believe that the opposite should be done - an increase in the number of Institute employees and the size of its budget, in line with the expanded scope of its activities.
I would also like to stress that in the first instance Member States must themselves take steps to actively and vigorously implement gender equality policy within their countries. The European Gender Equality Institute would help them fulfil this task. Furthermore, if the President permits, I would like to tell Mrs Sartori that not far from Vilnius is the geographical centre of Europe, and it is a city that is not too distant from Brussels.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I too would like to give many thanks to the rapporteurs. When this Institute for Gender Equality becomes a reality, as it soon will, it will be a gigantic step forward. Europe needs an independent, autonomous Gender Institute in order to ensure that the objective of equal opportunities for men and women does not get ranked lower than other anti-discrimination measures. It is therefore very important that we have made it clear that we want a strong woman at the head of this Institute.
An independent Gender Institute is necessary, since discrimination against women is unfortunately still a reality in Europe. There are many areas in which we do not just need more statistics, but also innovative suggestions for problem-solving. I hope that this Institute will be more than just a place where data is collected, but will also be able to make an innovative contribution to solving the problem of gender discrimination.
Finally, however, I would like to raise another point which is very important to me. The European Gender Institute cannot be a substitute for practical policies and real laws, and it must not become an excuse for the failure to implement legislative initiatives.
(The President cut off the speaker)
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Mr President, I should like to say a big thank you to everyone concerned for their hard work and commitment and a special thank you to Mrs Gröner and Mrs Sartori for the fact that this Institute is now finally to be set up and to begin its important work. Today is an important milestone for all of us who are working to bring about a society in which women and men are equal. It is also a milestone in strengthening children's rights because the situation of children is, to a large extent, influenced by their mothers' - that is to say, women's - rights. Pleased as I am about this step towards setting up an Institute for Gender Equality, I am also, in equal measure, disappointed about the fact that, in 2006, there is a need for a special institute to champion rights that women self-evidently should possess and that we have not progressed further when it comes to recognising the right of half of humanity to lead their lives on the same conditions as the other half of humanity.
We talk a lot in the EU about democracy and human rights, but women too need to have human and democratic rights. The fact that large parts of the population believe that women can be treated as commodities in a market and believe that society cannot be responsible for women's right to their own bodies cannot be viewed as democratic. We are concerned here with women's right not to be beaten and otherwise abused and, for example, with the fact that political power is, in large part, still male power and that women earn less than men for doing the same work. I really do hope that, in the vote in plenary, we shall support setting up an Institute for Gender Equality, which will be a major and important step towards our really being able in the future to talk about democracy and human rights that are the same for everyone, irrespective of gender.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the idea of creating an Institute for Gender Equality, described as one of the most important aims of the Community, was conceived in 2000, when it became clear that there was significant gender inequality in the majority of policy fields. This is presented as a multifaceted phenomenon, which I am sure is true to a certain extent, although it does raise the fundamental question of whether this really is a matter of equality and human dignity or rather the creation of a new left-wing ideology.
One of the roles of the institute will be to eliminate gender stereotypes by disseminating information on non-stereotypical male and female roles, together with providing liberal examples to follow. This has been done for a long time and is something that those with a Christian world view cannot support.
Contemporary programmes that are far removed from moral standards and which exploit human weakness only serve to make people weak, defenceless slaves, especially to their sexual impulses and need for gratification. Mankind, reduced to his basic appetites, deprived of any spiritual dimension in his life, his personal development prevented and obstructed by the lack of any spiritual life, will not be able to find complete fulfilment, even with active assistance and supported by the lofty aims of various institutions.
Moreover, the legal regulations of the directive raise a number of doubts, as the institution is supposed to have maximum independence in the implementation of its activities, and is even able to commission an external evaluation of its achievements. This lack of control of the European Parliament's committee and its ability to select its own evaluator does not just raise doubts, but is actually quite ridiculous. The revenue of the institute is also surprising, as it includes not only subsidies paid for from our taxes, but also contributions from various wealthy organisations, together with the revenue from services it provides.
The next privilege is immunity. This means that the institute's staff will also be unrestricted in the performance of their duties and will be free to spread false feminist ideas, which will lead to a situation where, instead of women cooperating with men, there will be a destructive battle of the sexes which will become the new dogma, while gender becomes the new proletariat. We will vote against the adoption of this directive.
(EL) Mr President, it is undeniable that equal treatment for men and women and respecting the principle of equality in all aspects of public and private activities will allow for better management of human resources in the European Union which shall contribute without obstacles to the development and competitiveness of the economy and the raising of citizens' living and cultural standards.
In particular, in order for female participation in the labour market to be effective while at the same time allowing for the continuation of human kind through procreation and the raising of children, it is necessary to respect the rights of women as fundamental human rights. In this perspective, as you very well noted Commissioner, both the Council and the European Parliament in their previous parliamentary term set the foundation for the establishment of a European Gender Institute. However, since then the scepticism on equality on a European level has evolved to become a point of view with integrated horizontal applications in all policies and actions. The roadmap on equality and the directive on the equal treatment of men and women in the labour market are clear proof of this. I honestly have to congratulate rapporteurs Mrs Sartori and Mrs Gröner, for their amendments in the proposal for a regulation on the establishment of the Institute. Apart from promoting equality through research, libraries, data analysis and promotion of fair practices, we await a breakthrough in the approval of the multidimensional monitoring of the establishment of equal opportunities. These proposed aimed actions should show respect to ethnic diversification and the principle of subsidiarity. The Institute's administration should guarantee representativity of Member States in all its actions. We hope that the quality of the expert opinion will guarantee useful proposals and avoid the overlapping of responsibilities among organisations that deal with particular fundamental rights, such as health, safety at work and others.
Thus, I would like to point out that despite the progress in the formation of the consulting body, the European Parliament only during its subsequent hearing with the Director ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Thank you very much for your contribution.
Mrs Thomsen, before you start, I should just like to say that I notice a TV crew is following you and interviewing you in the Chamber. I doubt whether this would happen in the Folketing. This is a Parliament not a studio. I shall allow it on this occasion, but please do not let it happen again.
(DA) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteurs for the great deal of work that they have put into this report. I am very glad that this institute is finally to become a reality. Despite all the legislation and good intentions, we still do not have equality in Europe today. This can be seen, for instance, in the continued differences in the pay men and women receive and in the marked underrepresentation of women in all forms of decision-making bodies, be they political, public or private. There is a desperate need for this institute in Europe, and for precise information, analyses and recommendations in the field of equality.
I believe that the institute will play an important role in Europe both as an inspiration and a disseminator of information in the field of equality. The collection of data and the development of best practice will enable the institute to take the lead in producing proposals and strategies for breaking down the barriers to equality. Many Member States are in need of a push. Amongst other things, the need to identify and tear down barriers to equal pay could be highlighted. Today, we not only suffer from a lack of knowledge in this area, but we also lack the tools needed for getting to work on combating these disparities. This means that the inequalities continue to exist despite the legislation and fine words stating that we want things to change. I am very glad that the EU is able to blaze a trail in this area and demonstrate that the work on equality is to be given high priority on the political agenda, and I hope that this work will give impetus to the efforts of the Member States.
(The speaker spoke Irish)
I am delighted to support this report and to call for speedy progress so that the European Institute for Gender Equality will be able to start work next year. I wish to thank the rapporteurs for their work.
Fostering the exchange of experience across the EU will help us to make use of the analysis already carried out at national and regional level and to carry out important new analysis. The institute should become a major arm of EU policy development so that action on gender mainstreaming can be actively promoted. The institute should be operational as soon as possible, with a clear focus on both collection and analysis of data; and it is then up to us here in Parliament to ensure that the analysis it comes forward with is pushed through all policy development in the future.
(NL) Mr President, gender equality is a regularly recurring theme in this House. Quite apart from the fact that what is probably meant is the equal treatment of men and women, as opposed to their equality, it is, as I see it, too easy to hope that this issue can be resolved by making one or two sweeping changes. In recent decades, much interest, both healthy and less healthy, has been generated in women's rights. This does not mean that in some cases and in some regions, there is certainly cause for special attention. This can be attributed to the different views about role patterns across the centuries in different cultures. We can still find traces of this in the cultures of countries, not least within the European Union.
As I see it, these differences must be handled wisely if gender equality is to be achieved across all countries and Member States. I can see the individual Member States playing an important role in this, as they are best placed to assess the local situation and take measures accordingly. Should a Member State lack initiative, there are enough national and international organisations that can encourage, or even force, concrete steps in this area.
I am, in short, all for the equal treatment of men and women, and of equal opportunities for them, but, at the moment, we do not particularly need a new European institute to take care of this.
(ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Gröner and also Mrs Sartori, the Council and the Commission, on the agreement reached. We are pleased that Parliament's view of the issues that were important to more efficient operation of the Institute have been respected.
A medium-sized management board, elected by a system of rotation amongst the Members States, will undoubtedly speed up decision making. A director appointed by means of an open, transparent procedure who has to appear before the competent committee of this Parliament in order to answer Members' questions is satisfactory to us. Furthermore, the reinstatement of a forum of experts made up of representatives of the Member States, of Parliament and of social actors, to assist the board in planning the Institute's activities is undoubtedly a good thing.
This is an historic day for this Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, because today we are creating something that both this Parliament and the other institutions and civil society believed to be absolutely essential: to have an independent body specifically dedicated to gender equality policies.
Ladies and gentlemen, equality between men and women is one of the European Union's fundamental principles. This Institute will be a powerful tool for guaranteeing the integration of gender equality into all Community policies.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote for the Gender Institute and we are obviously happy to be finally reaching this goal. I say 'finally' reaching the goal of this process because, as I recall, the feasibility study dates back to 2002. I hope, at any rate, that the institute will soon start to be operational.
We would certainly have preferred to have more resources available, but I prefer to look on the positive side, namely the creation of the institute, and to hope that in future the resources, of all kinds, will increase.
Thinking about the future activities of the institute, I would like to make two recommendations: the first refers to where it would be particularly useful for the institute to carry out its work, and the second to a specific issue on which to take action.
It has always been the case that in the very places where conditions for women are most backward there has been a serious lack of statistical data broken down by gender. My first recommendation is, therefore, that the institute should be particularly active on this front.
My second recommendation refers to a specific subject for investigation: the pay gap. The disparity between women and men in terms of pay remains unacceptably high and, above all, shows no significant signs of decreasing. The fact that the Treaty of Rome contained an article expressly mentioning equal remuneration for men and women, and that the passage of 50 years has left us at almost the same point, should bring home to us the fact that on this issue a lot of work still remains to be done.
(PL) Mr President, the idea of creating an Institute for Gender Equality was conceived in 1995. Four years later, the Swedish Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality put forward its initial plan. Then, the European Commission and the European Parliament, after a number of years of research into the aims and organisation of the institute, recommended that it should be set up.
After the first reading in March of this year, the European Parliament supported the creation of this new agency, having tabled a number of amendments relating to the scope of its activities and ways of ensuring greater effectiveness. It is good that the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament have expressed their intention to set up the institute and enable it to begin its operations in 2007.
At this stage, in the second reading, only questions relating to the institute's management structure, the election of its director and the still controversial issue of the forum of experts still remain to be resolved. It is a shame that the Council's position in this matter is different from the positions of both the Commission and Parliament. However, the final outcome is satisfactory.
Taking into account the important role of this agency in the European Union, where in some countries there is still clearly noticeable gender discrimination in many areas of life, the task of the institute will be to apply a unified system for collecting and analysing information on the equal treatment of men and women in Europe.
It is good that the institute will have its headquarters in a new Member State. It will be based in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. I hope that it will begin its work as soon as possible, as this is something that we have been waiting for since 1995.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on a very well-prepared document.
(SV) Mr President and all ladies and gentlemen who are still awake, equality between women and men is one of the EU's basic principles, and bringing it about is one of the EU's central tasks. The EU should try to bring about equality in all its activities. In spite of the fact that a lot of progress has been made in the area of equality, many surveys show, however, that such progress is very slow. The EU does not, for example, have the ability to put together analyses and to come up with constructive solutions when it comes to the integration of equality and the promotion of equality between the sexes. By now creating a European Institute for Gender Equality, the EU and the Member States are signalling the high priority they are giving to this issue, as well as the political will to do more to overcome the prevailing lack of equality.
Today, I feel very proud, as an MEP from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, that EU cooperation is being used to advance the fight against gender discrimination. It is now important for all the Member States to make use of the Institute and to submit statistics and information to it. It is a huge responsibility for the Member States. In conclusion, I want to say how pleased I am that it is a new Member State, Lithuania, and the city of Vilnius, in which this Institute is to be located. I do not believe that the proximity principle has any role to play in this case, because all the EU Member States are central. I want to wish them the best of luck and to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Gröner and Mrs Sartori, together with the Commission.
Member of the Commission. (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that Parliament is able to accept the Presidency's compromise in full. With this agreement the institute can be up and running more quickly. The recent decision by the Member States to locate the seat of the institute in Vilnius is indicative of a common desire for the institute to be up and running at the earliest opportunity.
Honourable Members, Parliament will tomorrow take a further step on the road to equal opportunities. As a number of speakers have pointed out, there is still a long way to go on that road.
I wish to thank the Commissioner, all the speakers and Mrs Záborská and her committee for their important work. I wish the institute every success. It is much needed.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.


Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes


Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


Membership of Parliament: see Minutes


Situation in Pakistan (debate)
The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission Declarations on the situation in Pakistan.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we know, the European Union has observed recent developments in Pakistan with great concern, particularly the events leading to the establishment of the state of emergency on 3 November last, and consequently to great social unrest and numerous arrests, including the Chief Justice, who is currently under house arrest.
Have no doubt that this is a serious backward step in the structure of the rule of law and the democratic process in Pakistan, which I would say destroys any hope the Pakistani people and the international community in general may have entertained of strengthening the legitimacy of democratic institutions in Pakistan. This is why the Presidency issued a statement on 6 November on behalf of the Union expressing our profound concern regarding the introduction of the state of emergency and the suspension of the Pakistani constitution and fundamental freedoms.
On 4 November, two days previously, the Heads of Mission in Islamabad and the High Representative, Javier Solana, had expressed their concern at the course of events. Our words, the words of the EU, were thus added to the many others reiterating how important it is to reinstate the Constitution, restore civil order, guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the mass media, release all political prisoners, journalists and defenders of human rights and create the conditions required for the legislative elections to take place as planned, i.e. in January 2008.
We have no doubt that any nation's stability and development can only be guaranteed in an atmosphere of total democratic credibility. We are seriously concerned by reports of numerous arrests, the boycott on freedom of information, repression of the essential freedom of expression of citizens and attacks on professional people, such as judges, lawyers, journalists and human rights activists. At the same time, however, we appeal strongly for all parties to exercise the utmost restraint and to work together to seek a democratic and peaceful solution to the present crisis that will allow a rapid return to normality.
Although recognising the challenges currently faced by Pakistan in relation to its security situation and the Pakistani people's sacrifices and efforts in combating extremism and terrorism, the European Union firmly believes that the solution to these challenges cannot involve an interruption in the democratic process.
We cannot, however, fail to acknowledge the ally that we have always been able to count on in this battle against extremism and terrorism. We must therefore ensure that Pakistan remains committed to the battle against this global threat, in which international cooperation is an essential tool.
Finally, the Union hopes that the current climate of uncertainty will be resolved swiftly and peacefully and calls upon President Muscharraf to honour his pledge to remove his military uniform and abandon his position as Chief of Staff.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, Pakistan is on the agenda of this plenary for the third time within a few months. This bears witness to the very difficult transition the country is currently going through. The imposition of emergency law by President Musharraf on 3 November in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff has sent a deeply worrying signal to Europe and the wider world and has damaged the course of democracy in Pakistan.
Before the emergency was imposed we had witnessed some encouraging developments, with hope for a more inclusive political process and stronger democratic institutions, but regrettably this has now been put in question and today we ask ourselves whether this situation is still reversible or whether it is not too late to restore confidence and conditions in advance of the parliamentary elections.
President Musharraf, in his televised address on the night of 3 November, told us that he was suspending the Constitution because of threats to the nation due to a visible ascendancy in the activities and incidence of terrorist attacks. There is no doubt that Pakistan is currently facing a very serious threat of religious extremism and violence as recent events in the North-Western Frontier Province and the attack on Ms Bhutto's convoy on 18 October in Karachi have clearly demonstrated. But what we are also witnessing now is the arrest of thousands of lawyers, journalists, political party workers and human rights activists, including such distinguished persons as Ms Asma Jahangir, the Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, or Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
These are people who stand for an open and tolerant Pakistan. They are not terrorists and it is wrong to detain them. They should be set free immediately. I would regard the drastic action taken against Pakistan's judiciary as particularly serious. Rule of law is at the heart of any democratic process and the functioning democratic system cannot be sustained without an independent judiciary.
The statement by the Presidency, just mentioned also by our President on behalf of the EU, is therefore very clear, and this remains our position. Last Sunday President Musharraf announced at a press conference that he hopes parliamentary elections can be held in Pakistan by 9 January 2008. This would be a step in the right direction but there are a lot of remaining problems. When can we expect the state of emergency to end? How can we have free and fair elections when print and electronic media are censored, other civil rights and liberties suspended and the independence of the judiciary has been undermined? How will parties be able to campaign when freedom of assembly is curtailed and party leaders like Benazir Bhutto are kept under house arrest? These issues are not at all clear at this stage.
To end this uncertainty it is of fundamental importance that a firm date for elections should be announced as soon as possible, along with a clear timeframe for ending the emergency. For these elections to have any chance of being at all democratic and transparent, it will be essential for all restrictions on political rights and fundamental freedoms to be lifted. And, as things stand, at present it seems it will not be possible to deploy an election observation mission. Certain minimum conditions laid down in the Commission communication on EU election assistance and observation for the holding of democratic elections are not met.
However, if the emergency rule was lifted rather quickly and conditions were significantly improved soon, I might yet be able to review the situation. In any case I have made the necessary preparations for possible deployment of an EU election observation mission to Pakistan should the conditions noticeably change for the better quickly. But, as I say, I am very much concerned as to whether this is likely to happen.
There have been calls to suspend or review our aid to Pakistan, and some EU Member States have taken steps or are considering some action in this respect. The European Commission's support to Pakistan focuses, I would like to remind you, on key issues such as poverty reduction and education, including in the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan, which are the most disadvantaged provinces in Pakistan.
Therefore, I think we will need to consider how best to proceed but, given the nature of this assistance, I think we have to reflect very carefully on that.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the truth is that the situation is very worrying: suspension of constitutional guarantees, state of emergency, detention of many members of civil society, including lawyers such as Mr Ahsan, who is the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and of opponents, house arrest of the opposition leader Mrs Bhutto. What do we do in this situation?
We have learnt that the Deputy Secretary of State at the US State Department, Mr Negroponte, will shortly visit Pakistan and that one Member State, the United Kingdom, has joined the United Nations in its call for the President to renounce his leadership of the army and lift the state of emergency within ten days.
What can we, as the European Union, do? I believe that as a first step we must act with utmost caution. I believe that the representative of the current Presidency has noted, very correctly, that Pakistan is a vital partner in the fight against terrorism and also a country with nuclear weapons.
I therefore believe that on the one hand the European Union must ask the Government to re-establish as far as possible - because we must not lose sight of the fact that terrorism is a factor in Pakistan, a major factor - to re-establish to some extent order and stability and constitutional rights and freedoms, and to release those people who have been unlawfully detained. Furthermore, Commissioner, I would ask you to marshal your considerable capacities and efforts to ensure that free and fair elections can be held and, on the basis of the guarantees you referred to in your speech, that the European Union is present and has a presence in the process in Pakistan which is so very important for the stability of the region and all relations between that region and the European Union.
Therefore, Commissioner, we have great confidence in your capabilities, great confidence in your diplomatic action, great confidence in your efforts and we hope that they will genuinely have a successful outcome which will allow the European Union to have a presence in the electoral process.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission, especially the Council for its tough declaration on 8 November.
I do not think that anyone would doubt that the situation in Pakistan is very serious and very volatile. It is perhaps hard to register that everything that has been going on has really only taken place in the last ten days or so, since the state of emergency was declared. Several Members here met General Musharraf some months ago, both in Brussels and later in Islamabad, and we received a number of assurances. He was adamant that he would follow the constitution and that free and fair elections would take place. I welcome his announcement that elections can take place by 9 January, but I share the Commissioner's apprehension and beg the question: in the light of what has gone on and the present emergency measures - the suspension of certain television channels and other human rights - are free and fair elections possible in less than eight weeks' time?
Whilst I refer to the Commissioner, I would also like to draw her attention in particular to our paragraph 14 of this resolution where we invite the Commission to consider expanding aid to Pakistan for education, poverty reduction, healthcare and relief work, but channelling the funds through secular NGOs rather than directly to the government under these circumstances.
We have no issue with the Pakistan people. We recognise that Pakistan is a key ally of the West, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said. We recognise the important role they played in many, many areas and that they have also been victims of terrorism. But I do not think, colleagues, that means we should stand aside and ignore what is happening at the moment. My group also wanted to have a paragraph in about possible sanctions, inviting the Council ...
(The President asked the speaker to speak more slowly)
I thought I was speaking such clear English that they would manage perfectly but I will, of course, slow down.
I am also inviting the Council to consider targeted sanctions, which is what the Socialist Group would have liked to have done but we did not get any support for it: travel bans perhaps, the freezing of assets. But we hope all of this will not be necessary and we hope that Pakistan can still come back from the brink, that the state of emergency can be withdrawn and that General Musharraf will step down as Chief of Army. Mr President, my apologies for going too quickly.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Pakistan is a vital ally for the European Union. Today we find that Pakistan finds itself at a crossroads. But I believe that it wants to engage with us and we have re-established a recent history of engagement with Pakistan, which I understand is progressing reasonably successfully.
But we must not forget the historical context in which we find ourselves today. I know Pakistan reasonably well and by far the biggest issue and problem facing Pakistan internally today is the terrorist threat coming from across the border in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a common global problem. We in the West turned our backs on Afghanistan some years ago. It is important that we do not turn our back on Pakistan today.
Pakistan has been at the forefront of this battle, sometimes carrying a very heavy burden on behalf of the international community, a heavy burden sometimes carried on weak shoulders, a burden the people of Pakistan have carried, absorbing so much violence and carnage which would otherwise have made its way into other parts of the world. The solution is not to isolate liberals and liberal values and to take away those liberal values from the people of Pakistan.
Today I see that the Commission has again called for the release of prisoners who are currently being held and I support that call. This includes people like the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and indeed Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, who is a leading lawyer in Pakistan. The President of Pakistan must - and these must be our baselines - end the state of emergency immediately. He must reinstate the Constitution. He must reinstate the Supreme Court and he must move towards free and fair elections.
President Musharraf should recognise that we have not turned our back on Pakistan. We remain engaged. It is now time for him to roll back from his current position, to acknowledge our core values, to make them shared values. In a distinct way, despite the desperate situation, he has a unique opportunity even now to deliver power to the people of Pakistan, the true custodians of that power.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I too recognise the importance of Pakistan to all of us in the fight against terrorism and it has been an ally to all of us in that fight. However, I do not believe for one minute that it justifies in any circumstances what has happened in Pakistan in recent weeks.
Any deviation from the general democratic process cannot be a solution to solve political problems within Pakistan. One of the things that really worries me about this is why he did it: because he was afraid that he was not going to get the decision from the Supreme Court that he expected or that he wanted. It is a fairly trivial matter in one way and it seems that he has gone to extreme measures in his dealings with the people in Pakistan, with the judiciary in Pakistan, in the way he has dealt with it, which is extremely dangerous.
I welcome the fact that he has given a commitment that he will hold elections, but the international community must not allow him to turn his back on this commitment. The state of emergency in Pakistan must be lifted immediately and the Government of Pakistan must respect the boundaries of its Constitution. The scrapping of the Supreme Court did immeasurable damage to the separation of power systems within Pakistan. It is a very, very poor example for the General to have undertaken. I fully condemn the wholesale arrest of political opponents of the General, which include 3 000 peaceful protestors and civilian and human right activists.
The European Parliament today must send a very strong message out to General Musharraf that his recent actions violate all respected international conventions and he is moving Pakistan in a very negative and very dangerous direction.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, like many others, I think we are here with a deep sense of regret and a certain feeling of anger that, once again, we are having to discuss the situation in Pakistan. I would agree with virtually everything that has been said this afternoon. We are in a serious situation, not least because this is a nuclear state and the risk of a failed nuclear state is one that should make us all feel very nervous indeed.
People are right to say that the power to step back from the brink here is basically with President Musharraf and his supporters. This idea that there is a state of emergency but the elections should go ahead undisturbed does not hold water. It is certainly not an undisturbed election if the leaders of the other political parties are under house arrest or in jail. If there is no freedom of the press, if people cannot even get satellite dishes because imports of those have now been banned, then there are no circumstances for free and fair elections whatsoever.
It is clear that we want the release of all those political prisoners, that we want freedom of the press and we want the judiciary to be able to operate freely because, if all those with stated commitments to democracy are locked up, who else is left out on the streets? The message that is being sent by the actions of the Government in Pakistan at the moment is therefore extremely worrying for a state that says it is committed to democracy.
I would agree with what Mr Robert Evans has said. We do need to have certain sanctions ready for use if the deadline of 22 November set by the Commonwealth and the UN is not observed and we do not see President Musharraf stand down as military leader or, indeed, an end to the state of emergency.
We should be supporting Amnesty International's Day of Action tomorrow to remember the political prisoners held in Pakistan, and we certainly need to be looking at aid and the way in which it is spent. Pakistan has had USD 10 billion dollars of aid from the USA in about the last five or six years, mostly for anti-terrorism measures, and not for the maintenance and development of education.
Mr President, I have seen that the entire western world, with the United States at the forefront, is demanding an earlier election in Pakistan. They want an election before the opposition is out of prison and Mr Ahsan, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, is released from house arrest.
The consequences will certainly be felt in Pakistan. There will also inevitably be political instability and a negative impact on the economy of a country that is in a bad enough situation already. The crisis is likely to have other repercussions at regional level, and wider developments affecting stability throughout Asia. I find it impossible to disassociate developments in Pakistan and Kashmir from those in Afghanistan.
I propose that the EU should insist on securing Pakistan's considerable nuclear arsenal, if necessary through the UN, at least until the country returns to its former political and, if possible, democratic state.
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, for years now we and the rest of the western world have thought of Pakistan as an important ally. The threat of terrorism and the Pakistani Government's promises and hardline rhetoric with regard to stopping this threat have also been words of assurance to the EU. There have, however, been too many drawbacks associated with this alliance and mutual solidarity. Now at last it is time to open our eyes.
The state of emergency declared by General Musharraf on the third day, a crack in Pakistan's constitution, is just the tip of the iceberg, which we gave warning about here in July and October. The society has been gradually militarised over the years, and the litmus test for the state of human rights, freedom of religion and the rights of minorities, has shown that these are restricted. Instead of Pakistan getting itself ready for the triumphal march of democracy this year, there have been clear signs of a hardening dictatorial system of government. The arrests of members of the opposition, the disruption of the work of the Supreme Court, the refusal to allow one opposition leader into the country and the house arrest of another, the detention of a UN representative, and the violence used by the authorities against peaceful demonstrators all show that Pakistan is on the brink of a precipice.
Commissioner, the EU should now send the strong and united message that it is popular democratic power and a society that respects human rights, and not an army, which is the strongest barrier to the rise to power of radical groups. We understand that the country has internal threats to its security and that there has to be a response to these, but democracy is not a threat to security. Democracy is also precisely the answer in the struggle against talebanisation. The EU must dare to speak up and say that we see the building of a stable and democratic society as being crucial to our alliance. The first step for Pakistan's stability is to guarantee that the Supreme Court can work independently and in peace. Then there are the parliamentary elections in January. The supply of international assistance to the authorities in the investigation into the bomb attack in October would show our concern. A society which is at least officially constitutional, with long democratic traditions and where the people have a genuine desire for democracy, peace and stability, will not give up that easily. Pakistan is, therefore, full of hope.
(CS) Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the long-term experience of many countries shows that the rule of law and democracy are the best and most effective way of preventing extremism, instability and chaos. Seen from this angle, President Musharraf's decision to declare a state of emergency is a serious mistake and gaffe. Pakistan is not a country without democratic traditions: on the contrary, as seen from the courageous and responsible conduct of Pakistani judges, lawyers, journalists and other representatives of non-governmental organisations, civil society has deep and strong roots in Pakistan. However, this civil society needs help. We therefore appeal to President Musharraf to end the state of emergency, to release all political prisoners and to restore all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including freedom of movement, speech, association and assembly, so that truly democratic, free and transparent parliamentary elections can be held at the beginning of next year.
Mr President, the last couple of weeks have been a rollercoaster of shocking events in this turbulent and troubled country. The imposition of martial law in the guise of emergency rule is an underhand attempt to destabilise Pakistan for the personal ambition of one man.
President Musharraf justifies his actions as an attempt to stop the country from committing suicide, but it is not that the country is committing suicide but that the actions and deeds of a dictator are killing the country.
It is totally unacceptable that the leader of the opposition, Benazir Bhutto, has been put under house arrest and banned from political activity and that other activists and the media and independent judiciary have all been muzzled.
While recognising that there are real threats from extremists within the country, I believe that General Musharraf's actions will only embolden the extremists instead of eradicating them and will serve only to weaken the democratic and moderate voices within the country.
Some say that Pakistan is on the brink of collapse. We must prevent this by giving a strong response. Moderate people in Pakistan are feeling frustrated and angry and they are disappointed by Europe's soft response.
Therefore I call upon Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and the Council to give an unequivocal, clear message to the President about the severe consequences if the suppression of the constitution, of politicians, of the media and of the judiciary does not end immediately.
(NL) Mr President, almost all the previous speakers have made the point that the declaration of a state of emergency in Pakistan and the way in which it was done is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable that Musharraf should show such a cavalier disregard for democracy.
Moreover, this state of emergency aggravates a serious problem still further because in a manner of speaking it opens up a second front, that of Islamic terrorism.
As you know, there is already plenty about Musharraf's regime to criticise: it is ineffectual in its measures against the Taliban, for example, and groups associated with Al-Qaeda which are operating along the border with Afghanistan. Well, declaring a state of emergency has opened the door to terror organisations of this kind and the situation can only get worse as a result.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank the European Parliament for scheduling this debate, which, in view of the situation in Pakistan and the cooperation we have had with that country in such an important battle against extremism and terrorism, is very opportune indeed.
We cannot and will not remain indifferent to a country like Pakistan. This debate also shows that the three institutions, Parliament, the Council and the Commission, share the same fundamental and immediate objectives, i.e. the rapid and complete restoration of the rule of law and democratic freedoms in Pakistan and the holding of free and democratic elections. This is the goal that unites us and the goal that we must all work towards, particularly the three institutions, in the area of our respective competences and powers.
I would also like to say that in the capacity of the Presidency we also understand, as the Commissioner has said here, that any measures that might lead to a possible suspension of cooperation affecting a population which is already suffering many shortages must be considered and examined with care. The people of Pakistan have already suffered enough and must not suffer further. This too is a question that must be considered with some care, should it arise.
Whatever the case, our objectives are now clear and defined, and I can assure you that the Presidency and the Council will take all the initiatives and measures deemed appropriate to respond to developments in the situation.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think it has been shown very clearly that we all feel that what has happened is very difficult to understand. It is very serious. We are all concerned, because the imposition of emergency rule has greatly endangered the strengthening of democratic institutions and the building of a more inclusive democratic process. It is therefore of fundamental importance that civil and political rights are fully restored, media restrictions withdrawn and essential improvements made to the framework and conditions for elections. Stability and development can only be achieved with democracy and the rule of law.
We therefore have to reflect further on the question of a possible election observation mission. As I said, we might be able to send a smaller team of advisers to follow the process under the current circumstances. If not, as I said, the state of emergency would have to be lifted very quickly and civil liberties restored.
With regard to aid, let me say that we had already substantially increased our aid to Pakistan, particularly in the fields of education and rural development. Therefore, as I said before, I think at this stage we must sit back, wait for a moment, and judge very carefully. Of course we should not endanger the poor people in Pakistan, but we have to go about things in the right way.
To wind up the debate I have received seven motions for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 November 2007.
Written declarations (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)
in writing. - Pakistan is a vital ally in the war on terror. As a result it has faced enormous internal pressure and threatened instability. President Musharaff has responded to this situation by declaring a state of emergency.
He argues that an abnormal situation requires abnormal actions. His response is in part understandable but quite wrong. The way to fight anti-democratic forces is with democracy. He should end the state of emergency, announce a date for elections and a date on which he will give up his uniform. He should then call for an open and wideranging debate about the future of Pakistan.
I am convinced such a debate would reveal that the vast majority of Pakistanis reject extremism and fundamentalism and wish to live in a country at peace with itself, at peace with it's neighbours and on good terms with the West.


Documents received: see Minutes


Health care systems in Sub-Saharan Africa and Global Health (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs De Keyser, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on health care systems in sub-Saharan Africa and global health.
Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for having stayed this far. This report actually responds to a communication from the Commission on global health, but we wanted to adopt an angle that was rather exceptional and concentrate a good deal more on the mutual schemes that are currently thriving in Africa. Allow me to digress a little.
The state of health in Africa is actually quite dreadful, despite all the international aid, and this is due to a large number of factors, whether they be climate change, the financial crisis, war, bad governance in certain countries, or the greed that is provoked by the very riches found in Africa. Add to this the major pandemics such as Aids, malaria, tuberculosis, and so on, and this set of factors means that we find ourselves facing a genuine disaster.
So I must first of all pay tribute to the work of the NGOs and of certain churches too, which are doing a truly remarkable job in emergency conditions, in conflict zones, but this cannot represent a long-term response, it is not a sustainable response.
There are what are called vertical funds, which have been mentioned and which are used to fight major diseases, such as Aids, malaria and tuberculosis, for example. They attract a lot of money and are quite attractive to private aid efforts, since people feel they are giving to a cause that is being kept well under control. In reality, however, these funds too, while certainly achieving their objective, cover only a small part of the problem, because, unfortunately, more deaths are still caused in Africa today by the lack of sanitary infrastructure, the lack of drinking water - children die of dysentery - or the lack of a local dispensary, than, alas, by Aids or malaria.
Hence, the attention that has been drawn to a movement that has been emerging since the 1990s, represented by initiatives consisting of insurance schemes but, above all, of mutual schemes, which have sprung up just about everywhere in different African countries. The objective of these mutual schemes is, of course, to involve people in the management of their own health. Let us not close our eyes: they will not be self-sufficient, they will not succeed in providing all the financing for care or for access to medicines, but in combination with other funds, with other subsidies, they do nonetheless ensure the provision of health care and medication, and on top of that participation, a kind of social dynamic that has taken root.
There are hundreds of them; they exist in various countries and in various sectors. There are women's mutuals, café owner's mutuals and so on. The challenge for us, then, is to support this social dynamic, to finance it, and to coordinate it, while at the same time telling ourselves that perhaps one day, it will become self-sufficient, but not yet today.
Therefore, although these mutuals can exist, they can do so only if, of course, there exist alongside them what are called horizontal systems. That is to say, why insure yourself or pay for any episode of ill health, for surgical intervention, if there is no hospital, if there is no doctor, if there is no medication? Therefore, as a corollary, we believe that the European Union should not only support, coordinate and sustain these mutuals, but also lay great stress on horizontal systems, on basic health care, even if it means calling on vertical funds partially to finance this 'horizontal' care, this element of basic care that is necessary, that provides the balance that enables the mutuals to exist.
It is that set of problems to which the report refers. I have run out of time but I shall perhaps reply to Members who have some concerns about reproductive health, which is mentioned in this report and is an issue I set great store by.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs De Keyser has already said nearly all there is to say. I would like to dedicate this minute to a baby boy who I met on 1 December 2009 in Luanda, when we were in Angola for the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly. The baby boy was at the end of his life, he was dying due to malnutrition in his mother's arms in the Divine Providence Hospital in the centre of Luanda, near the place where we were doing our work and near the stadium that was being built for the African Cup; in other words, he was surrounded by plenty.
Yet this was not an isolated case: every day in Luanda, children are still dying of hunger, due to malnutrition, in the arms of their young mothers who have not been taught anything about nutrition and who are often left to their own devices.
For a Christian, sights like this constitute a sin - a great sin; for a politician, they are a sign of the failure of our policies; and for the ruling class of that country, Angola, they are also a sign of greed and the unfair distribution of wealth. I believe the reasons why that child had such a fleeting existence on the earth give us much food for thought and I hope my testimony will contribute to this reflection.
(SK) Despite certain reservations which I have against this report, I would first like to congratulate Mrs De Keyser. She has demonstrated, as so many times before, her grasp of development policy and how she cares about living conditions in various parts of the world.
The level of health care in sub-Saharan Africa is deplorable. However, I am concerned that Mrs De Keyser has failed to accept at least some of my amendment proposals. It cannot be right for us to talk positively about the final documents from Cairo and Beijing, and yet when I refer to them, they are not accepted. This is only because, according to some Members, certain paragraphs perhaps do not align with the European policy on reproductive health. It is regrettable that we are unwilling to respect the importance of national and regional particularities and the historical, cultural and religious diversity of states in sub-Saharan Africa. The health of the local inhabitants can only suffer as a result.
(SK) The general declaration of human rights recognises health as one of the fundamental human rights. I personally believe that this right must be viewed in close connection with the actual right to life.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, these rights have a very specific and precarious context, and I would therefore like to emphasise the need for the European Union to take a responsible and humane approach in the area of health care. Firstly, I would like to mention that the European Union should not promote the termination of pregnancy as a right, since this so-called right is not recognised in any international documents as a so-called fundamental human right. On the contrary, the Union, as a defender of human rights worldwide, should act progressively in support of programmes to protect mothers with children in its development policies, and promote outcomes that are also compatible with the right to life and protection of the unborn child. Secondly, I would like to emphasise again that the EU and the Member States should not incorporate into trade agreements provisions on intellectual property rights which prevent poverty-stricken people in developing countries from having access to basic medicines and which contribute to the high mortality rates in these regions.
Madam President, my colleague, Mr Piebalgs, could not be here in person, and it is on his behalf that I shall make a number of comments and remarks. To speak quite truthfully, once again, the Commission is always at the disposal of Parliament, and I am very pleased to have heard Mrs De Keyser and the other speakers on a subject that has been a personal interest of mine for a long time. Besides, Mrs De Keyser, in my office as Commissioner for the Internal Market and Financial Services, it is not by chance that, in addition to the visits that I now make every week to each of the capitals of the Union and after the first visit that I had to make to the United States, since almost all of our transactions are transatlantic ones, I was anxious to make my second visit outside the Union to Addis Ababa, at the end of July, to meet the leaders of the African Union. This is because our fates are bound up one with the other, and for many years now, I have been arguing for a new policy of partnership between our two great continents.
With respect to many subjects linked to the crisis, which in any case concern or relate to our own preoccupations - for example, cooperation between our markets, the fight against money laundering, financial regulation, the fight I want to wage remorselessly against excessive speculation in agricultural commodities, notably in Africa where many countries depend on imports for their food - I and my colleagues decided, following that visit, to take up and intensify our cooperation.
While I congratulate you on behalf of Mr Piebalgs and for my own part on the quality of your report, in which you describe the health care situation in developing countries, I should add that we are not talking about Africa alone. A few weeks ago, I was in Haiti to follow up the visits made by my colleagues Baroness Ashton, Mrs Georgieva and Mr Piebalgs, and it was clear that, even outside Africa, there are challenges to be overcome in disease prevention and public health in the poorest countries.
As Mr Rinaldi said, there is the fact that nearly 30 million people die prematurely every year in developing countries from causes that could be treated with the amount of money devoted in the European Union or the United States to pet food alone, or, if we are looking for another comparison, with about 2% of global military spending. I find that situation quite simply unacceptable.
Viable social policies, including for health, should be at the heart of a state's basic functions, within a framework of sustainable and inclusive growth. Health is not only a universal right, but also a part of economic development. Health systems based on per capita expenditure of less than EUR 30 per year, which is 50 times less than the EU average, will never be sufficient to keep health professionals in post, ensure the availability of essential medicines or offer people equal access to care.
On this point, I should like to tell you, on behalf of Mr Piebalgs, that we shall continue to insist that the European Union honour its commitments in terms of the level and quality of public development aid to those third countries that most need it. As far as the Commission is concerned, support for health systems remains a priority commitment of our foreign policy and a strong component of our political dialogue with third countries. Echoing Mrs Záborská's concern, third countries are not, in fact, all in the same boat. There is a great difference, as you said, between the developing countries and the less-developed countries in Africa, for example.
Moreover, we are trying to promote this concept through the Commission's active participation in global initiatives such as the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, as well as by interacting with other public and private players active in this field. Mrs De Keyser, you have rightly paid tribute to the work of the NGOs, which I consider to be exemplary. Again, a few days ago in Haiti, I saw that they play a remarkable as well as a decisive role in the administrative or public aspects of the various actions undertaken by the Union, fund sponsors or the World Bank.
Adequate social and health policies are essential in order to achieve concrete results in Europe as much as in developing countries. Merely ensuring that a substantial amount of resources are dedicated to supporting our European partners cannot be enough. We must also make sure that our internal policies are consistent, for instance, the policy on migration of health professionals or on the trade in medicines, in such a way that the global impact of internal policies can also be of benefit, or at least cause no harm, to those most in need of them in the world.
In my own sphere of competence, I should like to make two points that may be of interest to you, Mrs De Keyser. Firstly, in the draft Single Market Act, which we are getting ready for 27 October, I intend to give priority to the major sector of social business and to work towards a statute for the European Foundation. In amongst all that, there is encouragement that we should be giving, here at home in Europe, to structures, to NGOs, to social enterprises, which could be supported in their work to help the poorest countries or developing countries, notably in this sphere of health.
Next, there is a second area that concerns me just now, in fact, and that is counterfeiting. In the plan that I shall be presenting to you in the autumn, on fighting piracy and counterfeiting, I have provided for several sections that we shall be financing and supporting; on technology for detecting counterfeit goods, on communicating with the European public, and on training personnel in customs or at the external frontiers of the Union.
However, I should also like to have a section - and I have asked my colleagues for this - on cooperation with the countries where these counterfeit goods originate and where they could cause considerable harm to health, particularly if they are counterfeit medicines. We shall be returning to this subject in due course.
On the basis of the analysis that I have quickly outlined for you, the Union has adopted the conclusions on the Union's role in global health. They are our reference point when intervening in matters of health. As I said, the resources for official development aid are not sufficient, and there is one point on which the analysis in your report proves just how pertinent it is. In Europe, we have numerous ways of financing health services, and each one has its strengths and weaknesses. There is no single, perfect solution to fit all local circumstances. It is clear that a purely voluntary insurance scheme, based on private finance mechanisms, would not be sufficient to provide equal and universal access to health care, either. Hence, the essential role that public authorities must play in regulating and financing health services in order to establish or ensure principles of fairness and inclusion.
We are very much relying on Parliament's contribution to this effort in order to strengthen and enhance the solidarity of the people of the European Union and of the other Union players in this area, notably the NGOs. I believe that our Union has much to learn, but also much to share with the rest of the world, and that we can provide added value in this area. We must clearly translate all this into the approach that we take to health policy in developing countries, and I, for my part, am pleased to be able to reply to you and to take advantage of this opportunity to express my personal commitment to these issues.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The inability of African countries - which are often weak countries that have recently emerged from conflict situations, or that lack sufficiently robust institutions or adequate resources - to apply effective public health policies and, in particular, to guarantee access to adequate health care services, constitutes a major challenge and a global responsibility. It is essential for there to be a worldwide EU vision on health with guiding principles that must be applied to all relevant strategic sectors. Investment in education and capacity building will produce positive effects on health worldwide, and I call on the European Union to actively support the training of qualified health care professionals. It is essential for EU Member States to ensure that their migration policies do not prevent health care professionals from being available in third countries. I call for the commitments made under the EU strategy for action on the crisis in human resources for health in developing countries to be made good. The EU must facilitate circular migration as a means of reducing the brain drain from countries that are in difficulties.
The state of health of the population in sub-Saharan Africa poses one of the toughest challenges for the EU's humanitarian and development policy. I believe that the tragedy of the situation is best encapsulated by the fact that the inhabitants of this region have a life expectancy which is approximately half that of a European citizen. The report spells out very clearly the causes of this and emphasises the remedies required, as well as our share in the responsibility for this. The international funds allocated to health care are half the amount allocated to education. Without devaluing education in the least, I believe that this disproportion reflects an oversight which must be corrected in future.
Furthermore, the developed countries' encouragement of the exodus of doctors and nurses from African states allows the current disaster to continue. I think that greater discernment, especially from EU countries, when it comes to recruiting specialists in similar key areas, would promote significant progress in improving Africa's health care system.
Unfortunately, the universal right to health care is still very far from being a reality. Millions of people are still without access to basic health care, life expectancy in many countries is still scandalously low, and millions of children still die from diseases that can be prevented and cured. This situation is all the more serious because whether it continues or is brought to an end depends on political decisions. The predominant force in these decisions has been the interests of large economic and financial groups. The pharmaceutical multinationals continue to prevent the cheaper production of medicines that would enable the lives of millions of people to be saved. International financial institutions continue to impose so-called 'structural adjustments' by maintaining the odious foreign debt of countries in the developing world, and imposing cuts and privatisations on the health sector when shortages are already enormous. A real contribution to improving the health care systems of these countries would require, firstly, the immediate rejection of the so-called 'economic partnership agreements', the implementation of which, in the manner that the EU is seeking to impose, will worsen dependence relationships and have an even greater impact on these countries' priorities; and also an end to their foreign debt and a proper development aid and cooperation policy.


Statements by the President
I would like to make several statements at the beginning of this part-session.
On 6 November 2010 in Moscow, unknown assailants inflicted a savage beating on the journalist Oleg Kashin. This brutal assault, which was not motivated by robbery, deserves the most severe condemnation. We note and welcome the swift reaction of President Medvedev in this situation and his personal commitment to finding the perpetrators, and we hope this will be effective.
Secondly, on 31 October, and for the first time in two years, an opposition demonstration was held in Triumph Square in Moscow without the police intervening. We take this as a promising signal from the Russian authorities, in the hope that the appeals of the European Parliament made over the years for further democratisation of public life in Russia have not gone unheeded.
Thirdly, 10 days ago in Baghdad, an attack was made on Christians who were at prayer in their church. Some people were killed, and others were injured. On behalf of the European Parliament, I reiterate my call for respect for freedom of religion and for an end to the religiously motivated violence which is being witnessed in this part of the world.
Fourthly, on 10 December, a ceremony will be held in Stockholm to award this year's Nobel Prizes. We consider unacceptable the attempts made by the Chinese authorities to put pressure on Member States of the European Union not to participate in the ceremony. The European Parliament strives unremittingly for the fundamental and inalienable rights of every person throughout the world to be respected, and we do not, of course, make exceptions for China. At the ceremony in December, the head of the European Union delegation in Norway will represent the European Union and, therefore, the European Parliament too.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent days, the Veneto region of Italy has been hit by serious natural disasters, in particular, the provinces of Vicenza, Padova and Verona. These catastrophic floods have affected around 500 000 people in various ways and have caused hundreds of millions of euro of damage. This tragedy has brought all productive sectors, small and medium-sized enterprises, and various other sectors, to their knees.
I should like to appeal to my fellow Members and the European institutions to do everything possible to support these people and find solutions to respond to this disaster, within the limits of the rules set out by the European Union Solidarity Fund and the Structural Funds.
I should also like to note that Italy also has another reason to weep today, although for a completely different reason: the collapse of Pompeii. I only wished to note it here in order to emphasise the significance and importance of an event of this type and the need for Europe to keep an eye on these things as well.
Thank you for making this point. Please also use the one-minute speeches for this. This is also a subject which can be raised in a one-minute speech. Thank you, Mr Berlinguer, for raising this matter.


Communication of Council common positions : see Minutes


Calendar of part-sessions for 2008


Voting time


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


2. Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank (