Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
(PT) Mr President, I have a point of order. This morning we held a vote here to justify negotiations that existed between the European Union and Morocco. Since a Commission document has just come out, dated today, saying that EU - Morocco negotiations on the agri-food and fisheries sectors are progressing, I should like to know if it was these negotiations that the Chairman of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament was referring to this morning when he used the negotiations as an argument to delete from today's agenda the topic on Aminatou Haidar, the Sahrawi fighter who has been on hunger strike for 32 days and is in a life-threatening condition at this very moment. This, then, is a point that needs to be duly clarified, because what happened here this morning is unacceptable.
Thank you, Mrs Figueiredo. Unfortunately, I cannot give you an answer, because I can no longer remember myself what the group chair said at midday today.
(ES) Mr President, two items were withdrawn from the agenda this morning. I wish to enquire about the resolution agreed between the parliamentary groups. Could you please clarify under which of the Rules of Procedure was the question raised and an on-the-spot vote taken to withdraw an agenda item we were due to debate this afternoon?
I believe this is an important issue and that Members of the House present today need to be informed appropriately as a matter of urgency.
Mrs Bilbao Barandica, this concerned a point of order under the terms of Rule 140 of the Rules of Procedure which allows the agenda to be changed. I regret that I can now only permit points of order. We will not be restarting this debate. I would like to point out that I will immediately cut off any speaker who attempts to begin the debate again.
(ES) Mr President, pursuant to Rule 177 of the Rules of Procedure, a group or at least 40 Members may indeed move that a debate be adjourned. This is what happened this morning, in a highly unusual manner. In fact, the Rules of Procedure state that if an adjournment is to be requested, the President of the House must be informed 24 hours in advance. The President must then inform Parliament immediately.
I would like to enquire whether this process was followed because the situation we find ourselves in is quite extraordinary: This is the first time that the European Parliament has been prevented from debating a resolution agreed by all the parliamentary groups in response to an extremely serious situation, such as the case of Mrs Haidar. I would therefore like to know if this process was followed. If it was not, the resolution should be debated immediately. The resolution agreed by all the parliamentary groups must be recovered and put to the vote.
Are there any other points of order?
(RO) I was only wanting to say that, in the meantime, Mr Schulz has arrived in the Chamber and we would be delighted if he could reply to the question which was asked by our fellow Member at the start while he was absent.
(Applause)
Mr Preda, that was a very brief question, but it was not a point of order.
(ES) Mr President, we, too, wish to refer to Rule 177 of the Rules of Procedure. With that rule in mind, we cannot understand how an item can be withdrawn from the agenda, unless this is done prior to the relevant debate or vote.
Consequently, we also believe the Rules of Procedure have been applied incorrectly. We therefore call on the President to resolve the matter.
As the questions refer to this point, I am happy to give you an answer. Under the terms of Rule 140(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the agenda can be changed under certain circumstances, including 'on a proposal from the President'. A point of order was raised by a group chair and the President agreed to a vote on it. This is in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
Mr President, on a point of order, regarding my request on behalf of my group, the ECR Group, to postpone the vote that Mr Schulz called for to 15.00 to give us enough time to understand what this was all about. That was not actually put to the House. The President just put to the House the Schulz motion, and did not put my request for a motion to postpone it to give us two or three hours to cool down and find out the facts. I object to the fact that was not actually put to the House.
Mr Tannock, the point of order raised by Mr Schulz is the ongoing point of order. Your point of order is therefore superfluous.
(ES) Mr President, I would like to emphasise what Mr Meyer has said. I shall be brief. A large number of Members, a large proportion of those present in this House, have been very surprised by the train of events surrounding this morning's proposal. The latter was voted through quite unexpectedly, and in a way that suggests it does not comply with the spirit of the provisions in force and is not in keeping with them.
I have explained my understanding of the Rules of Procedure to you. Therefore, the procedure is in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. I am not able to acknowledge other new points of order. I would like to ask for your forbearance. We have two further important points. Mr Salafranca, if you have a point of order, please go ahead. However, I must tell you that I will cut you off, if this is not the case.
(ES) Mr President, this is indeed a point of order. This morning, the President of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament asked for a motion for a joint resolution to be withdrawn from the agenda. This is an unprecedented decision, and strong arguments were adduced for it, namely that Mrs Haidar's life would be endangered.
With this in mind, my Group did not wish to compromise the situation, bearing in mind also the views expressed by Mr Schulz.
As I see it, however, there is no reason why a statement by this House should endanger Mrs Haidar's life. In particular, I cannot understand why it should be necessary to act in contravention of the Rules of Procedure.
Mr President, Rule 177 clearly states that submissions should be made 24 hours in advance and prior to the debate.
(The President cut off the speaker)
Mr Salafranca, I am very sorry, but it is no longer possible for us to investigate the motives of the Members of Parliament from earlier today. The question of what information has been received this afternoon is no longer a subject for today's agenda. I will therefore return to the agenda.
(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved)
(DE) Mr President, I believe that Rule 140 is not applicable to the urgency procedure and I would therefore ask you to have this checked by the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, because it could set a dangerous precedent.
I am happy to accept this suggestion, but it too was not a point of order.


Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework (short presentation)
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Stauner, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the principle of effective internal control is one of the most important budgetary principles that the Commission must observe when implementing the budget and utilising the funds. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Parliament have been calling for effective, efficient control of the budgetary resources for years, and numerous attempts and suggestions have been made by the ECA, in particular, seeking to ensure that the Commission uses these resources appropriately and economically. Nevertheless, the ECA has not been able to give the Commission a positive statement of assurance for years. I need only remind the House of the occurrences in connection with irregularities in the implementation of the Leonardo programme a few years ago, and other support areas that have always been very susceptible to irregularities and perhaps even to fraud.
In January 2006, the Commission adopted an action plan towards an integrated internal control framework, again with the aim of obtaining a positive statement of assurance from the ECA. As stated in our report, there is no doubt that the Commission has made some serious efforts to develop the action plan. However, it is quite clear to Parliament that the implementation of the measures is a long way behind schedule. Therefore, the Commission must speed up the implementation of the envisaged measures considerably so that positive effects can be seen in the ECA's Annual Report in the foreseeable future and also so that we Members of the European Parliament can grant a budget discharge with a clear conscience.
I do not want to go into the details of the still unsatisfactory implementation of the measures, but I would emphasise that efficient control activities are now all the more necessary considering that, in connection with the economic recovery package, almost all the criteria for the implementation of support measures have been significantly relaxed, including in the interests of providing rapid assistance. I need only remind you of the planned relaxation in the Structural Funds and of the significant changes in the eligibility principles with regard to the EU Globalisation Fund.
We know, of course, that all the support measures, particularly in the field of the Structural Funds, are implemented in close cooperation with the Member States, which is absolutely vital in order to guarantee the validity of the expenditure, but also generates substantial problems when it comes to control by the Commission.
We have known for years that the Commission cannot always approach such controls in the Member States as it would perhaps like and as dictated by the budgetary principles and the ideas of the ECA. Parliament has great difficulties in getting a final picture, particularly in the case of the annual summaries and management declarations at national level, which the Commission presented to us for the first time on 15 February 2008, as the documents do not keep to uniform criteria.
Therefore, our report - which was also adopted unanimously by the Committee on Budgetary Control - calls for continuous pressure to be exerted on the Member States to provide data that is both complete and comprehensible. It is my fervent hope that the Commission will continue to take seriously its task of introducing the internal control framework in future. Thank you very much.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I thank Mrs Stauner for her report and Parliament for the constructive dialogue we have had since the Commission undertook the action plan for a discharge, towards a positive statement of assurance.
In this context, the Commission feels that the statement of assurance issued by the Court of Auditors for 2007 is the best that has ever been obtained. The action plan has contributed to this improvement. I am pleased to tell you that the Commission brought forward to 3 February the adoption of its latest report on the progress achieved. As Mrs Stauner requested it in her report, this should allow you to take it into account in the discharge resolution.
Our communication of 3 February presents an initial assessment of the impact of the action plan as of 31 December 2008. It concludes that considerable progress has been achieved during the term of the current Commission. I will mention several of its points.
In terms of simplification, the proportion of the budget spent according to clearer and easier to apply eligibility rules has risen to 25% of the budget. In the framework of the economic recovery plan, we propose other simplification measures, in particular for the structural funds.
The Court of Auditors reported an improvement in the clarity and reliability of the annual activity reports on the Commission's services finalised under action No 3.
The Commission has reinforced the financial corrections- action No 11 in the structural funds -: in 2008, an amount of 1 billion 500 million was recovered. In comparison, the amount recovered in 2007 was 288 million.
The Commission services are increasingly applying common standards for control methods, ensuring improved coordination and sharing of the results. This is helping to reduce the administrative burden and allowing better use to be made of control results.
We continue to reinforce the responsibility of the Member States for shared management - action No 5 - and we have just received the annual audit summaries for the second time. The Commission will continue these actions along with other initiatives to improve the control framework.
Mrs Stauner's report stresses the key role of the concept of tolerable risk in the pursuit of future improvements. This concept aims to define at the policy level the acceptable balance between the control results and their costs. It is obvious that a zero error rate is impossible and it seems logical that the error rate may vary according to the area inspected.
The interinstitutional discussion of this concept is taking place on the basis of the recent Commission communication. Vice-President Kallas had the opportunity to discuss this in Parliament in January. I would like to stress the importance of this initiative, which will allow the discharge authority better to appreciate the quality of the risk management introduced by the Commission.
Our last report shows you that the Commission has completed the various actions. The Court of Auditors will make its own assessment of the impact of the various actions in its 2008 annual report.
I thank Mrs Stauner for her report, which is a call to improve our accounting framework still further.
That concludes this item. The vote will take place tomorrow.
in writing. - This report which aims to bring more transparency, efficiency and accountability to European spending, is more relevant than ever to implement the EU budget by following the principles of sound financial management. We need a genuine commitment to transparency and effective internal controls in order to extract maximum benefits from of our policies and priorities. Moreover, I fully support the view that if an action cannot be satisfactorily implemented in terms of cost and risk, then it should be reconsidered. In the current economic situation we cannot allow any wasteful spending or misuse of European funds. At the same time the institution needs to have less complex legal requirements. It is necessary to simplify the administrative and financial burden on applicants and benefeciaries of the EU especially since many instances unnecessary bureaucracy has resulted in impediment to effective policy implementation. The challenging task is to find the right balance.


3. A catch documentation programme for bluefin tuna (thunnus thynnus) (


Formal sitting - Estonia
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a wonderful day for the European Parliament, and that is because we are welcoming one of our former fellow Members here - one who is now President of the Republic of Estonia, our former fellow Member Mr Hendrik Ilves! We would like to bid you a warm welcome to the European Parliament!
(Loud and sustained applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, when we experience an hour such as this, it is good not only to look to the present, but also to remember what a long, broad path it has been for us to acquire a fellow Member together with other fellow Members from Estonia - and from Latvia and Lithuania, if we are just confining it to the Baltic States in the first instance - who were elected Members of parliament and whose countries, free countries that were ruled for decades by totalitarian communism, have been represented here since freedom was gained in Estonia.
This fellow Member was elected by a democratic decision of the people to be President of his country. He is a figure from Estonia who, more than most, is bound up with Europe's future and, of course, with her present. Initially as his country's Foreign Minister, he led the negotiations on membership of the European Union and was subsequently an observer at the European Parliament for a year from 2003 until direct elections in 2004 and finally a Member of the European Parliament until his election as President of the Republic of Estonia in September 2006. President Hendrik Ilves took office as President of Estonia on 9 October 2006.
President Ilves, it is a great joy to be able to welcome you here to the European Parliament, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary tomorrow. Your visit is, as it were, the start of the celebrations and I should like to ask you now to address the European Parliament. Once again, we bid you a very warm welcome!
(Applause)
President of the Republic of Estonia. - (ET) My friends, let me start by wishing you a happy birthday. My dear friends and colleagues, colleagues in the most exact sense of the word, friends whom I have missed for the past year and a half. As I look up and see you all here - from down here there seem to be so many more of you than looking from seat 131 where I used to sit.
You cannot imagine how formidable you are as the Parliament of Europe. I know, I had to leave here before I realised it. But allow me to continue now in my current role as President of my country.
Today, as Estonia is about to enter its fifth year as a member of the European Union, we are no longer 'new members', learning the ropes. Indeed, I believe it is time now to put aside the term 'new Member State' as an anachronism devoid of meaning.
(Applause)
There are no new or old members today. There are only members. The term 'new Member State' does not even mean 'poorer Member State' these days, as several of us have caught up with the 'old members'.
Today, within the Union we have coalitions of interests, of party positions, and these form on any number of dimensions - small or large members, industrial or trading nations, and so on. But the basis is not the time or length of membership.
Here, today, I want to look ahead ten years into the future when all of us are old or older members. To a time 100 years after the first horrible European civil war of the 20th century. We talk about our Union as a response to the second European civil war, a way of organising our continent so that there will be no repeat of the horrors of the Second World War.
But we must not lose sight of the fact either that a third, and arguably even more, of the members of today's European Union came into their own as independent political entities out of the ruins of the First World War. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (after 140 years of non-existence), the former Czechoslovakia, along with the Hungary and Austria we know today, all emerged in the 20th century with the collapse of empires, those international superpowers, and new states based on self-determination emerged.
I raise this point because my country, like so many of our members today, started out by throwing off the yoke of forced membership of large, despotic or undemocratic supranational entities - otherwise known as empires.
Estonia, like many others, even managed to emerge no less than twice. Yet today we all have come together to build our own new supranational entity - and a new identity, our European Union.
We have done so not because we have been conquered or occupied, but rather because we are free to do so. And because we believe it is the right thing to do. This too is exercising our right of self-determination.
I raise this point because in ten years Estonia will for the first time have the privilege and responsibility of holding the Presidency and I hope very much that, when that time comes, we will no longer be grappling with the issues we are wrestling with today. It is precisely for this reason that today I want to speak of things that will be important at least ten years hence.
Finally, I am raising these points because our election cycles and the cycle of challenges we face are out of sync: we deal well with the problems that fit into four- or five-year cycles.
But the challenges and pressures facing the European Union today, from energy to the environment, from competitiveness to enlargement, from Common Foreign Policy to migration, are all strategic issues requiring courage and boldness of action over a far longer time-span than two or three sets of elections.
Ladies and gentlemen, while we cannot predict the future, certain trends and dangers can generally be discerned. There has been no lack of discussion of two of them, twin threats that we face: global warming and declining reserves of fossil fuels. Yet these two issues are global concerns and their resolution, while certainly impossible without the European Union, must be addressed by the entire globe.
And yet at the same time the Union faces different kinds of serious challenges. Unless we can meet them, then perhaps in ten years, but certainly in a quarter of a century, we might lose some of the relative wealth and success we enjoy today. These challenges and pressures are all bound up with the competitiveness of the European Union.
Where are our competitors? Are they within the European Union or out in the wider world? Clearly the answer is 'both': we compete on the market both within the European Union as well as worldwide.
But if we look at long-term trends in globalisation we need to be grateful to Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors for creating the internal market at a time when globalisation was not yet a discernible phenomenon.
For it is the internal market that allows individual European nations to maintain their competitiveness in the global arena. Openness within Europe, opening up to competitive pressures within Europe has been the driver of our competitiveness worldwide.
Current thinking in the European Union does not always provide a reason to be optimistic, and for two reasons: firstly, the lack-lustre implementation of the Lisbon Agenda, our own well-intentioned programme for developing innovation and competitiveness.
(Applause)
And secondly, the European Union's growing protectionism, not only towards the outside world but within our own borders as well.
Allow me to address these two issues in turn. During the period when my own country had just emerged from 50 years of Soviet-imposed backwardness, I despaired over how long it would take to build the infrastructure needed throughout Estonia.
Yet in some areas, such as information technology, Estonia could start on a level playing field. Investment by both the public and private sectors in IT allowed the country to reach a level above the European Union average, and by the late 1990s the situation in electronic government services, and services in some sectors such as banking, had attained a level enjoyed only by a few countries in Europe.
The emphasis my country placed on developing IT paid off, allowing us to be more competitive. But on its own this is not enough. More generally, Estonia, like the rest of Europe, is leaving innovation in science and development to others.
Innovations come first and foremost, let's be frank, from the United States, which itself depends on draining brains, the brightest and best, from Europe as well as from India and China, to maintain its high level of competitiveness. We need at long last to begin to tackle this issue seriously.
We are averse to immigration, our children increasingly choose not to study mathematics, science and engineering, and we are choosing to close ourselves off from competition within the European Union in one of the most competitive sectors of the world economy: services.
Competition or the lack of it within the European Union has security implications as well. Given the importance of energy, it is understandable that many countries in the European Union want to shield their companies from competition and are opposed to the liberalisation of the energy market.
This is an understandable reaction. But today, Europe's single largest source of energy is a country that has proclaimed itself an 'energy superpower', and states on its Foreign Ministry home page that energy is a tool of foreign policy.
Clearly in the future, if we are to avoid subjecting Europe's members to policies of divide and rule, or the jockeying for better gas deals we already see within the European Union, then we cannot avoid the need for a Common Energy Policy.
(Applause)
With an Energy Commissioner with the negotiating clout of the Trade Commissioner.
But for us to develop a common energy policy as we have a common trade regime, the sine qua non of external policy is also required, namely a liberalised internal market.
So, where are we as we look ahead to the future? Koreans and Japanese enjoy rates of internet penetration far greater than most Europeans do, with far cheaper charges for broadband streaming; Asia and the US produce (or in the case of the US, also educate and hire from elsewhere) far more engineers and scientists.
This does not augur well. It will lead to a gradual decline of Europe and European competitiveness in a globalised economy. Unless, of course, we do something about it.
The first step, for Estonia, is the Reform Treaty and I would like to thank the Portuguese Presidency for its superb work in resolving this issue. Without expanding Qualified Majority Voting we will founder in paralysis, without a President and a Foreign Minister we will simply punch far below our weight.
An example of Europe punching way below its weight can be seen in our Neighbourhood Policy. A paper by the European Council on Foreign Relations concludes that, and I quote: 'Contrary to what many in Europe think, Russia's neighbourhood policy is better developed, better coordinated and better implemented than the European Union's. Russia devotes more political, economic and even military resources to influencing its neighbourhood than the European Union does.' Unquote.
This does not speak well of our vaunted 'soft power'. Yet, our neighbourhood policy is tied to a fundamental long-term question: what will we be in ten years' time? There are two aspects to that question: how large will we be in ten years and what will our surrounding environment be like?
How large will the European Union be in 2018? We do not know, but it is up to us to decide. Clearly, we will not be as large as some of us would like, but we will certainly be larger than we are today. To our East and our South lie countries that certainly will never join.
It seems to me that one of our fundamental concerns should be that differences between the European Union and its neighbours in terms of economic well-being and political freedom must not be so great that we will be faced with a great wave of illegal immigration or political refugees.
It would therefore appear that we have not learned even from our own excellent experience, that is from past enlargement. We plan to increase assistance to the outside without conditionality on reforms. Through our development banks we support the development of countries that exhibit thoroughly antagonistic trade policies toward the European Union.
What we also need to realise is that ours is not the only model today. Francis Fukuyama himself now concedes that the Hegelian dream of the inexorable march of history toward liberal democracy does not hold water. What good are anti-corruption requirements in World Bank loans to developing countries when sovereign wealth funds offer better deals with no strings attached?
We were wrong when we thought we lived in a de-ideologised world. Instead, the rise of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative to democratic market economies is probably the latest ideological, intellectual and moral battle that we face.
(Applause)
Clearly we need to rethink our policies, but that will not be enough. We need more courage; we need a vision and an understanding of where we and the world will be in 20 or 25 years, at a time when even the economic powerhouse that is Germany today will be dwarfed by India and China.
In order to prepare ourselves for a quarter of a century hence, we need to start planning today. I hope very much that, in the forthcoming European Parliament elections, parties will compete not on the basis of maintaining today's status quo but on their visions for the future.
Ladies and gentlemen, democracy exists for its citizens, based on the will of its citizens and subject to their approval. To that end we have created institutions, institutions which the new treaty should develop further when it comes into force.
But we should not delegate our responsibility to institutions; creating a foreign service or expanding the purview of qualified majority voting will do little if we do not develop a more fundamental understanding of European interests.
Having common consular officials is a streamlining bureaucratic reform. Making it more difficult to use a veto is in itself a welcome step for Europe, but will remain a small step if Member States come to believe their interests are not being taken into account.
We need to return to the most fundamental understanding that has made the European Union successful. Namely that national interests are best served when we all give up a little so that the Union as a whole is successful. I do not mean handing over money, or handing out sweeteners to recalcitrant members reluctant to go along with a policy. I mean our place in the world separately, as nation states, and together, as the European Union.
When we talk of a strong Europe, we need to realise the same truth familiar to all of us from politics in our home countries: our country is strong in the world arena, or indeed in Europe, when we are strong at home. Governments that enjoy strong support can afford to be decisive in the international arena.
I am sure this is a problem throughout the European Union. In order to create a stronger sense of European-ness among our voters, we need to transcend even the Commission proposals which envisage university students spending one year in a university in another Member State. We need to actively encourage this in our home countries, so that our citizens, not just our officials, can get to know one another.
This means of course that we need to upgrade the level of knowledge of languages. In ten years' time we should be able to look upon a Union where every university student knows another Member State language, and by this I do not mean English because English has such global dominance in science and commerce, entertainment and the internet that it no longer counts as a foreign language. I mean for example, Polish-speaking Portuguese, Spanish-speaking Estonians and Slovenian-speaking Swedes.
We also need to think more in terms of regions. Here Parliament has shown that it can play a larger role than was ever imagined. I am proud that an initiative I was associated with, the Baltic Sea Strategy, is one of the first European Union policies that was actually born here, right here in the European Parliament, not in the Council or the Commission, and today that initiative is becoming a European Union programme.
(Applause)
Parliament is the very link between the European Union's institutions and its citizens that makes the Union work. For it is only here that you, my dear colleagues, can find the delicate balance between the interests of your electors and the interests of the Union. That is something that no other institution can do, and none can do it as well as you.
Honourable Members of the European Parliament, no less important for the citizens of Europe, for a Europe of European citizens, is to know who we are, where we came from and how we got here.
It was within these chambers that a colleague once turned to me during a fellow MEP's speech about the mass deportations in that MEP's country and asked, 'Why can't you people forget about the past and think of the future?'.
We all think we know the history of Europe and so it is perhaps uncomfortable to hear that the Europe we know is actually only one part of Europe, as Norman Davies - that great historian of Europe - has so effectively shown.
Yet today's European Union embraces the history of all of Europe, with all its glory and woes. We are today the inheritors of Bismarck's social reforms as well as of the Salazar regime. Of the world's first constitutional democracy as well as repression by brutal internal security services. That is our Europe.
But the fact that the first constitutional democracy was in Poland and that the repression by security police took place literally just over the wall from the Wirtschaftswunder are things we know far less about than we should.
Our task, ladies and gentlemen, is to know our Europe. One of the greatest Europeans of the 20th century, Salvador de Madariaga, living in exile from the Franco regime, put it this way: 'This Europe must be born. And she will be born when Spaniards say "our Chartres”, when Englishmen say "our Cracow”, when Italians speak of "our Copenhagen” and Germans talk of "our Bruges”.... Then Europe shall live. For then it shall be that the spirit which leads Europe shall have uttered the words of creation: "Fiat Europa”'. So said Salazar de Madariaga.
But to get to Madariaga's future we must learn to know each other, each other's pasts, because only then can we build a future together. This too is our task for the next ten years.
Ladies and gentlemen, today I have tried to outline some of the challenges we face in the future. Europe is far from complete, we still have so much to do. In my homeland, Estonia, when we have a great task to fulfil, a major undertaking to carry out, we say: may we have the strength to do it.
May we all have the strength!
Thank you.
(Standing ovation)
Ladies and gentlemen, by having risen from your seats, by having applauded so enthusiastically, you have thanked the President of Estonia for his highly congenial and, for us as a Parliament, friendly, but above all forward-looking speech.
President Ilves, you have been talking about something that lies at the heart of Europe, and that is an understanding of one another and that we know how we think. When we know how we think, we know how we can also act together in the end.
When you spoke of the exchange of young people, I remembered - and I believe, ladies and gentlemen, we can be proud of this - that when the Financial Perspective was to be agreed and they wanted to slash the funds for the exchanges of young people, the Erasmus Programme and life-long learning, we raised our voices and said: the Financial Perspective will produce results only if we increase rather than reduce the funds for young people to meet in order to create understanding and a sense of community in the European Union.
(Applause)
Let me say in conclusion - and I do so with some stirring deep down: if the President of Estonia reminds us of history, we have to say that the history of Europe, of our continent, has been good at many points in time, but many periods have also been shaped by tragedy. What we are doing here today, here in the European Parliament, too, is a response to the experience of history.
The fact that you are conveying this to us is turning today into a great day for the European Parliament. We can follow the path into the future only if we look back on history, learn from its consequences and then act together on the basis of mutual understanding and community spirit, as you have said, President Ilves, for the sake of a shared Europe.
Many thanks, President Ilves!
(Applause)


2. Bangladesh
The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on Bangladesh.
author. - Mr President, Bangladesh is a country that I have visited many times and one of which I am very fond. Indeed, I have many friends of Bangladeshi origin in London and I follow the political situation there very closely.
This resolution acknowledges that the situation has deteriorated significantly in recent months, such that there are now real concerns about law and order, human rights and, indeed, the mere survival of democracy in that country, which is highlighted throughout this resolution.
When the electoral process was suspended in January, I think most of us hoped it would just be a matter of weeks before elections could take place, but the weeks have become months, and months have now become years, before a new democratically-elected government can be in place.
In the mean time, we have the unconstitutional and unsatisfactory situation of a civilian caretaker government with the support of the military trying to keep law and order in an increasingly desperate and violent climate. Two former prime ministers are in jail. There have been riots at the university, hundreds of arrests (including of academics) and allegations of assaults and torture.
This cannot be the way forward and, as paragraph 11 makes clear, I am sure we in the European Parliament stand ready to help and assist to bring the return of democracy to Bangladesh as soon as possible.
author. - Mr President, Bangladesh is territorially about the same size as Greece but has a population almost twice that of Germany. It became a nation only in 1971 following years of civil war which involved neighbouring ex-British colonies, Pakistan and India. Bangladesh suffered 15 years of military dictatorship and, although civilian government was restored in 1990, the country is far from having a true democracy.
Today, it is a very poor nation plagued by widespread corruption, political interference by the military, severe abuses of human rights, bans on political activities, discrimination against women, religious extremism and a long list of other evils, some of which are mentioned in the resolution. Yet, as is stated clearly in Recital N: 'the EU and Bangladesh have good long-lasting relations and are important economic partners'. This is true, but so much for choosing our friends and partners and so much for being successful in helping such friendly nations to improve their state of prosperity, their level of democracy and the rule of law.
In fairness, the EU has tried to improve things in Bangladesh, but has it tried hard enough? Has the aid given to Bangladesh been directed properly at improving the nation's productivity infrastructure or has it been deviated into the pockets of corrupt officials? Has the pressure on the military to stop interfering with the nation's political life been severe and determined enough, or has it been weak and ineffective?
One can provide one's own answers to these questions. However, my view is that we are a long way from doing what is necessary; there is an urgent need to review our policy on Bangladesh, not excluding the implementation of sanctions and certainly including the serving of stern warnings to neighbouring Pakistan and India to resist the temptation of interfering in the internal affairs of Bangladesh.
author. - Mr President, like my colleague Robert Evans, I also represent, in London, our region, over 150 000 constituents of Bangladeshi origin.
Bangladesh is a large and strategic South Asian country, and once again regrettably is in the news with the August student demonstrations and the arrest of three former prime ministers in a process aimed at combating corruption, but unfortunately and perversely having the appearance of attempting to stifle the democratic, albeit deeply divided, political classes.
The caretaker government has reassured the EU and the USA that it will proceed to democratic elections at the end of 2008, once the electoral registration process is completed and robust enough against electoral fraud. However, the timescale appears very long, and there are suspicions that the military, whose profile politically has recently risen, are keen to radically alter the political complexion of the country by removing from circulation the two warring protagonists, ex-prime ministers Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. It is difficult to understand why they are not released on bail pending trial, and furthermore why the initial arrests were so melodramatic and lacking in due process under the emergency powers - which this resolution rightly calls for to be lifted, as well as calling for EU diplomatic observers to be present at the two ladies' trials.
Certainly, Western aid donors are watching Bangladesh very carefully, given the concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation over the last few years and also increasing Islamist radicalisation of its society and a departure, very sadly, from its original course of secular multi-party democracy - a model we in the EU should strongly continue to support for that country.
author. - (PL) Mr President, the next country we are to discuss during this afternoon's debate is Bangladesh, where fundamental rights are also being breached. Having heard about all these individual cases we are bound to wonder how such a situation can exist in a world that is increasingly subject to so-called globalisation, that is networked by economic organisations and even more so by political ones, a world that has seen the establishment of the United Nations and of the European Union on our own continent, and a world where there are so many organisations claiming to respect human beings. We might well ask ourselves why globalisation of fundamental humanitarian principles has not taken place.
It seems to be a problem affecting our times and our organisations. Everyone is interested in politics and economics, but when it comes to giving politics and economics a human dimension, so that no further harm is done to humble ordinary people, we appear to be helpless.
Commissioner Reding said a moment ago while we were discussing Burma that there is a danger that we will becomes helpless again and fail to react against these injustices. We need to understand, however, that certain steps have to be taken and that there is an imbalance between the scale of our political activities, our economic activities and the extent of compliance with standard fundamental rights.
I should also like to draw attention to another issue. In the declaration reference is made to the emergence of persecution for religious reasons amongst others. I should like to point out that religious persecution is generally, though not always, directed against Christians, notably Catholics. At a global level, Catholics are currently the group most frequently persecuted and killed for their faith. We should stick to the facts and when we refer to persecution we should remember who is persecuting whom.
author. - (SV) Mr President, I think that Bangladesh has been a country of great hope. It has religious freedom, women in rural areas have access to microcredit and we could see a local economy beginning to develop.
These positive trends have been quickly reversed, however, in a country where terror is spreading. In order to tackle corruption, according to the government, journalists, lawyers, political actors and student activists are being imprisoned. If I may say, putting everyone in prison is a bad way to tackle corruption, to say the least. We promise that we will help Bangladesh on the path to democracy and there must be a will on the part of the government.
Before I finish, I want to raise something that is in the resolution, but which perhaps not many will talk about and which I think is important, as I have spent a lot of time with people in slums. There were people in the old regime, in the ruling class, who took land, but when the government attempted to take back that land, millions of poor people, poor peasants and people in slums were evicted from their homes, from the last small shred of hope of survival which they had through a small piece of land. We must also think of these people when we are fighting for democracy in Bangladesh, as they have the least voice of all. They have the least power of all.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the situation in Bangladesh is certainly worrying. Action has been taken, however, with a view to holding elections at the appointed time. There is concern, nevertheless, that the Election Commission's work programme presented in July 2007 will not be completed on time. We should recall that the European Union's observation mission came to an end on 22 January, when the United Nations also withdrew its support.
We cannot abandon Bangladesh at this stage. We must send observers with a broad remit. The observers should also monitor criminal proceedings under way and arrests of ordinary citizens. It is particularly important to exert pressure on the authorities to secure the freedom of the students arrested during the protests of 28 August 2007. We should react swiftly, providing wide-ranging aid; if we fail to do so, we cannot expect the elections to take place at the appointed time.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, almost a year has gone by since the last European Parliament resolution on Bangladesh. Despite our high hopes the situation in the country has deteriorated. The elections planned for January of this year did not take place and were postponed until the end of 2008. With the support of the army, the interim government declared a state of emergency.
The current leadership is openly restricting all political activity and the freedom of the press and other media. The individuals arrested include two former prime ministers, 160 leading politicians and over 100 000 civilians. The brutal suppression of the student protests against the army at Dhaka University in August of this year gave rise to serious concern at international level.
In view of the aforementioned events, the Council and the European Commission should monitor the situation carefully. They should press first and foremost for independent institutions and political parties in Bangladesh to be allowed to resume their activities. It is essential to send another observation mission and provide technical assistance, which could make a positive contribution to preparations for free democratic elections. Only if all the interested parties work together will it be possible to stabilise the situation in Bangladesh effectively.
Mr President, it is obviously a good thing that the human rights situation in Bangladesh is being exposed here in the northern hemisphere. After all, we have seen the present regime attempting to silence the legitimate political protest of students and journalists through arbitrary arrests and detentions. Since the new government took over in January 2007 more than 250 000 people have already been locked up. Since the declaration of the state of emergency, the army has been responsible for countless cases of torture and murder.
However, I would really like to expose another issue, an issue that is endemic in that state and that carries on regardless of changes of government. It is something that is often neglected by all kinds of human rights organisations, because evidently it is something that simply cannot be spoken about. I am talking about the wholesale and systematic gang rape that takes place in Bangladesh. The violence against women and young girls is one of the most heinous violations of human rights in that Islamic state. This kind of violence encompasses sexual and domestic violence, gang rape, throwing acid over women and honour killings. Whether or not people want to hear about it, it is undeniable that by means of these atrocities extremist Muslims want to cleanse Bangladesh of its religious minorities in order to transform the country into a monolithic, Islamic state. Every government of Bangladesh has failed to act and this is a downright disgrace. Bangladesh ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1984. It is high time that Parliament sent out a very clear signal to the Bangladeshi Government to inform it of its responsibilities.
(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, neither the European Union nor the UN suspends its election observation missions lightly; unfortunately we had to do so in Bangladesh. In January the activity of democracy was suspended with the support of the military in a country whose two main parties, in the only example of its kind in the world, are led by women.
I admit that combating coercion and corruption is important for an effective economy and politics, although dirty methods such as suppressing demonstrations, gagging the press and undermining fair judicial proceedings may not be employed to that end. For nearly twenty-five years Bangladesh has been moving towards the European model. Secularism, hand in hand with religious tolerance, human rights and freedom of speech are values which our Parliament supports with all possible means.
We should therefore do all we can to put Bangladesh back on the road of democracy. The technical assistance to organise elections and the bipartite working groups are the least the European Union can do. We demand an immediate end to the state of emergency and to military intervention.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Commission shares the concern at the human rights situation in Bangladesh articulated in the draft parliamentary resolutions. The European Union, by the way, has a commendable history of constructive engagement on human rights and democracy with Bangladesh, and the decision to send an EU election observation mission to scrutinise the abortive 2007 elections and to suspend the mission in the face of the Awami League boycott and compelling evidence of efforts to rig the polls, is an example of that engagement.
In the wake of the formation of the military-backed caretaker Government and the declaration of a state of emergency in January 2007, the EU has sought to balance strong support for a return to democracy in 2008 with the rigorous monitoring of the human rights situation. This is reflected in the European Commission's intention to extend substantial support, alongside eight other international development partners, to the development of a voter list with photos. Parliament will recall that profound misgivings over the list prepared for the 2007 elections were a key factor in the postponement of the polls.
The EC delegation in Dhaka is closely following the voters' list pilot project and has provided highly positive feedback on the process. The EU has, however, consistently made clear that progress on technical preparations for the elections must be matched by progress on political reforms, and as the EU troika underlined during its visit to Dhaka in June, the political parties must be implicated in the reform process as soon as possible.
In an encouraging move, the Bangladesh Election Commission has now announced a schedule for consultations with the 15 principal parties in the country.
The EU has made strong representations to the Government of Bangladesh, and to the military, on the need to ensure respect for the human rights and due process, most recently during a local EU troika démarche to the Foreign Affairs advisors on 8 August. That démarche also provided the opportunity to raise seven individual cases of human rights violations.
The Government has provided detailed responses to some of those cases. EU heads of mission will continue to pursue human rights concerns with the authorities, with a view to ensuring that those who have committed abuses are appropriately punished and the others released. As to the specific case of United Nations Special Rapporteur, Sigma Huda, the head of the EC delegation in Dhaka has conveyed concerns regarding her medical condition and treatment to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I understand that Mrs Suda is appealing the decision of the trial court, and the EC will follow the case very closely.
Support for human rights and good governance also constitutes one of the three priorities for the EC financial assistance to Bangladesh under the country strategy paper for 2007-2013, alongside human and social development and trade and economic development. EUR 55 million have been earmarked for action under that priority for the period 2007 to 2010.
In conclusion, the European Commission remains optimistic that Bangladesh is on track to hold credible parliamentary elections in 2008. We are extending substantial political and financial support to that goal, while - and I would like to underline this - remaining very vigilant on human rights and other concerns.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of this afternoon's debates.