European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (debate)
The next item is the report prepared by Mrs Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) - C6-0469/2007 -.
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as well as the draftswoman for the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, Mrs Geringer, for having done such excellent work.
The European Year 2010 will play a significant role in the development of social Europe. The chosen approach, that is, one year during which the centralised and decentralised methods are combined, is an approach that should provide the best support for political cohesion between subjects and various levels of governance, and offer a certain flexibility when taking into account the specific situation of individual Member States.
The European Year 2010 will give the European Union and the Member States the opportunity to renew their political commitment, and will stress that poverty and social exclusion have an impact on the social and economic development of the Union and on our citizens' dignity. The aim of the European Year 2010 will be to show that it is possible to fight poverty and that that fight can succeed.
The European Year 2010 will also offer a platform for the debate on European values and on respect for these values as a key factor in developing public policies at both Union and Member State level. It will help to ensure that the people affected by poverty and social exclusion are perceived in a different light.
The Commission has always insisted that this concept, this approach must be preserved in the text. I think that most of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament go in that direction.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, according to the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion for 2008, 16% of the population of the EU is still living below the poverty line, and 19% of children are at risk of destitution and social exclusion, despite all the commitments made by the Member States in 2000 to drastically reduce poverty by 2010.
Poverty does not affect only women, children and certain social groups that are always particularly vulnerable. Far from being eradicated, poverty is actually reinforced by international developments in the energy and food production sectors, and by internal disparities in the less prosperous regions of the Union itself. In these places there are chronic structural disadvantages, such as remote, island and deindustrialised regions and others.
Poverty and social exclusion are a threat to development, competitiveness and the social model. They also violate human rights in a Europe that wishes to become a model of respect for human dignity and the promotion of equal opportunities for all.
The Commission's proposal for a European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010, with a significantly higher budget than that allocated to previous European Years, is an important step in promoting solidarity, social justice, and greater economic and social cohesion.
It is our ambition that 2010 should be a milestone year for recognising the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion. This recognition embraces not only material poverty but also access to health services, housing, social protection, education, training, employment and quality of life. We must accept that those who endure poverty have a right to live in dignity and participate in social and economic life. We must affirm the common responsibility of the European agencies of the Member States, and of the social partners and all citizens, to increase social cohesion. The year 2010 will lay the foundations for effective structures of collective responsibility and for a fair redistribution of wealth.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats took the lead in the proposals and accepted amendments to enable the cooperation of all the political groups in the European Parliament. We have thus strengthened the Commission's proposal by broadening the definition of vulnerable categories and adding issues such as meeting the needs of families with specific problems, single-parent families and large families, addressing the specific problems of people with disabilities and the homeless, and promoting active integration and access to culture and recreation.
This, of course, does not detract from the primary objective of improving the financial situation of individuals and families by allowing them access to decent, permanent employment. Good employment provides the satisfaction of participating and the self-sufficiency necessary to meet the needs of the more vulnerable members of society, such as children and old people.
As MEPs, we have paid close attention to the correct enforcement of Community legislation on equal opportunities. We have attended to the shaping and application, at national, regional and local level, of integrated, coordinated policies. These have been developed by public and private bodies with the participation of those affected, in order to maintain the principles of good governance, subsidiarity and proportionality.
Factors contributing to the success of the Year for Combating Poverty will be the strengthening of the open method of coordination, the coordination of actions between existing European programmes and the results of previous European Years, the active participation of civil society, and correct evaluation of the proposals and results by the European Commission.
The question of the participation of NGOs and the level of funding for their actions has been the subject of conciliation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. We are glad the Council has accepted a proposal to append to the decision an additional statement from the Commission on encouraging the participation of small and medium-sized NGOs, and the possibility of fully funding their actions by national agencies.
I would like to thank the responsible officials, colleagues, and fellow Members for their contribution to the preparation of the decision.
author of the draft opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (PL) Mr President, raising the quality of life of the citizens of EU Member States lies at the heart of European integration. Despite this, statistics show that 78 million people in the EU are below the poverty threshold, and the majority of these are children, women and the elderly. This means that, in addition to economic measures, the European Union must also undertake social initiatives, which is something that the European Parliament has noted on many occasions. In its resolution of 15 November 2007, Parliament emphasised that strengthening social cohesion and the elimination of poverty and social exclusion must become political priorities for the European Union. The Commission's initiative to make 2010 the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion fits perfectly into this context and could make a significant contribution to directing political attention and encouraging widespread activities to further strengthen social protection and social integration.
The budget that has been allocated for this initiative - 17 million euro - is a record amount, but it is the implementation of projects on the national level that is a key element to making this initiative a success. For this reason we need to call on Member States to participate in this initiative and to allocate appropriate human and financial resources for this purpose.


Violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania (debate)
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Leonidas Donskis, Cecilia Wikström, Alexander Alvaro, Sonia Alfano, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0669/2010),
the oral question to the Commission by Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, on violation of the freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0803/2010),
the oral question to the Commission by Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on violation of the freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0804/2010), and
the oral question to the Commission by Michael Cashman, Monika Flašíková Beňová and Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group, on violation of the freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0005/2011).
author. - Madam President, we are discussing today, and not for the first time, legislation that may be passed by the Lithuanian Parliament with a potentially very negative effect on the position of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Lithuania. I think it is unfortunate that we are discussing the subject again, as Parliament has already passed a resolution on it.
I think the resolution we have proposed for vote tomorrow is very clear. We would appeal to our Lithuanian colleagues to reflect further on this matter and to make sure that whatever legislation they pass will not discriminate against LGBT people.
I do not have much to say about the resolution, but I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the European Union needs to equip itself with stronger legal instruments for the enforcement of fundamental rights. We recently debated the controversial media law in Hungary and now we are facing very similar issues.
We have laid down the principles - the shared values of 500 million citizens - in the European treaties but, when it comes to putting them into practice, we run into trouble. Therefore, Commissioner, I would like to hear your views on our proposal for a European road map for LGBT rights. The European Union has done a lot for gender equality in the past and, indeed, we have regular road maps for gender equality. We have all sorts of strategies to combat racism and xenophobia, to combat social exclusion and to strengthen fundamental rights, but not for LGBT people. I think it is very urgent and very necessary that we have such a strategy: a strategy to fight prejudice, ignorance, discrimination and hatred and to strengthen the rights of LGBT people.
There are many examples of the problem. Today, we are discussing the amendments which have been put to the Lithuanian Parliament, but that should not distract us from the fact that homophobia exists in all Member States.
I would like to bring another fact to your attention, Commissioner, and to hear your views on it. This concerns the European asylum policy, and the fact is that people seeking asylum because they are prosecuted on grounds of their sexual orientation in a Member State which I will not name have to undergo something known as a phallometric test. This is particularly degrading. It has no place in the European Union and I would like to hear what the Commission intends to do about it.
author. - Madam President, my colleague, Mrs in 't Veld, has already explained what the resolution is about and referred to it and I strongly agree with the question she put to you, Commissioner: what about a road map for LGBT rights in this common European Union?
But I would like to take a different angle to hopefully convince those in this Parliament who have not yet decided on voting in favour of this resolution. You know what? Last summer, four Members of the European Parliament, Mrs in 't Veld, myself, Mr Cashman and Mr Fjellner, representing four groups, the majority of this Parliament, were in Vilnius, in Lithuania, together with the first Baltic Pride to be held in Vilnius, empowering and supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this city and we were there under the European flag telling everybody, 'this flag protects us, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and that is true also for Lithuania'.
Now, what would happen to us and to Lithuanians who next year might go marching in favour of our equal rights in Vilnius if this law is adopted in the Seimas? Each one of us could be fined up to EUR 2 900 for publicly promoting sexual orientation - meaning homosexuality in this case, because I guess for heterosexuality that does not apply. Is that really what this Parliament would want? Is that what the Parliament of Lithuania would want, the parliament of a country which, 20 years ago, struggled for its own freedom, with lesbians and gays among the people struggling for that freedom?
So I am very happy that the President of Lithuania, Mrs Grybauskaitė, former Commissioner, and the government of Lithuania, have already said that this proposed law contravenes Lithuania's obligations under its own constitution. I hope it will be clear that different forms of sexuality, of sexual orientation, of forms of living, have been part of all cultures and of all societies and are so in Lithuania, as well, and that hiding facts like that from the public, from young people, is simply a basis for inciting hatred, hate speech and hate crimes. That is something that I think nobody in this Parliament or in the Lithuanian parliament would want.
Therefore, I hope that we will have the support of this Parliament and of the Commissioner for the resolution. We do not need your support, but I hope we have it.
Madam President, I would like to add my voice to what the previous speakers have said, but I would also highlight another aspect of this issue: finalising the proposed amendment may have serious consequences for people other than just the LGBT community in Lithuania. This is another example of a law which could be used to deny recognition to the partnerships and marriages of same-sex couples from other Member States. We have already debated this in this House, in September last year, and, because some questions remained unanswered then, we and other members of Parliament sent a letter requesting clarification. Your Commissioner sent us a reply, in which, amongst other things, he wrote that the residence rights of such couples is recognised by European law. I have this question to put to you: are you also going to challenge Lithuania in cases where one of the partners is not a national of a Member State? I would appreciate a very clear answer on this.
I have read in the Commission Work Programme that, in 2013, the Commission is going to draft a legislative proposal on the mutual recognition of the effects of certain acts of civil status. My question is: Does that proposal also include the mutual recognition of marriages and partnerships? If so, that is, in itself, good news, but why only in 2013?
The Commission has announced that it will take the necessary action once its officials have analysed the Lithuanian legislation, and my question is: has the analysis been carried out yet and have your officials, as part of that analysis, considered what the consequences could be for the recognition of same-sex couples from other Member States?
What action will the Commission take against Lithuania, then, and what will it do about Romania, for example, whose legislation specifically excludes recognition?
Finally, Commissioner, you promised during the September debate that you would respond rapidly to the report by the European Fundamental Rights Agency on homophobia. However, in your letter, you simply referred to the Commission's annual report. Do you not think that, in light of the developments in Lithuania, that matter should be given much more attention? Could you also make a promise that you will issue a separate report on homophobia in the European Union as soon as possible?
Madam President, I have to say frankly that I do not understand what is happening in Lithuania, or rather, that we feel disenchanted and indignant about this.
Just when it seems that we are making progress in the European Union, at least insofar as we know what basic human rights are, we get a signal from one of the Member States that this simply is not true.
The idea that it is necessary to prohibit by law, for example, the promotion of relationships other than heterosexual ones seems to us to be unbelievably regressive, riding roughshod over what we have achieved together on human rights over recent years in the European Parliament and in cooperation with you, the Commission.
Protecting the spiritual health of children is just a shameful pretext exploited by insecure politicians. We must and we want to protect children. We must protect them particularly against violence and poverty, and we want to provide the conditions for their education, safety and personal development. Everyone, however, or a majority of us, know from our own experience that children are not harmed by displays of affections and love, nor by the promotion of relationships other than heterosexual ones.
I therefore firmly believe that it is no longer appropriate in this day and age for us to hold discussions with the proponents of such views, Commissioner, or to keep on trying to explain something to them. To try and explain to them why their views are so woefully misguided.
In my opinion, there is a need to take decisive action. There is a need to state unambiguously that attempts at homophobic legislation are unambiguously contrary to the fundamental principles of the European Union, and are quite clearly in conflict with the treaties, with the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and with the European Convention on Human Rights. They do not respect freedom of expression and information or freedom of assembly, or the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I would also like to ask, Commissioner, in the event that such a law is passed, whether the Commission will initiate proceedings against Lithuania concerning the violation?
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to start by stressing that the Commission unambiguously rejects homophobia because it is a blatant violation of human dignity.
That is also why, on 22 November 2010, I visited Lithuania and discussed with President Dalia Grybauskaitand the Minister of Justice the proposal to amend the Administrative Code, which establishes a new offence punishable by a fine for 'the promotion of homosexual relations or financing of such promotion in public places', as well as the related proposal to amend the Penal Code.
According to the latest information in my possession, the adoption by the Lithuanian Parliament of this draft amendment to the Administrative Code was postponed and is now expected to take place in spring this year. This means that it is still under discussion.
The Commission is examining the proposals to amend the Lithuanian Administrative and Penal Codes, as well as other Lithuanian legislation, from the perspective of compliance with relevant EU law.
In 2009, the Commission expressed serious concerns to the Lithuanian authorities in relation to the compatibility with Union law and fundamental rights of the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information. Following the Commission's intervention, this law was amended in December 2009.
The law qualifies as detrimental to minors information that 'expresses contempt for family values, encourages the concept of entry into a marriage and creation of a family other than stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania'. The practical application of this law may raise questions in terms of compliance with the e-Commerce and Audiovisual Media Services Directives and with the principle of non-discrimination. The Commission is continuing to look into this matter.
According to the information in my possession, an amendment to the Law on Provision of Information took effect on 18 October 2010. This amendment prescribes that 'advertising and audiovisual commercial communication [...] must not contain manifestation or promotion of sexual orientation'. If these provisions were to remain in the law, we would see the same problems in terms of compliance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and possible violation of Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In May 2010, the Commission wrote to the Lithuanian Government expressing worries about the last-minute suspension of the Baltic Gay Pride event. You will remember this. We recalled in that letter that freedom of peaceful assembly, as provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the Charter, is one of the principles on which the Union is founded. On that basis, Baltic Gay Pride was held on 8 May 2010: that was the event to which a previous speaker referred.
As regards the question of a possible European strategy on the fight against homophobia, the Commission's priority is to ensure that EU legislation complies fully with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Article 21 prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. How this is to be achieved was explained very clearly in the Commission's communication on the strategy for effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, adopted on 19 October 2010. We will come back to this matter in the annual report on application of the Charter, which also covers progress on the application of Article 21. That will happen in spring of this year.
According to this logic, the phallometric test as a procedure under asylum policy is, of course, subject to EU law and relates directly to Article 21 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This clearly means that if, in EU law or in its application at national level, there is discrimination, then the Union is empowered to intervene. It is very clear that the Union can intervene here.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate the Commission's strong commitment to combating homophobia and discrimination based on sexual orientation, to the full extent of the powers conferred by the treaties.
Regarding the recognition of civil status, we have no intention of proposing any legislation that would interfere with Member States' substantive family law or modify national definitions of marriage. This is subsidiarity. Our green paper on recognition of civil status is designed for cross-border situations, such as the recognition of birth certificates, and is not concerned with the recognition of same-sex marriage. We must not mix things up. It is for the Member States to define what marriage is. It is for the European Union to permit free movement and non-discrimination. These are two completely different things. Such is the position in European law and that is what we apply in real terms.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, the EPP is committed to upholding the values and principles upon which the Union is founded, in particular, the respect for human rights. Europe should fight against all forms of discrimination and that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At the same time, we have to respect the right of any democracy, as long as it respects human rights and the non-discrimination principle, to discuss, modify and adopt national laws, without interfering in the debates of national parliaments, without infringing the principle of subsidiarity and without acting or condemning a Member State prematurely.
We do not like the idea of condemning a Member State, especially since, in this particular case, the proposed modifications have not even been voted on by the plenary of the Lithuanian Parliament and are still under review by the Lithuanian authorities. Not only that, but the proposed modifications have already been deemed to be in conflict with European law by the Lithuanian authorities themselves, who have declared that they will be taking action to remedy the situation and to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. So this proposed legislation will probably not even make it onto the statute book of Lithuania and therefore there is no need to condemn this Member State.
To conclude, I do hope nonetheless that tomorrow, the EPP will be able to support the joint resolution as long as it does not condemn any individual Member State and as long as it is modified to make it more balanced.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I hope very much that Lithuania will learn from the experience in the UK, which went through its own agonies of having a law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools. David Cameron, then Conservative leader and now Prime Minister, said 18 months ago that his party was wrong in its support for that 1988 law, which was subsequently repealed. Indeed David Cameron predicted that the first openly gay Prime Minister in the UK would be a Tory. We will see, but that is what he predicted.
So you could see a huge change in attitudes in the space of two decades. This development in attitudes, which my colleague, Charles Tannock, knows a lot more about, and this move by the centre right are reflected in a quite modest and moderate EPP resolution and, indeed, in Simon Busuttil's opening remarks. I am hopeful that the EPP might be able to rally to the main resolution if most of their amendments are accepted in the vote tomorrow.
The situation in the UK has been transformed to the extent that the proprietors of a small guest house were today forced to pay compensation to a gay couple whom they refused to allow to stay, in breach of the law. As the judge remarked, these proprietors were perfectly at liberty to hold or discuss their personal views on homosexuality, but what they could not do was discriminate on the basis of those views. It is talk, discussion, debate, right of assembly that would be affected by the proposed Lithuanian laws.
Banning the promotion or propagation of homosexuality is likely to have a chilling effect on free speech and discussions, as the Fundamental Rights Agency has pointed out. I join Sophie in 't Veld in calling for an EU road map to combat homophobia and discrimination and I call on everyone across the political spectrum in this House to unite in support of the whole range of human rights.
Madam President, this is not the first time that Lithuania has violated the EU's basic values and the EU Treaty. Their Parliament seems to be becoming ever more shameless in the way in which it is curtailing gay rights.
We must take action to stop this. The values and laws of the EU cannot be treated like an à la carte menu - we will take this dish, but not that one. Anyone who wants to become and remain a member of the EU must comply with all our legislation. That applies to Lithuania, but it equally applies to France and the Netherlands. Suppose the Netherlands, for example, starts tampering with the rights of migrants at some point in the future. We must take action. If we do not do this, it will mean that no one in the Union will actually be able to feel that they are really well protected.
I am pleased that the Commissioner has immediately started a legal analysis and I hope it will be followed up on very soon. Because, surely, we cannot allow a situation where people first become a casualty of these laws and then have to go to neighbouring Member States to seek their rights as EU citizens through the European Court of Human Rights.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, the EU is founded on the principle that all its citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Every country that wants to become a Member State of the EU must commit to that principle and be signatory to the ECHR, not least with regard to sexual orientation.
When Lithuania joined the EU seven years ago, it pledged to uphold our common values of tolerance and equality. Since then, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights - and I believe its Articles 12 and 21 - have come into force, further guaranteeing in law citizens' freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation at EU institutional level.
As a spokesman for my party and group on human rights issues outside the Union, I can say categorically that the ECR upholds and endorses principles of equality, tolerance and diversity everywhere.
However, many Europeans do hold traditional views with regard to homosexuality, often based on religious conviction. Just as we seek to uphold the law to protect LGBT rights, so too should we seek to ensure that those who wish to express contrary, non-inflammatory views within the bounds of the law regarding free speech should be free to do so as well.
Undoubtedly, Lithuanian society remains, by and large, conservative and we should understand that. People are entitled to their own private views, but at an institutional and legal level, we cannot compromise on the principle that we are all equal. Equality is a hallmark of our progressive society in Europe, and I believe in fact that the legal safeguards and individual rights guaranteed by the EU acted as a kind of magnet to countries such as Lithuania as they emerged from communist totalitarian domination.
I would therefore urge the Lithuanian authorities to reflect on the fact that the EU is committed to preventing the marginalisation, vilification and persecution of minorities that was so commonplace throughout Europe for the first half of the 20th century. The Commission should indeed look at this proposed draft Lithuanian piece of legislation and pronounce whether or not, in its opinion, this piece of legislation is compatible with EU law - although, as Simon Busuttil put it, it is entirely possible that this bill will not become law, as Lithuania is a democracy and is only too well aware of all the issues we are going to raise in this debate tonight.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Madam President, the proposed law to ban what is called the public promotion of gay relations in Lithuania is another excuse to crush the rights of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people in that state.
How cruelly ironic that a country which threw off the shackles of Stalinist dictatorship only 20 years ago should now revert to aping one of the many crimes of that system: the suppression of the right of people to live freely and in peace according to their own sexual identity.
I salute the courage of the hundreds of gay people and their supporters who braved the hate campaign against them to march in the Baltic Pride parade in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius, in May of last year. It is revolting to see right-wing politicians scapegoating gay people in Lithuania. The political establishment in that country has dismally failed its people, particularly the youth. Just as in Ireland, market capitalism and financial speculation have devastated the economies of the Baltic States, including Lithuania, where unemployment has rocketed to 18% and youth unemployment to a staggering 35%. In these circumstances, using minorities, including gay people, as scapegoats is a standard, cynical way to divert attention from the failures of the establishment.
Just as in the hate campaign against gays in Uganda, the homophobic campaign in Lithuania tries to insinuate that gay people pose a threat to children, implying sexual abuse of children. This is a poisonous slander, designed to confuse and mislead. It is a slander that would have parents look in the wrong direction to protect their children. Coming from Ireland, I can confirm tragically that threats to children come traditionally from within institutions where they are supposed to be safe, within certain families and within certain areas of the Catholic Church.
It is reprehensible that young people in Lithuania coping with their emerging sexuality - which is a difficult enough time - must now do so in a climate of intolerance and fear. So, we should stand in solidarity with the right of all people in Lithuania, in Russia, throughout the European Union, and elsewhere, to live in peace and in accordance with their own identities.
(BG) Madam President, the main message I get from the contributors is that they assume that the proposed changes will discriminate against homosexuals. However, they are not sure of this. It is just an assumption. That is why I was reminded a little of the film Minority Report, in which the local police used clairvoyants to convict people before they had committed the crime.
At the moment, Lithuania is precisely in this position: it is being condemned for something it has not yet done. Here also lies another fundamental problem which will haunt us for years to come, and that is the conflict between the different rights of different groups.
You know, for example, that the right to assembly which we are discussing here now is not unrestricted and absolute. An assembly must be peaceful; it has to be held under certain conditions which do not threaten public order.
I know this goes beyond the context of this particular case, but do not forget that in future, these conflicts of rights will become a huge problem for the European Union more and more often, and that, if we continue to expand the scope of so-called citizen's rights and freedoms, we will reach a point where we will have to decide whose rights and freedoms have priority over others.
(PL) Madam President, in Lithuania at the present time, we have a situation where, on the one hand, we are talking about the right of every democratically-elected government to create its own laws in its own country and, on the other, about the obligation to abide by human rights protected by European Union law and international conventions. The role of the European Parliament is undoubtedly, inter alia, to consider every case where there may be a violation of human rights, which may also result from membership of particular social groups. Parliament has proposed resolutions in this regard on numerous occasions. It has always opposed the violation of these rights.
Today's debate is also a result of the concern that a proposed change to Lithuanian law could lead to the restriction, for example, of freedom of speech in Lithuania on the grounds of sexual orientation. This concern is well-founded in the sense that the European Parliament has repeatedly raised instances of selective treatment of human rights in Lithuania by the government of that country. I am thinking here of ethnic minority groups in particular, which are not treated equally in Lithuanian law regarding the rights due to them. This is why it is worth stressing that draft laws of a country should comply with defined standards and be in accordance with European Union law, which guarantees equal treatment for specified minorities, including ethnic minorities.
(LT) Madam President, today, as we debate what is a sensitive issue for my country Lithuania, I would, above all, like to stress that, as an EU Member State, Lithuania respects human rights and freedoms and EU values. Unfortunately, there have been cases where individual Members of the Lithuanian Parliament have initiated laws that violate human rights and discriminate against citizens. However, I would like to report that last Wednesday, the Lithuanian Government gave a negative conclusion on the proposal debated in the Lithuanian Parliament to introduce penalties for the public promotion of homosexual relations, because it is contrary to international and European Union legislation, as well as the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and is regarded as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In addition, having ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, Lithuania must respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which prohibits any form of discrimination, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. This bill was condemned by the President of the Republic of Lithuania, Ms Dalia Grybauskaitė. I would like to point out that the amendments proposed in the bill have not yet been adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania. Furthermore, the Lithuanian Parliament's Committee on Human Rights has yet to present its conclusion on these proposed amendments. I hope that Lithuania will take into account EU and international criticism, the negative conclusion of the government of the Republic of Lithuania and the European Parliament resolution, and that the Lithuanian Parliament will have the political will to reject the law proposed, which would violate human rights and freedoms, and that all discrimination will be stopped, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Madam President, I think it is pretty clear that the message we want to send to the Lithuanian Parliament - and not only to them but also to all those who still presume to debate what are basic facts - is more necessary than ever. I think there are two facts of which we need to remind some colleagues who may have forgotten them. The first is that homosexuality has been declassified as a mental illness; and the second, which is particularly relevant here, is that there is no credible research to show that educating children about homosexuality can affect their sexual orientation.
These are facts, and no legal text or proposed legislation can contradict them. So the message we want to send tomorrow is simply to remind our colleagues that these matters should not be up for discussion. That is why we need to pass this resolution and that is why we also need to support the attempts by the President of Lithuania to stop what is happening. But I insist: the message is directed not only at the Lithuanians but also at all those who still presume, on occasion, to put such matters up for discussion.
(PL) Madam President, it seems to me that there is no more hypersensitive Parliament in the world as regards the protection of the rights of sexual minorities than the European Parliament. The Lithuanian law, which was badly translated in the resolution which we are to vote on, has not yet been passed. The European Parliament is already beginning to criticise one of its Member States. I believe that we should not interfere in the sovereign legislative process in Lithuania, a sovereign state.
We should certainly show more confidence in the legislative process in Lithuania and more understanding for those members of the Lithuanian Parliament who are actually pointing out that children and young people in particular should be better protected against frequently aggressive exposure to material with a sexual content. This is a completely natural debate. It seems that the rights of children in this debate have been completely disregarded. We will not find confidence, respect for sovereignty, restraint or consideration for children's rights in this resolution. This is why we cannot endorse this resolution.
(PL) Madam President, the majority of European Union citizens believe that everyone is equal and everyone has the same rights. However, in some European countries, the level of tolerance for sexual minorities is still too low. There are cases of incitement of hatred towards homosexuals, prohibition of marches for equality, and even legal regulations which contravene European Union law, such as the discriminatory Lithuanian draft law. The creation of a uniform, minimal EU level of protection for people affected by discrimination due to age, sexual orientation, disability, religion or world-view would put a stop to these practices. When will this happen? The complete separation of church and state is important, as homophobia is spreading in those areas where religion plays too great a role. Even now, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries across the world, and 8 Islamic countries impose the death penalty for homosexual relations. In Europe, at most we only have provisions or draft laws which discredit the free world. This is why our resolution and the EU Anti-Discrimination Directive are so important.
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment which is currently being examined by the Lithuanian Parliament and which would make it a punishable offence to publicly promote homosexuality, was drafted within the framework of a law for the protection of minors against the detrimental effects of public information.
How can we, supposedly for the sake of protecting minors, undermine both freedom of expression and of information, and, above all, sanction discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? We know very well that a text of this kind leads to concealing one's sexual orientation and runs counter to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights which we have defended and which this Parliament has defended. Furthermore, at a time when we are witnessing acts of violence and aggression towards homosexuals, this is an incitement to criminalising homosexuality and a call for violence. We cannot give to young people an image of Europe as a society that is closed, intolerant, inward-looking and that disregards respect for other people.
For us, therefore, this law is in complete contradiction with European values, as contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As has been said, it also goes against the whole antidiscriminatory corpus of Union law, which has greatly contributed to making our national laws more egalitarian in many aspects of everyday life from employment to information or education.
I thank you, Commissioner, for making a very clear statement, and I would like all groups to understand your argument as well as that of my fellow Members. I would like to call upon all fellow Members from all the political groups to join with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), the Greens/European Free Alliance (Verts/ALE) and the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), who have taken the initiative in drafting this resolution.
(SK) Madam President, why is this Parliament getting involved in a bill submitted by one member of a national parliament? I would like to ask when it was that we began to dictate to Member State lawmakers what they could discuss and what not?
Neither this debate nor the motion for a resolution, which we will vote on tomorrow, relate to a law currently in force. They relate to a non-binding text which is the subject of a debate in the parliament of an EU Member State. The law which potentially threatens media freedom in Hungary is a law currently in force.
Most of us, however, ultimately take the view that, before getting involved in it, we should give the Hungarian Government time to amend the law, if necessary. If nothing else, let us be consistent.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us also put this resolution on hold, at least until the end of the debate in the Lithuanian parliament.
(LT) Madam President, I am from Lithuania, and the resolution being debated today is based on one amendment to the Code of Administrative Offences. I would stress that this is an unfinished legislative process in the national parliament with which the European Parliament is trying to interfere. This is the reading stage, not a final decision, and there have not even been any debates or discussions in the committee. For the sake of justice, I have to say that the institutions that had to evaluate our Parliamentary Group's amendment presented conclusions which are not favourable to the draft, meaning that the projected result being discussed today will probably not be the one we are speaking of here. I therefore cannot support the resolution, as it is an excessive reaction. Once again, I would like to address my friend Mr Higgins. Please do not refer to something you have not experienced. Comparing today's Lithuania with the Soviet Union is simply incomprehensible.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ban discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union oblige the bodies of the EU and all the Member States to fight discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Lithuania is a Member State of the EU and has thus undertaken to share these common values of the 500 million citizens of the Union. Firstly, I welcome the fact that following our first resolution in 2009, the planned act entered into force in Lithuania in a less severe form and that we have not yet become aware of any instance of this law having been applied, and that its application in respect of the ban on the Christopher Street Day Parade failed and the parade took place. I am all the more astonished, therefore, that new legislative measures are now being proposed under which speaking publicly about or providing information on homosexual relations could effectively result in fines of up to EUR 2 900 and there will no longer be equal opportunities for homosexual people - but at least for women.
I therefore welcome the Commission's strategy to combat homophobia and would particularly like to thank Commissioner Reding for emphasising the importance of protecting these fundamental rights through her attendance here in plenary when the time is nearly midnight.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I have noted very broad agreement in this House by all the major political parties on the principle of non-discrimination. I believe that if there were a resolution that really underlined this principle and its application in national law - an obligation that the national states have signed up to vis-à-vis the rules of Europe - then this would be a very important moment.
Those parliamentarians who have clearly stated that we are speaking here about a law which is not a law but a proposal by some parliamentarians are right to highlight this fact, but I would also like to point out that both the President of Lithuania and the government of Lithuania have spoken out clearly against those proposals made by some parliamentarians.
I hope that a nearly unanimous decision in tomorrow's vote will underline these principles which have been freely agreed upon by 27 Member States, which are the principles behind our European directives, and which have been reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I can only subscribe to the strong position of this Parliament.
I have received two motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 19 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - While we are critical of the violations of civil liberties in third countries, we must exercise similar scrutiny in the Member States. It is very disappointing that the Lithuanian Parliament has gone as far as criminalisation of the dissemination of information about sexual orientation on the pretext of protecting minors, religious feelings and political convictions. It is a clear violation of freedom of expression and it cannot be justified even by the will of the majority of the population. Inviolable rights of minorities are always an attribute of democracy, but the Lithuanian Parliament has mistaken populism for democracy. I would like to see the Lithuanian Parliament amending or repealing laws that are, in their essence, homophobic and in breach of the Lithuanian constitutional law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I applaud the courage of the Lithuanian President, Dalia Grybauskaitė, in standing up against discrimination in public and hope that others will follow her suit. However, should the Lithuanian Parliament fail to comply with its international obligations, an intervention on behalf of the European Union is needed.


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement - Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and Serbia (debate)
The first item on the agenda is the joint debate on the EC-Serbia Agreement
EC-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Recommendation by Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Recommendation on the draft Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part [15619/1/2007 - C7-0341/2010 - 2007/0255(NLE)]
Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and Serbia. Council and Commission statements
Madam President, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and Serbia was signed in April 2008, and the transitional, interim trade agreement with Serbia has been successfully implemented since February 2010.
The ratification process began in September 2008 when the Serbian Parliament first ratified this agreement.
The agreement provides a political, legal and economic framework for cooperation between the European Union and Serbia, and Serbia was unable to continue along the path of European integration without the ratification process getting under way.
In 2009, there were no reports of Serbia on the European Parliament's agenda because the ratification process in the Member States stalled following Serbia's failure to cooperate fully with the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). To date, eleven Member States have ratified this agreement, which is why, today, I call on the remaining Member States to do the same as soon as possible.
If, today, we ratify the agreement in this higher assembly, we will be sending a strong and visible message of support for Serbia's European efforts. That alone, however, will not ensure a successful completion of the ratification process.
The resolution on Serbia, on which we will be voting tomorrow, carries precisely this message of support. We need to support Serbia along its long and difficult path to membership of the European Union.
As a country which has long been isolated and which has remained outside the modern tide of European politics and economy, Serbia is facing many challenges.
In the past two years, we have witnessed the political scene in Serbia becoming more pro-European. Serbian leaders will provide us with the best evidence of their sincere commitment to European values and way of life if they successfully resolve problems and implement all the reforms that are necessary.
We have already seen some positive developments. We have sincerely welcomed Serbia's willingness to compromise and the adoption by the UN General Assembly of a joint resolution on Kosovo in September 2010.
On 1 January 2011, Serbia abolished compulsory military service, and generations of young Serbian citizens have been given an additional opportunity to learn, study and develop. Civilian supervision of the armed forces has also been strengthened.
On the other hand, Serbia's advancement towards the EU has very much been hampered by the fact that two individuals indicted for war crimes by the ICTY remain at large.
Ratko Mladić has been on the run for more than 15 years since the genocide in Srebrenica, that greatest of crimes perpetrated on European soil since World War II.
We welcome the statement of the Serbian Government that they consider the finalisation of their cooperation with the Hague Tribunal to be a priority. However, we call on the Serbian authorities, as the main ICTY prosecutor has said, to reduce convincingly the gap between the political will they have shown and concrete results.
The time has come for Serbia to close this painful chapter and to make a new step towards reconciliation in the region.
Serbia will not be able to secure candidate status until it demonstrates that it is fully cooperating with the Hague Tribunal, as stated in the Council conclusions of 25 October 2010.
The most compelling evidence of this would be the arrests and extradition of those who have been indicted. Serbia's efforts to date to bring this about have not produced results and they remain inadequate.
Significant shifts in regional relations in the Western Balkans, evidenced most of all by the relationship between Serbia and Croatia, have been achieved. We welcome the stance of the Serbian President, whose new approach has given a powerful impetus to a lasting reconciliation in the region.
Despite that, there are still further challenges. Belgrade must demonstrate a constructive relationship in the upcoming dialogue with Priština and, regardless of the issue of Kosovo's status, the relationship between Belgrade and Priština must become a partnership, so that the whole region is more easily able to progress towards Europe.
This also holds true for Serbia's relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Belgrade needs to support the reforms that will enable Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a country with its own institutions, to negotiate on its membership of the European Union. At the moment, that is still not the case.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, it is a great privilege and honour for me to return to the European Parliament in my new capacity as the representative of the Hungarian rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union. I hope, honourable Members, that you will consider me a former Member of this House, and as a guarantee that the Hungarian Presidency will be a Parliament-friendly Presidency.
I look forward to working with you all during the forthcoming five-and-a-half months of this Presidency, with great expectations. I shall now use my mother tongue.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to take part in this debate after which Parliament will vote on the approval of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement signed with the Republic of Serbia. I should also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the rapporteur of the European Parliament, Mr Jelko Kacin, who drafted an excellent report on the subject, and to warmly welcome the resolution on Serbia's European integration process. Similarly to other countries in the region, the prospect of European membership has benefited Serbia as well, and the country has made considerable progress in this direction over recent years. In this context, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is an important step forward for Serbia on the road to the European Union.
The agreement strengthens the already close ties between the European Union and Serbia, and creates a contractual relationship between the two parties. The agreement establishes a new framework for political dialogue. It creates a free trade area and strengthens bilateral economic relations, through which it is intended to bring major economic benefits to Serbia. The agreement encourages the reform processes which will contribute to the growth of the Serbian economy and help Serbia develop a fully functioning market economy. Furthermore, the agreement lays the foundations for increased cooperation in numerous areas to evolve between the European Union and Serbia in the future, last but not least, in the fight against organised crime and illegal cross-border trade, as well as with regard to improving current environmental protection regulations.
The Council started the ratification process for the agreement on 14 June 2010. To date, eleven Member States, including, of course, Hungary, have endorsed the agreement through their parliaments. We are very confident that all the Member States will ratify it within a short period of time. The Council would welcome the Stabilisation and Association Agreement coming into force by the end of 2011, but by early 2012 at the latest. This would mean that Serbia would enter into an ambitious contractual relationship with the European Union at precisely the time when it starts making more intensive preparations for accession. Your votes will do even more to give prominence to and further this process, due to the unanimous support that was expressed by all political forces at the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 1 December. Serbia expressed its commitment to the European Union by its request for accession submitted in December 2009. In October last year, the Council asked the Commission to submit its opinion. This can be expected in the second half of 2011.
We are all aware that the European integration process has numerous advantages for Serbia. At the same time, Serbia still needs to make major reforms. These include further endeavours in the fields of public administration and the rule of law, justice reform, the fight against corruption and organised crime, and cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
As the report submitted by Mr Kacin also states, the integration process advances on the basis of the progress made in this area. I welcome the fact that many results have already been achieved. At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity to point out that last year, Serbia took historic steps towards peace with its neighbours in the region. I also welcome Serbia's close cooperation with the European Union in the summer of 2010 and the resultant UN resolution that opened the way to dialogue between Belgrade and Priština. The Council fully supports High Representative Ashton in the work she has done in this area. This is a major challenge, but the possibility of creating a dialogue offers both Kosovo and Serbia the chance of coming closer to the European Union.
Lastly, allow me to share a concluding thought with you. I am convinced that the European Union must maintain the credibility of the enlargement process. The means of doing this are in our hands. I believe that if the accession negotiations with Croatia can be concluded successfully during the Hungarian Presidency, this will give a very positive sign to Serbia as well that the process is alive, and that the Balkan countries have a place in the family of the nations of the European Union.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 2011 will be an important year for Serbia, which will bring both challenges and opportunities. I welcome the opportunity which this new agreement gives Serbia so that we may build together a joint future in a peaceful Europe.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to address the European Parliament today for the vote of consent to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the Republic of Serbia. I would also like to express my warm gratitude to the rapporteur for Serbia, Jelko Kacin, for his report on the European integration process of Serbia.
The Stabilisation and Association Agreement is a major step forward for Serbia on its path towards the European Union. The fundamental objective of this agreement is to pave the way for further European integration and reforms and to prepare Serbia for European Union membership. This important milestone will serve as an encouragement for Serbia, as it has renewed its efforts to promote reconciliation in the region.
The Stabilisation and Association Agreement sets up a comprehensive institutional framework through the SAA Council and SAA Committee, a renewed framework for political dialogue, and a network of subcommittees extensively covering most European Union policy areas. Naturally, it also establishes a specific body between this House and the Serbian Parliament, the Joint Parliamentary Committee.
From an economic standpoint, the SAA foresees the gradual establishment of a free trade zone and the gradual integration of Serbia into the European Union's internal market, thus bringing economic benefits for both the European Union and Serbia. As was the case in central Europe in the 1990s, the agreement will boost investment, in particular, for indirect investments. It will make a key contribution to the growth of the Serbian economy and help Serbia move towards a functioning market economy.
The benefits of this agreement for the European Union are equally significant. Serbia's market has now been opened up to European Union exporters. Previously relatively high tariffs will be totally dismantled within a couple of years, with the exception of a few very sensitive agricultural products.
Furthermore, by gradually integrating Serbia into the internal market, conditions for investors will become more stable and predictable. Rules on competition and State aid are aligned to those of the European Union. Protection of intellectual property rights is also gradually being brought up to European Union standards. The sizeable Serbian public procurement market is also being progressively opened up to European bidders.
Forging closer ties with Serbia entails a number of other advantages for the European Union in particular, as it will facilitate cooperation in the areas of justice, freedom and security, the environment, transport and customs, to mention just a few. It therefore helps make the European Union's policy in south-east Europe more credible and effective.
Finally, it is particularly noteworthy that Serbia brought forward the implementation of the interim agreement. It officially entered into force in February 2010, but Serbia decided to apply it shortly after it was signed in April 2008. Serbia has thereby demonstrated a commitment to its economic integration with the European Union and has so far established a positive track record.
Since 14 June 2010, when the Council decided to launch the ratification process for the agreement, nine Member States have notified ratification and two more have secured the approval of their parliaments. Today's vote by the European Parliament should therefore provide additional impetus for this process thanks to the unanimous support from across the political groups. I hope that ratification by the other Member States will follow soon.
Let me conclude by focusing on the motion for a resolution on the European integration process of Serbia as a well-prepared contribution to today's political debate. I am therefore grateful to the rapporteur, Jelko Kacin. The resolution sends Serbia both a message of support for enhancing EU-Serbia relations, and a message of expectation in relation to the key challenges on Serbia's path to European Union membership. This is particularly timely in the context of the preparations of the opinion on Serbia's membership application.
I was in Belgrade last November to hand over a detailed questionnaire to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for European integration. The Serbian authorities are currently working hard on their replies, which we expect by the end of the month. I am encouraged by the Serbian Government's adoption on 30 December of an action plan as a follow-up to the Commission's progress report. The Commission will thoroughly analyse the replies to the questionnaires and the steps taken by the Serbian authorities in the coming months to complete its assessment with a view to issuing the opinion in the second half of 2011.
As my Hungarian colleague said, 2011 is an important year for Serbia: a year of demanding challenges as well as a year of opportunities. The path has been set and the objectives are well known, yet it is up to Serbia to walk down that path, fulfil the required criteria, and, once ready, engage in the negotiation process with the European Union. I am convinced that, with our joint support, Serbia will continue to make the right European choices and move ahead in its integration efforts. This will deliver a positive message for the whole region at a time when we need to reaffirm its European perspective in order to consolidate peace and foster economic prosperity in the Western Balkans.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, in my view, the report on Serbia is excellent. I congratulate the rapporteur, Jelko Kacin.
It seems to me that Serbia has finally made up its mind that it genuinely wants a European future for itself. The majority of the political elite believes that this is the most favourable option. This determination has to be seen in the light of the turbulence of the last two decades. Serbia experienced the end of communism, the collapse of Yugoslavia, the wars that ensued, the rule of Slobodan Milošević, the bombing of 1999, burgeoning mafias and criminality, violence, refugees - a depressing and traumatic history. The decision to opt for Europe, therefore, is a considerable achievement and signals that Serbia has become a factor of stability in the region.
Two major political problems remain: the arrest and transfer of Ratko Mladić to The Hague, and coming to terms with the independence of Kosovo. Both these point towards psychological barriers. Mladić has his protectors, and the loss of Kosovo is painful for a sizeable section of Serbian society; any loss of territory is painful. To these may be added several other areas that need attention, notably, the upgrading of public administration and of the administration of justice, the establishment of market conditions and full openness towards Serbia's past, including opening up the archives.
The auguries for Serbia's road towards Europe are reasonably good. There is a clear commitment in this direction. The tasks faced by the elite and by society are recognised and the technical preparations are going ahead. If all goes well, Serbia should receive the opinion this autumn and candidate status after that. The road to Europe will not be easy, but Europe as a whole benefits from a stable, democratic Serbia.


1. Border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia (


Rare diseases (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Trakatellis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a Council recommendation on a European action in the field of rare diseases - C6-0455/2008 -.
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, this Council recommendation is very timely, because concerted action in the field of rare diseases is an absolute necessity, both at European Union level and at national level.
Although the incidence for each rare disease is very low, millions of people are affected in the European Union because these diseases are measured in thousands. However, the proposal as received by Parliament was insufficient in its current state and it was not possible to produce a viable programme out of it. This is because it does not describe, at least in general terms, both the necessary funding by the European Union and the cofinancing by Member States or other organisations.
Thus it is not possible to promote certain essential aspects on rare diseases, namely the creation of networks of centres of expertise, cataloguing of diseases, collection of data, the special research required and so forth. The text asks for an implementation proposal from the Commission five years after the adoption, which is a long period during which nothing can be done in practice as there is no funding provided.
Therefore, as rapporteur, I propose that the Commission be asked to provide the implementation proposal at the latest by the end of 2012, since by this date the required data from Member States on expert centres and expertise on rare diseases will be at hand.
In this implementation proposal, specific mention should be made for funding and cofinancing in the following areas:
Firstly, the collection of epidemiological data and compiling a catalogue of rare diseases, as this is necessary in order to have a clear picture of the field of these diseases in the European Union.
Secondly, the formation of relevant networks.
Thirdly, the creation, in addition to existing expert centres, of new centres in Member States which lack such centres, the creation of special training courses in the existing centres for professionals to acquire the necessary expertise, the mobilisation of experts and professionals in order to create the necessary conditions for advancing existing knowledge and for research on diagnostic tools and tests on rare diseases and especially on genetic ones.
We should be viewing this Council recommendation as a roadmap to create helpful conditions in the field of rare diseases. We should also understand that it is of a general nature, but I would like to stress once more that, in order to be efficiently and successfully applied, the proposal needs to be more precise and to make provision for a specific timetable and funding.
An important aspect in combating rare diseases is patient mobility. This has already been examined in the Bowis report and I believe that patient mobility is absolutely justified here, because there are no special centres or experts able to undertake the treatment of patients in all the Member States. Consequently, it is absolutely vital here to make provision for patient mobility and for mobility of professionals, so that some can obtain expertise and others can pass on their experience.
Finally, I should say that, for rare genetic diseases, research and innovation are absolutely necessary in order to increase the number of diagnostic tests.
Most of the report concerns treatment, diagnosis, the acquisition of expertise and the creation of centres and networks. One point also concerns prevention. Prevention of genetic diseases is possible nowadays through a combination of in vitro fertilisation and pre-implantation tests. Because it is a recommendation, it is not binding on the Member States. The report states that it will only be carried out in the Member States whose legislation so allows and by the free will and choice of the persons who wish to follow this genetic advice and, therefore, I do not see that it clashes with the principle of subsidiarity as regards existing data.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rare diseases are dangerous and very complex diseases that threaten life or cause chronic invalidity. Despite their low prevalence the number of patients in the EU with these diseases is relatively high, and joint action is therefore necessary at an EU level. These are also reasons why the area of rare diseases is an EU health strategy priority.
The Czech Presidency believes that after the Council adopts the draft proposal on European action in the area of rare diseases there will be significant advances and improvements in the diagnosis of rare diseases, which is currently problematic due to the nature of rare diseases. Conditions will also improve for a much-needed sharing of expertise and experience in this area.
Due also to these reasons the Czech Presidency has taken an active approach in negotiating the draft, carrying forward the work of the French Presidency and the discussions at the EPSCO Council in December 2008.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council share similar views on this matter. The initiative is necessary as it should improve the current situation for millions of patients suffering from these diseases and it should lead to an improvement in their chances of receiving adequate care and comprehensible information.
This should be achieved, for example, through the creation of common definitions of rare diseases, further development of EU activities based on the Orphanet network, coordination of European research including cooperation with third countries, the creation and support of centres of expertise and the development of European reference networks for rare diseases. The Council also recognises the key role played by independent patients' organisations in developing and implementing national policies in the area of rare diseases.
The Czech Presidency is at present completing negotiations on the draft proposal in the working bodies of the Council and it will try to get it accepted by the EPSCO Council in June this year. However, due to the importance of this issue the Council has decided to consult the European Parliament also in this case, and it will carefully consider Parliament's opinion.
I would like to end by once again thanking everyone who took part in preparing the European Parliament report and particularly the rapporteur Antonios Trakatellis for drawing it up.
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, I should like to thank all the honourable Members who were involved in the work by Parliament on the proposal for a Council recommendation in the field of rare diseases.
I should like, in particular, to thank the rapporteur, Rector Antonios Trakatellis, for coordinating the discussions and, of course, for his report.
Rare diseases, which individually affect a very small number of people and the majority of which are genetic diseases, can lead to death or chronic disability. However, even though the incidence of each individual rare disease may be very low, as a whole these diseases affect approximately 6% of the total population of the European Union in some aspect of their lives.
This means that, in the European Union, between 29 and 36 million people are affected or are likely to be affected by a rare disease. However, because each disease is rare, it is impossible for each Member State to have the expertise needed to diagnose it and treat the patients. This is therefore an excellent example in the health sector where Europe can add particular value, which is why the Commission has approved the strategic action.
The European strategy is supplemented by the proposal for a Council recommendation on action within the Member States. The aim of this draft recommendation is to help Member States deal with rare diseases more effectively, more efficiently and more globally. One important sector for action is in collecting expertise via the European reference networks. These networks can add value to action by the Member States on rare diseases and in other cases. They can also facilitate the exchange of know-how and expertise and, where necessary, direct patients as to where they should go when this expertise cannot reach them.
The Commission's proposal for a directive on patients' rights to cross-border healthcare includes special provisions to support patient mobility and provide a legal framework for the European reference networks.
There are still many ways in which European action can support the Member States in combating rare diseases, such as by improved identification and recognition of diseases, by supporting research into rare diseases and with mechanisms such as regulation of orphan medicinal products.
My thanks therefore to Parliament for its support on the broad spectrum of issues covered by this report. I await your debate with a great deal of interest.
Mr President, patients affected by rare diseases suffer misdiagnoses and, often, receive no treatment.
The rarity of these diseases creates challenges both from a scientific and an economic viewpoint. Now, having been the rapporteur on the regulation on orphan medicinal products, ten years ago, I know how these patients are too few to be a local or regional issue and how, on the other hand, the diseases are too numerous to be taught to health professionals. Expertise is therefore rare.
The response, of necessity, involves Europe, and our Committee on Industry, Research and Energy supports Mr Trakatellis in his desire to strengthen research and prevention. How can we deny, for example, a couple whose two children are affected by cystic fibrosis and who wish to have a third child, advances in research to prevent the latter being affected by the same disease? This is why patients need more coordination, more safety and more clarity. These are essential issues that meet Europe's citizens' expectations of a Europe for health.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, helping patients who suffer from rare diseases has long been a major concern of the European Parliament. Patients who suffer from rare diseases - this has been said - need European support. National efforts in this area do not suffice. Because these diseases are so rare, there are not centres and experts for them in every Member State. For research - and this is a very important point - you need a certain number of patients for the disease to be researched at all and for it to be possible to develop new therapies. The same applies to the development of new drugs. Mrs Grossetête talked of the Regulation on orphan medicinal products, which is very important.
The Commission's initiative, Commissioner, is also very important. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support you wholeheartedly on this and we also support the many improvements that have been made by Mr Trakatellis in this report. I have to say, however, on behalf of my group, that there is one amendment in Mr Trakatellis's report that goes against this fundamental aim of helping patients.
Amendment 15 talks of how genetic diseases should be avoided and eradicated through measures such as genetic counselling and the selection of embryos. This wording has shocked many people, and not only the ethics experts and the representatives of disabled groups, but scientists, too. The European Society of Human Genetics is calling on us to reject Amendment 15. They are making comparisons with the eugenics of the first half of the last century.
Politics should not exert pressure. Genetic counselling, likewise, should not be dominated by a political goal. We should therefore reject Amendment 15. We should vote in favour of this report - provided that Amendment 15 is rejected - as it is a sound report. Otherwise, it will be highly problematic. We should be helping people with rare diseases, not giving them the feeling that they are actually surplus to requirements.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) I am grateful to Mr Trakatellis for his fine report. If there is one area where cooperation in Europe is useful and provides added value, it is certainly the area of rare diseases. In the case of rare metabolic diseases, muscular diseases and also rare forms of cancer, it is practical and useful to work together in order to exchange information on treatment techniques and to join forces. These are all very important. The information must also be made accessible, and the Trakatellis report provides for all these matters.
I would like to draw your attention to three matters. First, patients must have a voice in Europe. In recent years we have seen increasingly well organised patient groups that also know their way around Europe, around Brussels. That is all very important and informative for politicians, for many of these rare diseases are, logically, largely unknown. It is good, therefore, to determine how these patient organisations are financed, and it is extremely important to ensure that these organisations are financed independently and are not solely dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. That is why I am arguing in favour of financing for these patient organisations.
Secondly, the development of medicines for rare diseases, the so-called orphan medicinal products, is of crucial importance. That is why we have directives, but it would be good to devote some attention to seeing whether this is actually working well.
Thirdly, this is a controversial subject that has also been tackled by Mr Liese. Many rare diseases are hereditary. Research and embryo selection can prevent much suffering, but it is important that the Member States retain the power to decide as to the eventual treatments such as pre-implementation and embryo selection. We support Amendment 15, but we wish to delete the reference to the eradication of illnesses. That term summons up very unpleasant associations, as Mr Liese has already said. We also consider it important for the treatments to be voluntary and that they should take place within the boundaries established by national governments. If these conditions are met, we are in favour of the amendment and call on everyone to support it, but the reference to the eradication of illnesses should be deleted. Under these conditions, we can agree fully with the report and are enthusiastic about the work of Mr Trakatellis. Thank you for your attention.
Mr President, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and to apologise for my late arrival in this debate, whilst welcoming the group of visitors, who are the reason for my slightly late arrival.
During a hearing on rare diseases that I organised in Parliament last year with Eurordis - the European patients' association - I pointed out that it was up to us, that it was up to Europe, to place the bar very high for these patients who are pinning all their hopes on research, and this is what our rapporteur has done here by considerably enhancing the Commission's text.
The small number of patients involved in each country and the fragmentation of knowledge across the Union make rare diseases the example par excellence for which concerted action at European level is an absolute necessity. Our unanimous desire is to have better knowledge of these diseases, to improve their diagnosis and their treatment and to give better care to patients and their families.
There remain, of course, the questions of the timetable and funding. Various options are available, and we are exploring them. Besides the funds granted by the European Union or by the States, it is also useful to find other sources of funding. One option that is working well in many Member States is public-private partnership.
I would be annoyed with myself if I did not mention here the considerable financial support also provided by citizens' actions: the Téléthon in France and Télévie in French-speaking Belgium. The latter has allowed no more and no less than a doubling of the budget for scientific research - a miserly budget, I might say in passing: EUR 13 per year per citizen, compared with EUR 50 in France and EUR 57 in Germany, to take but two examples.
I shall conclude, Mr President. Millions of patients in Europe are watching us. The will is there. It is up to us to ensure that this is more than just a catalogue of good intentions. Just one more thing: the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports Amendment 15.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it goes without saying that we support helping people with rare diseases. That said, Amendment 15 is completely unacceptable from an ethical point of view.
There must never again be a debate in Europe about whose life is worth living and whose not. There must be no political and social pressure on parents in Europe to consciously decide against having a disabled child. The selection of embryos would represent an opening of the ethical floodgates. For that reason we must reject this amendment. It is not enough just to remove the word 'eradicate', which is actually, it is sad to say, in line with fascist language use. Doing so would mean that we would still be faced with the selection of embryos. It would be insufferable if this amendment and its idea of selecting embryos were to become a stepping stone to a new ethics in Europe.
We must stand up resolutely against genetic discrimination. Amendment 15 must therefore be rejected in its entirety. Otherwise, our group will, unfortunately, be forced to come out against this report even though the rest of it is highly positive.
(NL) The Trakatellis report refers to a number of shortcomings in the Council's recommendations, and these observations are, in my opinion, correct. I, too, am convinced, by the way, that a coordinated approach by the European Union in the area of rare diseases is necessary. Yet neither the recommendation nor the report mentions the aspect of rare diseases that are coming in from the developing world.
Thus, for instance, we are seeing the return of tuberculosis, a disease that, until recently, had completely, or nearly completely disappeared from Europe and that is now being imported again through mass migration. Here, too, therefore, urgent action is needed in the form of specifying risk areas, exchanging information, conducting spot checks where the Community's external borders are crossed, etc. It is naturally of the greatest importance that public health policy should be given primacy over political correctness.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are aiming to work together to attain the best conditions for the provision of health care in Europe. Especially in rural areas of the European Union close to national borders - such as my home in the greater cross-border region between Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and France - the advancement of patient mobility, which we were just debating, is a particularly important building block for improving the provision of health care and making it more efficient. In everything we do, however, we must adhere to and retain the ethical standards of the Member States. This applies to DNA analysis just as it does to artificial insemination, and it also applies to rare diseases, the subject of Mr Trakatellis's report. Rare diseases need a stronger political framework in order to improve research and treatment, as companies prefer to invest in large markets.
In fighting for people's health we must not seek to eradicate rare diseases by, for example, selecting embryos. The matter at hand here, after all, is healing people. This one element represents a complete wrong turn for a report that otherwise takes a sound approach, and it is a turn that is morally perilous. In Amendment 15, it is not healing that is the focus, but selection. Who is to decide which life is worth living? Do we believe that prevention means preventing life? I do not think so. In my own country, and many other Member States besides, pre-implantation diagnosis is prohibited, and for good reason. That official European documents can use terms such as eradication and the selection of healthy embryos unabashedly is something that I find shocking and contrary to our stated goal of the acknowledgement and integration of those with disabilities and diseases into our society.
I ask you all to vote against Amendment 15 as a matter of imperative importance so that what is otherwise such a sound report by Mr Trakatellis will also be able to obtain a good majority.
(ET) I find that coordinated actions at the level of the European Union and the Member States in the area of rare diseases are absolutely crucial. I support the rapporteur's position that this recommendation by the Council and the plan of action in its present form are insufficient, and that it is not possible to create a functioning programme in the European Union on that basis. There are no specific recommendations and definite deadlines for implementation.
It will definitely not be possible to achieve a breakthrough in this area without efforts and funding from the European Union and Member States. I believe that rare diseases must undoubtedly receive special attention, and we must consider the specific needs of those several million citizens, to make it possible to guarantee them a dignified life in future. I do not concur with the claim by the previous speaker, Mr Claeys, that tuberculosis comes into Member States from third countries. I do not agree with that. Tuberculosis comes from poverty and homelessness, and in Member States with lower standards of living this disease is common today.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all MEPs for their comments, suggestions and observations. I was delighted to hear that in principle the opinions of the European Parliament and Council coincide over this issue. Of course, I cannot but agree with the rapporteur Mr Trakatellis's assertion that the draft applies to diseases which may be rare but which afflict thousands of people. I think it is important to say that in this area better coordination and cooperation between the Member States can deliver benefits for patients due to the specialised centres where financial benefits may accrue through the economies of scale that Commissioner Vassiliou has just been talking about. The Council will of course carefully consider all amendment proposals from the European Parliament and based on this will assess their inclusion in the final version of the draft proposal.
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate demonstrated the high level of interest in this important sector of public health.
European action in the field of rare diseases is an issue which has obtained general consent in all the institutions and I am grateful for Parliament's support for this initiative.
Rare diseases are incontrovertibly recognised as a public health sector to which 27 different national approaches would be inadequate and inefficient. This recommendation will allow us to address the particular problems associated with rare diseases and to try to improve the lives of people affected by them. In addition to the patients themselves, this action will also affect their relatives and friends.
We shall achieve this in large part by recommending to the Member States that they develop plans and strategies on rare diseases and by creating European reference networks.
As regards Rector Trakatellis's proposal that we prepare and present a report on the results of the recommendation by the end of 2012, we have no objection and shall bear it in mind.
Allow me now to turn to two or three references which were made by the honourable Members. First of all let me refer to Amendment 15 and to say that I wish to stress that ethical issues are outside the competence of the EU. This is particularly the case in this instance, due to legal differences in the Member States with regard to screening and the ethical choices that have to be made on the basis of that information.
There was reference to the need for funding. Funding for the treatment of rare diseases is for Member States to consider. The Commission hopes that these proposals will help to support the importance of such investment, as well as helping to make best possible use of the funds that are available through European cooperation.
Regarding additional Community funding, the limits on the current health programme are due to the overall financial perspective set by Parliament and the Council. If Parliament feels that more Community funding is needed for rare diseases, then Parliament must address these through the budgetary procedures.
Reference was made also by Mrs Corbey on the help we need to give patients' groups. The Commission agrees with the importance of patients' groups. We work closely with them and in particular with Eurordis. I recently hosted the launch of a book providing 12 000 patients' testimonials. That engagement of citizens is a vital part of work in this area.
(EL) Mr President, I should like to close by pointing out that, with improved access for patients to specialist healthcare, with support for research and development of effective treatment and with cross-border cooperation, we hope that patients will find the specialists they need more easily.
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I am most grateful to my fellow Members for their comments, to the Council for its comments and to Commissioner Vassiliou for her speech. She demonstrated that she is very open-minded and prepared at least to adopt the amendment in which we call on the Commission to table a proposal by the end of 2012, so that we can proceed quickly in the field of rare diseases in Europe.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place in a few minutes.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (IT) The prevention and treatment of any disease, including rare diseases, requires the utmost commitment of the public institutions, but treatment and prevention cannot come at the extremely high cost of sacrificing the life of any human beings, even if for the benefit of others. That would be fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the European Union, which was founded on the recognition of the equal dignity of members of the human family. Genetic diagnosis of embryos to choose the best and healthy ones while killing the others is unacceptable discrimination against humans. Some Member States allow it, but the European Union absolutely cannot encourage either laws or practices that allow it.
For this reason, notwithstanding my unwavering desire to fight every disease, I am opposed to a text whose worthy parts stand in contrast to the seriously negative content of Article 4, as it would be amended by Amendment 15.


Documents received: see Minutes