Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
(The session was suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 3.10 p.m.)


2. Uganda: the Bahati Bill and discrimination against the LGBT population
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Uganda: Bahati Bill and discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.
Mr President, Commissioner, exactly one year ago, we adopted a resolution in this House concerning gays and lesbians and the Bahati Bill in Uganda.
Why return, one year later, with an almost identical resolution?
Because the problem is far from solved. Firstly, the evangelist movement 'The Family', which was behind this Bahati Bill, has not given up, and we can still see this bill reappearing in Uganda.
The second reason is that, last October and November, Uganda's Rolling Stone newspaper carried out a name and shame campaign and published a list of Ugandan homosexuals, who were immediately tracked down and attacked and are still in hiding as outcasts today. The Ugandan Constitutional Court has stopped the publication of this newspaper but it is clear that the atmosphere has deteriorated. This is a manhunt.
Thirdly, only 13 African countries recognise homosexuals' rights. The remaining countries have very different laws, but some of them - Sudan, northern Nigeria, Mauritania - still punish homosexuals with death.
Yet, and I shall end with this, very recently, the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries made a statement - a somewhat one-sided one in my view - to the effect that they were aware that this issue regarding homosexuals bothered us slightly, but that these aspects were part of their culture. No, they are human rights, they are universal values, and we really do want these universal values to be strongly defended by the Commission and by the entire European Union.
author. - Mr President, societies in Africa are, in general, socially conservative. In many African countries, sadly, homosexuality is indeed outlawed. Many people in Africa feel threatened by efforts to promote homosexuality, particularly when those efforts are led by NGOs and organisations based in the west. There is a widely held perception in some parts of Africa that liberal democracies are trying to push their own, more tolerant, values on societies with very different and ancient traditions.
But, be that as it may, it does not excuse or justify the rampant homophobia that exists widely in some parts of Africa. Sadly, this homophobia is often stirred up by governments and their media mouthpieces. Uganda is yet again in the news for the extremism and hysteria of some of its legislators. They are supporting a bill that would impose the death penalty, or life imprisonment, on homosexuals, depending on the nature of their so-called crime. I, like the ECR Group, reject this draconian bill, which would be an atrocious violation of individual rights, and call on President Museveni to veto it. Uganda is a country in which the majority of people survive on a dollar a day: surely the country's legislators can find better ways to serve the interests of Ugandan society than to make gays subject to criminal prosecution.
author. - Mr President, the so-called Anti-Homosexuality Bill before the Ugandan Parliament provides for the punishment of homosexual acts by imprisonment for terms ranging from seven years to life, or even the death penalty. The European Parliament strongly condemns this bill and, in so doing, we are not imposing European values on other states, as some have suggested, in an attempt to avoid responsibility for human rights violations and responsibility for protecting citizens from being attacked on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The real threat and the climate of fear were underlined in the October and November issues of Rolling Stone, a local newspaper, which listed the names and personal details of people alleged to be homosexual, inciting readers to harm or hang them. Several people were consequently attacked.
In fact, homosexuality is legal in only 13 African countries and it is a criminal offence in 38 others. In Mauritania, Sudan and northern Nigeria, it is punishable by death.
The Ugandan authorities are obliged, in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement, to observe international and human rights, and the Commission, the Council of the European Union and the External Action Service should also make full use of the toolkit for promoting and protecting the enjoyment of human rights by all LGBT people.
author. - Mr President, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill by David Bahati in the Ugandan Parliament that provides for the punishment of homosexual acts by imprisonment of between seven years and life, as well as the death penalty, is simply unacceptable.
Let us remember that in Africa, legal homosexuality only exists in 13 countries, and is a criminal offence in 38 countries, whilst in Mauritania, Sudan and northern Nigeria, homosexuality is punished by death.
This is why we need to reiterate once again the fact that sexual orientation is a matter falling within the remit of the individual's rights of privacy. It is guaranteed by international human rights law, according to which equality and non-discrimination should be promoted, while freedom of expression should be guaranteed. This is why we need to denounce again any attempt to incite hatred and advocate violence towards any minority group, including on grounds of sex or sexual orientation. We need to remind the Ugandan authorities of their obligations under international law and under the Cotonou Agreement.
This is why I also ask the Commission and the Council, and the European External Action Service as well, to make full use of the toolkit to promote and protect the enjoyment of full human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in their dealings with Uganda.
Mr President, the attempts being made to discriminate against Ugandan citizens on the grounds of their sexual orientation are a serious matter. On this issue, Uganda has the support of many African countries which do not want the international community or the European Union to exert pressure on them to decriminalise homosexuality.
The misunderstanding is based on the fact that we believe that a ban on discrimination in this area is a universal human right, as Mrs De Keyser said before. The majority of African countries do not see it the same way, and this is why dialogue is so difficult. We say that we cannot remain silent on such matters, and they say that we are interfering in things that have nothing to do with us.
The draft amendments to Ugandan legislation really do represent a radical change. They introduce the possible use of the death penalty for repeated infringements of the prohibitions already in place, or for aggravated homosexuality, although it is not, in fact, clear what this is supposed to mean. We do not agree with these proposals, and we hope that they will not be passed.
Mr President, Uganda is one of the African states where homosexuality is still severely repressed. Indeed, it has one of the most notorious and harshest reputations in this area, since Uganda, under the leadership of American fundamentalist evangelists, of which the Ugandan Head of State is a close associate, has launched a veritable crusade against homosexuals. We have lost count of the numbers of people who have suffered persecution and torture simply because of their sexuality.
Muslims and Christians have united - a first in the country - to condemn this abomination. Christopher Senyonjo, a 70-year-old Anglican bishop, was banned from officiating by his superiors for having been one of the few to have taken a stand in favour of homosexuals.
The bill already mentioned may indeed reappear at any time. It goes as far as to sentence to death homosexuals suspected of being HIV positive or of having relations with minors. It calls for them to be reported.
The local newspaper Rolling Stone, which has nothing to do with the magazine of the same name, actually published lists with the names and addresses of gay leaders under the revolting headline: 'Hang them!' The publication of this rag has been temporarily banned, but the damage has been done, as has already been said.
In Africa, homosexuality is very often seen as an evil from the West which is causing Africa to lose its ancestral values. NGOs say that 500 000 of the 32 million inhabitants of Uganda are gay. Many of them apply for asylum in European countries. Could we at least do our best to ensure that special consideration is given to these applications, and indeed to all men and women who are victims of oppression and torture?
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, I am alarmed by the use of criminal law against consenting same-sex relations taking place in private. This is already part of Ugandan law and the punishment can be life imprisonment. However, the Bahati Bill would make things even worse. The death penalty could be used, while association and expression of LGBT issues would be effectively banned.
The new bill will increase the climate of fear and hostility in a country where persecution of LGBT people is already under way. People would be required to report on each other on privacy matters. The lives of these people will be endangered. Human dignity will have no meaning in Uganda if such a law is adopted. We must not let this happen.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, of course, much has changed in this last year. On 23 November, this House itself reiterated the principle of the universality of human rights and non-discrimination as a basis on which to enhance our partnership with the JPA. This House also called for the reinforcement of the principle of non-negotiable human rights clauses and sanctions for failure to respect such clauses, inter alia, with regard to discrimination, etc. based on sexual orientation.
The fact is that these countries choose to work with us. They choose to have partnerships with us. We have the ACP JPA, we have the Cotonou Agreements. Therefore, we are asking them to engage with us on shared, universal principles. These are non-negotiable. If they do not want to operate on that basis, I call on the Commission and the Council to take the necessary sanctions to reinforce the fact that we have principles which we will stand up for. Equally, in the future of the EU-Africa Strategic Partnership, we urge that all actions conducted under the terms of the various partnerships be pursued without discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation.
It is not colonialism to stand up for the rights of others. Human rights are universal and indivisible, and to stand back and do nothing when somebody else's basic human rights are attacked is to be complicit in that action. You cannot promote homosexuality in Africa. Anyone in Africa who woke up and said: 'Today I am going to be homosexual' would be insane. Their life would be under threat and their family would have to turn them in to the police. Imagine you are that person and take the action necessary to defend those rights.
Mr President, the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ban discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The European Union not only has obligations in relation to human rights within its territory, but also an international duty to insist on compliance with these rights and to criticise abuses when dealing with third countries, particularly when we provide financial support through the European Development Fund to third countries like Uganda, which have entered into partnership agreements with us.
Accordingly, we actually have the right to comment when these third countries fail to meet the human rights requirements set down in such partnership agreements. Hence, Uganda must respect international human rights standards because it was party to the Cotonou Agreement, which sets down our organised development aid to the ACP countries.
Just one year ago, we called on Uganda not to follow through on its plans for a law to criminalise homosexuals. One year on, the situation has deteriorated. There is still the threat of long prison sentences or even the death penalty. With others, I myself demonstrated in front of the Ugandan Embassy in May of this year. This had no effect. We wish to emphasise once again that the EU is generally opposed to the death penalty and to homophobic legislation of this kind.
Mr President, this is an interesting and important debate. I would like to draw your attention to two problems. Firstly, the fact of the matter is that Uganda is not an island of discrimination in a sea of respect for human rights. Three quarters of African countries have extremely harsh regulations on this issue, which are tantamount to discrimination. This is unquestionably not so much Uganda's problem as a wider problem involving the whole continent and African culture. The second question is as follows: it goes without saying that Uganda does not lead the field in respect for human rights in Africa. We know of many examples of violations of human rights, which means that this matter is part of a wider problem, and we must, of course, speak openly about this problem.
(RO) Mr President, our resolution is aimed at extremely serious cases of human rights violations and, unfortunately, the punishment of homosexuality as a criminal offence is the norm in Africa. This is reflected in the legislation of 38 states, with only 13 African states considering it legal.
In this context, the bill attempting to enforce certain sanctions in Uganda, from prison sentences to capital punishment, represents a serious attack against human rights, including the right to privacy. The publication in a local newspaper of a black list of 100 individuals accused of homosexuality and the incitement of readers to hang them is an example of a concrete threat to a community blamed for its sexual orientation.
As indicated in our resolution, our measure is not aimed, as we are often accused, at the imposition of specifically European values, but at the defence of human rights, which is one of the major objectives of the European Union. I believe that in this sense, the European External Action Service and the other European institutions need to impose more severe sanctions in order to ensure compliance with the international agreements to which Uganda is a signatory.
(RO) Mr President, we also discussed Uganda and homosexuality in this House several months ago. Since then, nothing significant has happened. Certainly, sometimes it is said that 'no news, good news'. In this case, however, this is not true, because while David Bahati's project was not voted for, it was not withdrawn, either. It remains blocked in the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, and all the international pressure exerted did not manage, in the end, to bring about this effect, namely, the withdrawal of the project.
What is truly horrific, and some of my fellow Members have already expanded on this, is the anti-gay campaign that is taking place in this country. We obviously continue to count on the rationality of the authorities and, eventually, on the victory of a principle which says 'No to discrimination'.
Mr President, the hate campaign in Uganda against gay and lesbian men and women is truly appalling. The whipping up, by some religious elements and by sections of the media, of a vicious and reactionary homophobic campaign, which includes threats to kill gay people, means that very many lesbians, gays and bisexual and transgender people in Uganda are now living in great insecurity and fear. It is contemptible that some politicians are also using this issue and whipping up hatred, proposing even the execution of people who are gay.
I salute the courage of members of the gay community in Uganda who bravely fight each day against this menacing threat to their identities and their very lives. The homophobic campaign is driven by smears, lies and distortions about gay people and what being gay means. The strongest message must go out to the Ugandan Government - including a review of aid, although, of course, we do not want to hurt ordinary Ugandans.
We should encourage active solidarity with organisations in Uganda which champion the rights of gay people, to assist them in this crucial fight for justice and human rights, and for the basic right to be who you are.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the draft Anti-Homosexuality Bill which was introduced in the Ugandan Parliament raises serious human rights issues. The protection of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is a priority for the EU. I fully share the European Parliament's concerns about the situation in Uganda, but also in other countries where punitive and discriminatory legislation against LGBT people has been adopted or is under consideration.
The Commission considers that the criminalisation of homosexuality as foreseen in the draft bill goes against obligations under the United Nations Human Rights Convention, to which Uganda is a party and by which it consequently has to abide.
The draft bill also goes against the United Nations declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity. The EU Presidency and the EU Head of Mission in Uganda raised this issue with the Ugandan Government on several occasions during meetings with the President, Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Justice in formal political dialogue meetings, and also with the Uganda Human Rights Commission.
The publication by the Rolling Stone newspaper on 2 October 2010 of a list with the photographs and names and addresses of people who were identified as gay, together with the headline 'Hang them', was an outrageous act that put the lives of these people at risk, and we fully condemn it.
The European Union delegation continues to monitor the situation closely, together with the EU Member States' missions represented in Uganda, as well as with partner countries like Norway and the United States and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The matter has also been addressed in the technical Human Rights Working Group, which is a forum for developing partners in Uganda to discuss, monitor, coordinate and take concrete action in human rights-related cases. The Commission intends to keep raising its concerns in relation to the draft Anti-Homosexuality Bill and to other actions to persecute LGBT people in Uganda on every occasion.
The Commission will continue to support local human rights organisations in their efforts to change attitudes in the country and to improve the legal situation for LGBT people.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the next debate.


Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes


Agenda: see Minutes


Situation in Darfur (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on the situation in Darfur.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, we are confronted with a dramatic humanitarian, security and political problem in Darfur today.
The situation on the ground is deteriorating by the day. The number of civilians affected by the conflict has risen to almost four million since 2003. Throughout 2006 we saw an increase in the number of violent deaths in Darfur. Attacks on humanitarian aid agencies also significantly increased and this has prompted some organisations to evacuate.
Continued violations of the ceasefire by both the Sudanese Government and the rebel factions deepen insecurity and instability. Most recently, on Monday, Sudanese military forces bombarded Cariari and Bahai, two villages in north Darfur close to the Chad-Sudan border.
The African Union Mission to Sudan - established in 2004 to help prevent further conflict - continues to face resource constraints. Despite its best efforts, it had some difficulty in providing effective protection to civilians or carrying out additional duties associated with the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement. Politically, the situation is complicated by splits and regrouping among the non-signatory rebel movements as well as the Government's refusal to consider reopening the deadlocked Peace Agreement.
Darfur is not a simple issue. The commitment of the European Union to alleviating such a dramatic situation has been reiterated on several occasions, most recently at the European Council last December, at the Council on 22 January and, just two days ago, through the General Affairs Council conclusions on Sudan of 12 February. We must work to ensure the protection of non-combatants as well as of humanitarian aid workers. We must seek the full implementation of the UN-AU three phase plan for Darfur, this being the most effective means at our disposal to support the African Union mission in Sudan and to protect civilians.
But our overriding objective in Darfur must be to achieve a durable peace through a political settlement agreed by all parties voluntarily and then implemented. The strategy of Khartoum to negotiate individually with each rebel leader to buy their support will not create a cohesive and lasting peace.
The Council of the EU, in its latest conclusions on Sudan, has emphasised the need for an inclusive political process and confirmed its support for the joint initiative of the African Union and UN special envoys to start negotiations between the parties as soon as possible. On several occasions and in various fora, the Commission has stressed the need for a political solution in Darfur based on the existing peace agreement and insisted that there is no military solution to the crisis. In this context, the European Commission has strongly backed the African Union in the search for a political settlement in Darfur.
The Commission has been providing continued support to the African Union in political and financial terms. With cofinancing from Belgium, the Commission stands behind any and all efforts to revive the peace agreement. The European Commission has provided one and a half billion euros specifically for the Darfur crisis, covering security, humanitarian needs and peace efforts for Darfur. The aim is to create the conditions to bring the non-signatory parties of the Darfur Peace Agreement back to the negotiating table and to start effective implementation of the Agreement.
Pending a lasting settlement, the Commission is also active in the political démarche intended to obtain the agreement of the Khartoum Government to a joint AU-UN force capable of providing effective protection of civilians. In the margins of the African Union Summit on 28 January, Commissioner Michel met with the Sudanese President, Mr al-Bashir, as well as with the UN Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-Moon. The Commissioner was also in Ethiopia and in Eritrea where the Darfur issue was raised. Just yesterday, the Darfur issue was discussed in Washington in a meeting between Commissioner Michel and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
This Parliament is right to debate the Darfur Peace Agreement and the critical situation in Darfur. Yet we must not take the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for granted. EU Heads of Mission in Khartoum report that this peace agreement, made in 2005 with the south, is in trouble. After 20 years of civil war the comprehensive peace agreement may be the last chance for the Khartoum regime to show that the federal power-sharing form of government can work for this vast country. If the Comprehensive Peace Agreement cannot work, then nor can the Darfur Peace Agreement. It is important, I think, that the critical situation in Darfur does not divert our attention, or indeed the attention of the Sudanese regime, from the very real threat to the whole sub-region if both the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement are not pursued with more vigour. This is a message that the Commission will strive to communicate in the weeks ahead.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Council released its conclusions on Sudan on Monday, so it is appropriate that Parliament also speaks out strongly this week, further highlighting the humanitarian crisis and international scandal that is Darfur. We are attempting to raise the political temperature on this issue to increase the pressure on those who can, if the will exists, make things happen on the ground to protect people.
We all know the figures and the scale of the humanitarian consequences of insufficient action by the international community. It is estimated that up to 400 000 people have been killed and more than two and a half million people displaced or made homeless in the last three years due to conflict. NGOs currently provide humanitarian relief for up to four million people. That is half of Darfur's entire population. In recent months there have been repeated attacks on humanitarian convoys and twelve aid workers have been killed in Darfur in the last six months.
So NGOs are pulling their people out of Darfur while indiscriminate attacks continue on civilians. So what can we do? The main thrust of this resolution is to call on the UN to set a clear date for deployment of the planned UN-supported peacekeeping force, or hybrid force, into Darfur, even in the absence of agreement with the Sudanese Government, in order to secure humanitarian aid corridors to an increasingly isolated population in the region.
We are calling for this in the context of the UN's responsibility to protect, based on the failure of the Sudanese Government to protect its own population from war crimes and crimes against humanity, and a failure to provide humanitarian assistance to the population. President al-Bashir continues to oppose Phase 3 of the present UN Plan which allows the AU mission to be bolstered by more than 20 000 UN peacekeeping troops.
The point is, diplomacy is failing. People are dying in huge numbers and at some point the international community is obliged to act more firmly. That is why the setting of a clear date for the deployment of troops will focus the attention on a tight timescale to find a diplomatic solution to get peacekeepers on the ground in Darfur.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Darfur has been suffering under a regime of terror for four years now. Hundreds of thousands of people there have lost their lives, two million have lost their homes, and rape, murder and pillaging are daily occurrences there. It is nearly impossible to really grasp the extent of this suffering. Meanwhile, despite all the fine agreements, human rights violations get increasingly out of hand. Over the past few months, the situation has hit an all-time low for both the people and aid workers. Despite the Peace Agreement concluded in early January, large parts of North Darfur were deliberately bombarded recently by the Sudanese air force. Even the aid workers are no longer safe from violence, aid organisations increasingly feel it. Last month, 15 UN organisations, including UNICEF, reported that they were no longer able to keep on providing aid to the people in Darfur in an adequate manner. Two weeks ago, the aid organisation Médicins du Monde was the first to withdraw, and Oxfam and CARE International are at risk of having to follow suit, even though three and a half million Darfuris rely on humanitarian aid.
The Council is not present today. How long do we intend to perpetuate this untenable situation? The UN may be speaking with force in its resolution, but it has not done much in the way of action. The peace force that was promised two months ago in Addis Ababa produced some 100 troops and very little else. The UN Security Council authorised sanctions against four major perpetrators of atrocities, but nothing happened. It is unacceptable for European Member States to be able to impose sanctions on war criminals in countries such as Belarus, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe and to fail to do so in Darfur, where the Council is neglecting its humanitarian duty.
The international community should no longer stand by helplessly while millions of innocent people are being driven away from their homes, murdered and raped. Europe should take the lead and take urgent action in order to stop the humanitarian crisis in Darfur in its tracks. The Sudanese Government will be prepared to conclude real peace agreements and adhere to them only if its own interests are affected, for the only language it understands is its own, that of the fist. In southern Sudan, an oil boycott proved effective, and I would urge Members belonging to the other political parties to apply the same tactics if necessary.
I should like to ask the Council whether it is prepared, without delay, to declare sanctions against anyone who violates the ceasefire or who attacks citizens, peace keepers or aid workers. Would it be prepared to do everything necessary to stop them getting away with it and, once and for all, to enforce and implement the sanctions agreed upon in the Security Council? Is it prepared to enforce the presence of the hybrid peace force of African Union soldiers and blue helmets?
Would it, finally, be prepared to apply economic sanctions, including the introduction of an oil embargo? We did not intervene when the genocide in Rwanda took place, and watched helplessly as the men in Srebrenica met their fate, even though the UN was set up in 1945 in order to reinforce our promise of 'never again'. We should not leave the powerless to their fate. I hope that Europe wants to make a difference. I am, above all, addressing the Council, which is absent, and the Commissioner, whom I would like to urge to take action.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, I speak on behalf of my colleague, Mr Morillon.
I must begin by highlighting the entirely surreal nature of our meeting this evening. There are around ten of us Members present. Commissioner, thank you for being here. I know the reasons for the absence of Mr Michel, whom you are representing. However, the most notable absentee is the Council, and in the meantime, I am afraid to say, people continue to die in Darfur. I would remind you, as a numbers man, Mr Almunia, that fourteen or fifteen people die every hour in Darfur.
It was therefore high time we worried about a situation that no one believes is simple. Yet, must we continue making fools of ourselves? This resolution will be the fifth that we have adopted over many months on Darfur: we can see the extent to which they undermine the officials, not least the Sudanese officials received this evening in Paris.
I believe that we could actually finally assume our responsibilities. I must alert you, Commissioner, to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this resolution. As my fellow Member, Mr Coveney, pointed out, paragraph 2 emphasises the need for a precise date to be set by the UN. However, paragraph 3, Commissioner, is an appeal launched at the European Union, with the aim of having it assume its responsibilities. Its assuming its responsibilities will surely mean something in the future. If not, one may wonder about the purpose of the European Union and of the values that we seek to uphold, faced with what is essentially an endless emergency humanitarian situation, something that no one denies.
My colleagues have nominated me as permanent rapporteur for humanitarian action. But what should I report on? The systematic withdrawal of all the NGOs, which are no longer allowed to work, the fourteen people who have been killed and the deaths day in, day out of people who have been abandoned and who, in addition to having been displaced, have lost all hope.
Commissioner, please speak with the Commission on our behalf; we will take care of the Council, politically, because, if we listened to them, we would have to wait a month before discussing this issue. This message needs to be passed on: one day, the law, not to mention the duty to interfere, will be required, when it is clear that men and women are being abused to this extent.
Mr President, I too should like to highlight the discrepancy between the seriousness of the issue being dealt with and this practically deserted Chamber, and that is without mentioning the absence of the Council; while the Commission is at least represented, our action in relation to this matter is certainly not, in any event, equal to the challenges.
As I was saying, the Council is absent, but when one reads its conclusions of 12 February, that is to say, those written exactly two days ago, its absence does not change a great deal anyway. I shall read and quote what is written in these conclusions:
'The Council remains gravely concerned about the security situation in Darfur' - to say the least - 'and condemns continued ceasefire violations by all parties.'
(FR) That is the kind of particularly forceful sentence that the Council is capable of producing after months and months of resolutions, decisions and diplomatic meetings, when the situation is more disastrous now than it ever has been. We therefore clearly believe that a change of level is required and, indeed, that more pressure must be exerted with regard to this unacceptable situation.
What about the punishments that were decided on for the Sudanese leaders, and for all these war criminals? What is the European Union doing with regard to these punishments? It seems to me, in any case, that the European Union has a number of options available to it to freeze financial resources so as to prevent all these people from moving freely about our territory. Ways of exerting pressure do exist.
What are we doing with regard to United Nations Resolution 1706, which has the backing of the European Union? What initiatives have been taken by the European Commission and the Council to put pressure on all those responsible for this situation? What credibility do we have today to issue a multitude of texts that, at least on the part of the Council, and even of the Commission, merely restate our grave concerns regarding this situation?
Only a very short time ago, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, visited several African countries and, more specifically, Sudan. What is the Union's position faced with this situation, with the new and emerging role of China's leaders? Faced, too, with the importance of access to raw materials, and to oil in particular?
Thus, when one sees the inertia, the powerlessness, of the European institutions on this issue, what conclusions must be drawn? Does this mean that, if priority is to be given to accessing raw materials or oil, which in reality is gradually dwindling, and if it is to be given to the large markets represented by countries such as China, the values of human rights and the duty that we actually have to protect civilian populations need to be put on the back burner? Is that what this means?
I believe that it would be absolutely tragic for the European Union to come to that. The fact is that these issues are being raised on a daily basis, and we constantly find ourselves incapable and powerless in the face of this tragic situation. It is therefore high time a formal sitting bringing together the Council, the Commission and Parliament was organised - and organised very soon - on this issue, in Brussels or Strasbourg, so that the necessary decisions can finally be taken.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can identify with this joint resolution about the international blot - and I should like to underline 'this international blot' - being Darfur, despite a few of the comments that have been made. I should like to single out a few elements if I may.
In recital C, it is stated that the conflict in Darfur is increasingly destabilising the Central African region. Less than a week ago, an analysis was published in my home country, the Netherlands, about this very disruptive situation under the telling heading 'The black hole'. Indeed, there is a black hole at the heart of Africa, rudderless, violent and with a stream of refugees who are headed in all directions. One immediate risk is that the conflict in Darfur, which is racist in that nomads of Arab origin are driving out and killing African farmers, will move to Chad and take the notorious and murderous Janjaweed militia with it. Various paragraphs in the joint resolution urge the United Nations finally to face up to its responsibilities in Darfur. Whilst I can fully endorse this parliamentary cry for help, I have to confess at the same time that I am extremely sceptical as to whether this distress signal will actually be heard in the UN Headquarters in New York.
Earlier this week, Jan Pronk, the former UN envoy to Sudan, gave a frank and honest interview to the Sudan Tribune. He asserted, verbatim, that he accused New York of leaving its own mission in the lurch and, instead, of pandering to the elite in power in Khartoum. It is awful - he said - if you send thousands of people to Sudan and then leave them to their own devices.
What we should, in any case, be doing is to ensure that Mr Pronk's indictment does not fall on deaf ears, but reaches our governments, the European Council and the UN Security Council, and results in action.
I also deem as completely appropriate the appeal of this House to the People's Republic of China to put its not insignificant political and economic weight into the balance in order to try to get the Sudanese leadership to actually enforce existing peace agreements on Khartoum. Only a constructive international stance such as this one is in keeping with Peking's adage of harmonious external relations. Moreover, that is also what we can expect of a strategic partner as a responsible member of the UN Security Council. After all, as rapporteur for EU/China relations, I constantly reminded my esteemed Chinese interlocutors of this elementary constructive international role.
Finally, I would like to back the only amendment to the joint resolution - that tabled by Mrs Gomes - and back it all the way. Sanctions against this shameless Sudanese regime should definitely involve an oil embargo, as some sort of acid test to check whether the United Nations, given the long suffering of the people in Darfur, still abides by its own political principles.
(DE) Mr President, the situation in Darfur remains shocking. The response of the international community has been wholly inadequate. The previous speakers have described the situation adequately: there is no improvement in sight for the people there.
Some necessary resolutions have been passed, such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706, but their implementation ultimately fails on account of the Government in Khartoum, most of whose leaders are no doubt listed in the files of the International Criminal Court - which launched an investigation into crimes in Darfur as early as June 2005.
We have a situation where the United Nations has to take action, in accordance with its responsibility for protecting human beings, since the Government of Sudan has not been protecting the people of Darfur against war crimes and crimes against humanity, nor has it lent them any assistance.
For this reason, Parliament calls on the United Nations to set a date for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, even if this has not been approved by the Khartoum regime. We call on the Council and the Commission to do everything in their power to put an end to this sustained humanitarian disaster.
Concrete action can be launched for the short term without great expense. The EU should impose personal sanctions on representatives of the regime unilaterally rather than waiting for the rest of the international community. I have always been in favour of this as a means of preventing family members going on shopping trips to Europe.
The Darfur regime has thus far been ignoring the no-fly zone imposed by Security Council Resolution 1591, and is continuing to bomb villages in Darfur. We call for the use of capabilities available in the region to enforce this no-fly zone. After all, we know which Member States have aircraft based in the region - not to say the immediate vicinity. Why are these not being used in the services of the UN? The EU must agree to this, at least.
We should also give those in power in Khartoum to understand that they should not rely overly on forces outside Africa. The Sudanese Government is skating on very thin ice, and should not exhaust African solidarity. Two warning shots have already been fired. The ACP Summit in Khartoum was the summit attended by the fewest Heads of State or Government - a clear sign of displeasure. The fact that the AU Summit opted for President Kufuor instead of the Sudanese President was a further clear indication of disapproval.
Mr President, as others have said, as General al-Bashir continues to prevaricate on the deployment of an AU-UN hybrid force in Darfur, we see the humanitarian crisis getting worse. We see the number of internally displaced people increasing. The ceasefire has collapsed.
The international community has and is continuing to fail to fulfil its responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Darfur. This means that the European Union must act urgently to impose its own targeted and phased smart sanctions. We do not have to wait for the UN Security Council to agree on essential new measures - as others have suggested - on an arms embargo covering all of Sudan, on asset-freezing of the wealthy people of Sudan, on travel bans and on consideration of an oil embargo.
Clearly, revenue flows to the south would need to be protected if we impose an oil embargo, and consideration would perhaps need to be given to compensating the south Sudanese for lost oil revenue. But the least we can do is to put a bar on investments, on technical equipment and on expertise. I also believe that there should be serious consideration of sports sanctions against Sudan, especially consideration of excluding Sudan from the 2010 World Cup. This means that Europe has to put pressure on FIFA.
The EU position, frankly, is weak and untenable. There is too much emphasis on carrots and not enough on sticks. The German Presidency must take a lead and insist on a unified position from Member States. Commissioner, you have described the position, and in the Council we hear the fine words, but nothing happens.
The question is: how does Europe put pressure on Khartoum? There must be an urgent and detailed investigation of the personal finances of wealthy individuals in Sudan. We have to prepare the arguments against those who claim that this would push Sudan closer towards Chinese business interests. The truth is, frankly, that nothing is currently influencing Sudan. It is virtually impossible to influence them, and so, if we remain supine, then we maintain the position where they can be as brutal as they like and Europe will continue to do nothing. Millions of people in Darfur are paying for European broken promises and totally worthless commitments. Khartoum knows that Europe is all bark and no bite and that is why today we are calling for new, strong, economic, legal and military measures.
Public condemnation is not enough. We want solutions which reflect the tragedy. Europe is shamefully weak and I have to say finally that if Darfur was, for example, Lebanon, then real sanctions would be getting a lot more discussion time in the Council, and President Barroso in the Commission and you, Commissioner, would put pressure on the Council to do more.
Mr President, the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is on a scale which is difficult to comprehend. Two and a half million people have had to flee their homes. That is the equivalent of the entire population of north-east England. The death toll among these displaced people is high and it would be higher by far if it were not for the humanitarian efforts on the ground. But even humanitarian workers cannot operate on a battlefield and unless there is a lessening of hostilities in Darfur it can be expected that more of them will be evacuated. The entire fragile, overstretched humanitarian effort in Darfur could very easily collapse, precipitating hunger and disease in the camps and a rocketing death toll. That is why the stabilising influence of an international peace force is so urgently required. It is also necessary in order to provide calmer conditions in which a political process can get under way, involving all parties and including local low-key intercommunity dialogue as well as high-level, high-profile political negotiation.
(PT) It is certainly significant and worrying that the German Presidency is not here today to represent the Council. This says a great deal about levels of genuine interest and commitment in the new relationship with Africa and in working for development in Africa. Three years ago, I was in Darfur with other MEPs who have spoken or who are about to speak. Since then, the situation has worsened, as Mr Almunia said.
The Al-Bashir Government is toying with the international community, with the Security Council, with the European Union and with the African Union, and the EU makes fine statements and does nothing. The time has come for the EU to take action and to exercise its responsibility to protect people. The time has come to impose a no-fly-zone from Chad. The EU can do this, alongside African countries with which it enjoys good relations, and can have an effect on the ground. The time has come, among other things, to impose smart, phased sanctions, travel bans, visa restrictions, and the freezing of assets in banks and elsewhere, and to stop treating Omar Al-Bashir and the members of his government as responsible, respectable leaders. The time has come to impose an effective arms embargo. The time has come to impose other kinds of trade embargo and in particular an oil embargo and on this issue, Mr President, the EU must speak frankly with China, because China as we know is very much responsible for the Al-Bashir Government's attitude. It is a pity that Europe waits for the United States, as Mr Almunia suggested, albeit in a roundabout way, because the EU should take action independently on this issue.
Let us take a look at what is happening not just in Darfur but throughout Sudan and the Horn of Africa. The EU cannot be dependent on the worldview and disastrous policies of the US in respect of the Horn of Africa, as we have seen in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. The time has come for the EU to take action and I align myself with those MEPs who are calling on the Council and the President of the Commission to ensure that the EU does not wait any longer, and exerts the influence it actually has in Khartoum and in Africa to change the situation and to protect the people dying in Darfur. Otherwise, three years hence I along with other MEPs will be joining Mr Almunia or some other Commissioner in bemoaning the fact that the situation has become worse and worse.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission shares the main concerns that you have expressed in this debate tonight. We find the initiative of this debate particularly useful, given the situation and in particular given the latest developments in the region.
In our view, even with this extremely difficult situation, a negotiated way out of the crisis in Darfur is the most desirable alternative and the option most likely to be successful. That being said, the Council already stated last Monday that it is ready to consider further measures, notably in the UN framework.
A lasting peace is Darfur can only be political and will require all parties to support the Darfur Peace Agreement and renounce the military option. The Commission remains strongly committed to alleviating the plight of the three million civilian people affected by this terrible crisis. As you all know, the Commission, and in particular my colleague Louis Michel - who cannot be here today because he is in Washington, discussing, among other things, this particular issue - is following the situation very closely and the Commission will not hesitate to call on all parties to respect human rights and international law as well as to remove all obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid.
To wind up the debate, I have received six motions for resolutionspursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (PL) We are proud that the very fact that, as Europeans, we are compelled to condemn manifest evil in whichever part of our world it may affect human beings. What is happening in Darfur is a manifest evil. Accordingly, we are bound to express our opposition to those who perpetrate such evils. Is it enough for us to simply express views that stem from a moral imperative and then rest in the knowledge of a job well done? Obviously not. We cannot rest as long as people continue to suffer. We can only rest when we have put a stop to the evil. Therefore, we are not entitled to rest simply because we have right on our side, but only when effective action has been taken.
We shall only be able to rest and be content when our words and actions have put a stop to the activities of those who kill, supply weapons and ideology, as well as those who permit, incite and inflict cruelty. We will only be able to walk with our heads held high when our vision of a moral order becomes reality. A person who did not commit a sin simply because he or she was not tempted to do so cannot be accused of sinning. By the same token, one cannot praise a person who could have taken action to stem evil, but who was content to simply point it out. We do not lack information about Darfur. We do not lack experience or an ethical and political assessment of events. What we are lack is effectiveness and, therefore, that is what we should focus on.
in writing. - (FR) Ever since the hostilities were launched in February 2003, Darfur, one of the poorest regions in Sudan, has been the scene of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. There have been four years of conflict and suffering for the people of Darfur, and four resolutions by our Parliament to show our indignation, but the situation remains extremely worrying.
Today, our Parliament is reiterating its concerns within the context of a joint resolution on Darfur and is urging the United Nations, the Member States, the Council and the Commission to assume their responsibilities and to clearly set a date for the deployment of a peacekeeping force, under UN control, with the aim of immediately making the humanitarian corridors more secure and of thus easing the immense distress faced by the people of Darfur.
I welcome this new initiative, but faced with the urgency of the situation, Europe can no longer just reiterate old requests. Our responsibility and our credibility require us to provide a satisfactory solution to the suffering of millions of human victims whom Europe can no longer merely observe, and to adopt a resolution that finally matches our indignation.
Darfur has been a running sore for far too long. A situation partly driven by climate change - what does that bode for the future - whereby desertification has driven pastoralists into direct conflict with settled farming communities and then exploited by a heartless Government in Sudan has gone on for far too long.
Hundreds of thousands are living in misery and threatened with worse. I have been critical of China's reluctance to support UN action, it was claimed because of its oil interests in southern Sudan. But now President Hu Jintao's direct intervention appears to have persuaded Sudan's President to agree a UN peacekeeping operation manned by troops from AU countries.
Whether Sudan's Government can be trusted is not clear. But now, if China is betrayed, Sudan will no longer be able to rely on their reluctance to act in the UN Secretary Council. This may be good news for refugees in Darfur and neighbouring countries.


Cross-border payments in the Community - The business of electronic money institutions (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on:
the report by Mrs Starkevičiūtė, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community - C6-0352/2008 -, and
- the report by Mr Purvis, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC - C6-0350/2008 -.
rapporteur. - (LT) Today, as the European Union's economy experiences a period of recession, it is very important to stimulate economic growth. One of the sources of the European Union's economic growth is the expansion of the common market, which is still very fragmented, especially in the area of financial services. The proposal before us should help solve this problem and establish a common European payment area. In English this is called the Single Euro Payments Area.
This document already has some history. As soon as the euro was introduced and the currency exchange rates were abolished in euro zone countries, it became clear that prices for cross-border payments still differed from prices for local payments. For this reason Regulation (EC) No 2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in euro was adopted and entered into force at the end of 2001. It set equal charges for corresponding local, national payments and cross-border payments and strengthened this principle. The aim of this was to reduce prices for consumers and ensure greater competition in the payment services market.
Implementing this regulation reduced payment fees; for example, a cross-border transfer of EUR 100 used to cost an average of EUR 24 in the European Union, now it costs EUR 2.50. On the other hand, the document revealed certain deficiencies. For this reason it was decided that it should be revised.
The document before us is an improved version of Regulation No 2560. What is new in the document? Firstly, the principle of equality of charges for cross-border and corresponding domestic payments has been extended to include direct debit. This was not previously available. Once the SEPA had been created and the Payment Services Directive had been adopted, the payment environment in Europe changed; therefore, it is important that from November 2009 it will be possible to use the popular electronic payment method, direct debit, on a cross-border basis. In order to help create that common direct debit model, the regulation states that in the absence of a bilateral agreement between the payment service providers of the payer and the payee, the level of the default interim Multilateral Interchange Fee for a direct debit will be set at EUR 0.08 for a transitional period until 2012.
The document also outlines how to improve the defence of consumer rights and remove obstacles to business. It is proposed that Member States appoint competent authorities to supervise the implementation of this regulation, and those authorities should also actively cooperate across nations, so that there are fewer obstacles to business; they could also lay down guidelines on how to assess procedures for determining compliance with the principle.
Another novelty the revision of this document offers is the proposal to gradually abolish obligations imposed on banks in certain states to provide balance-of-payments statistics and the laying down of other procedures for providing balance-of-payments statistics.
I am very sorry that an agreement with the Council could not be reached on this point and for the time being the balance-of-payments revision procedures and implementation procedures have still to be defined. Parliament and the Commission have declared that a strict deadline would be set.
rapporteur. - Madam President, this directive responds to the growing importance of electronic commerce and of electronic money and the need for a clear legislative framework. Its aim is to facilitate the use of electronic money for on-line payments accounts, pre-paid mobile phone accounts, top-up travel cards and gift vouchers.
E-money is no different from other forms of money in that it stores monetary value and provides a convenient means of exchange. But, unlike account-based payment instruments, such as credit and debit cards, it works as a pre-paid bearer instrument. It is used to cover payments - usually of relatively small amounts - to undertakings other than the user, thus differentiating it from single purpose pre-paid cards like telephone cards. There is no need of a bank account in order to use e-money, so it is particularly relevant to those in society who do not, or cannot, have bank accounts.
It was all of eight years ago that a Benjamin Cohen, in his article, 'Electronic Money: New Day or False Dawn?', stated that the era of electronic money will soon be upon us. Sadly, this prediction was both over-optimistic and premature - for Europe, at least. Electronic money is still far from delivering, in Europe, the full benefits which were expected when the first e-money directive was adopted in 2001.
Probably this was because of the high initial capital requirement and other over-cautious restrictions. The number of e-money institutions differs remarkably from one Member State to another. For example, the Czech Republic has over 40 EMIs, or Electronic Money Institutes, while France and Germany between them have a grand total of 12. In fact, two German EMIs were even constrained to move to the UK jurisdiction because of major differences in regulation, even under this directive. In August 2007 - two years ago - outstanding electronic money was only EUR 1 billion, and that compares with EUR 600 billion of cash in circulation.
So, clearly, e-money has a long way to go to become a serious alternative to cash. However, it is growing significantly, despite the restrictions, and this new directive should enable new, innovative and secure electronic money services to operate, to provide market access possibilities for new players and to foster real and effective competition between market participants. New and smaller operators will have an opportunity to enter the market, as the amount of initial capital needed will be reduced from EUR 1 million to EUR 350 000. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would certainly have preferred less.
Providers can extend the outlets where e-payments can be made, for example the customer paying for his metro ticket with e-money could also purchase a coffee, a newspaper or a bunch of flowers at the station kiosk, as is already - and very successfully - the case in Hong Kong, for example.
We have been rushed through the legislative process for a first-reading agreement in order to get this measure enacted before the European elections. I thank most warmly Ivo and Melanie from the Economic Committee staff, the Socialist and Liberal shadows, Mr Pittella and Mrs Raeva, the Commission services and the Czech Presidency, notably Tomáš Trnka and his team, for their very positive cooperation. None of us achieved all we would have wished, but I believe we will have made a significant step forward, and I would very much welcome Parliament's support for this project.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express the Commission's appreciation of the speed with which Parliament has dealt with these two issues, which are so important, and on this point I would like to thank both the rapporteurs and Mrs Berès, chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, for making a crucial contribution to the speed of the work.
We are now only a couple of months away from the final deadline for transposition by the Member States of the directive on payment services. These two measures, alongside the noteworthy efforts of the payments industry to develop SEPA products, constitute a crucial and timely step towards the completion of the single market for payments. These measures, together with the directive, will complete the legal basis which is indispensable in providing clarity, certainty and stability to the market. The negotiations that have been conducted in recent weeks have made it possible to obtain a very rapid agreement concerning these two issues.
With regard to the revised regulation on cross-border payments, I am pleased to announce that the Commission endorses the proposed amendment, which has come about as a result of a compromise. The Commission is particularly pleased by the inclusion in its original proposal of articles governing the matter of the multilateral interbank fee for direct debit transactions. The market was looking for these provisions and we consider them to be vital for a timely launch by European banks of the SEPA direct debit.
These rules will give the payments industry three years to put forward a long-term commercial model for automated debits that abides by competition rules. In a spirit of compromise, the Commission is willing to replace the unconditional removal of these obligations with a review clause, as proposed by Parliament and the Council.
With regard to the revised directive on electronic money, this is a particularly ambitious piece of legislation that will offer a well-received second chance for the establishment of a market in electronic money that will be genuinely useful. The directive aims to provide the market with a clear and balanced legal and prudential framework, removing unnecessary, disproportionate or excessive barriers to market entry and making the business of issuing electronic money more attractive.
The new directive should promote genuine and effective competition between all market participants, and at the same time ensure equal conditions for all payment services providers and a high level of consumer protection. The compromise reached establishes an excellent balance, fully protecting our initial objectives and at the same time providing an appropriate response to the legitimate concerns expressed during the adoption process. We therefore fully support this proposal.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - Madam President, the Legal Affairs Committee supports the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community.
The aims of the Commission initiative are as follows: firstly, to replace the existing regulation in order to adapt it to market developments; secondly, to advance the protection of consumer rights and to provide an adequate legal framework for the development of a modern and efficient payment system within the EU; and thirdly, to achieve an internal market for payment services in euro.
The Legal Affairs Committee was appointed to submit an opinion to the lead Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In the opinion it was proposed that Member States may appoint existing institutions to act as competent authorities and to utilise or extend existing procedures concerning cross-border payment services. It is important to apply and improve already existing measures and redress bodies to deal effectively with complaints and disputes regarding this proposal.
It is important to point out that the principles of proportionality, subsidiarity and especially the extended principle of equality of charges for cross-border payments should comply with the EC Treaty, Article 95(1). Cross-border payments in euro require a Community-wide approach because the applicable rules and principles have to be the same in all Member States in order to achieve legal certainty and a level playing field for all European payments market stakeholders.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Madam President, I am going to comment only on the regulation on cross-border payments and the report drawn up by Mrs Starkevičiūtė.
The regulation, as she has explained very well, responds to the needs that have been perceived as a result of the introduction of the euro, and lays down a relatively clear principle: charges must be the same for domestic payments as for cross-border payments. This is a common-sense rule in an internal market, but one that was far from being adhered to prior to this regulation.
The regulation has thus become a launch-pad for the Single Euro Payments Area, to which the rapporteur also referred, and I therefore have some additional observations.
With time, this regulation has become outdated and it has been necessary to revise it in order to adapt it to the changes on the financial markets and also to the directive on payment services.
The Commission set itself three goals in this revision: firstly, to include cross-border direct debits within the regulation's scope; secondly, to establish procedures for the out-of-court handling of problems that might arise from the application of the regulation; and, thirdly, to ease the balance-of-payments statistical reporting obligations.
The European Parliament has, on the whole, agreed with this approach, but it has made three significant changes: a clarification to the legal definitions laid down by the regulation, a warning or reminder to the Member States that they should comply with the regulation more effectively than they have done in the past and, thirdly, a call for significant cooperation between the Member States.
My concern was the issue of balance-of-payments statistical obligations, which has been resolved by agreement between the separate institutions. I can therefore say that I am fully satisfied with the result achieved.
Madam President, I would like to talk about the report by Mr Purvis on electronic money.
First of all, I think that if we consider the reasons why electronic money is less developed here than in Hong Kong, it is undoubtedly because European citizens have become used to using their bank cards much more easily.
This Parliament has had two concerns in drawing up this legislation: firstly, at a time when the issue of supervision is on everybody's lips, we do not want to deregulate the supervision of electronic money institutions solely because of the latter's lobbying. This is why the European Parliament has above all insisted that these institutions that issue electronic money and manage electronic money should be subject to genuine supervision, and I think that we have obtained a number of guarantees in this area. I welcome this.
In the same way, we were anxious to take into account the interests of citizens and those who use electronic money, particularly when they want to end their contracts, so that they did not have restrictions and fees imposed on them by the institutions managing electronic money that we would have seen as excessive.
This is the spirit in which we have supported this proposal, in the hope that it would make our fellow citizens' lives easier through the use of electronic money, but that this would not result in excesses, particularly in terms of supervision mechanisms.
The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community, which aims to replace the current applicable regulation, is linked to the creation of an integrated European payments market. The proposal is also aimed at increasing the protection of consumers' interests and rights and easing the burden with regard to reporting statistics.
Article 5 on the balance of payments and Article 12 relating to the review clause are the subject of a compromise which our rapporteur, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, is aiming for and is supported by Bulgaria. The compromise offers an opportunity for a timely, adequate assessment.
The current global financial crisis focuses attention on the need for relevant statistical data. Bulgaria is in favour of removing settlement-based reporting obligations on payment service providers for balance of payments statistics under a threshold of EUR 50 000.
Bulgaria supports the removal of Article 5(2) as the reservations which have been expressed are made in the context of the potential loss of information and a deterioration in the quality of the balance of payments statistics, as well as to do with the need for a technical period for implementing the switch to the direct reporting system.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, once again I would like to express my appreciation for the way in which Parliament has managed these two issues. It means that the new regulation on cross-border payments will enter into force as scheduled on 1 November this year, and the e-money market will thus have a second chance to take off.
In parallel with the directive on payment services, these two pieces of European legislation will make it possible to create a modern, comprehensive legal framework for the Community market in payments and will smooth the path so that the European payments industry will be able to fully develop the Single Euro Payments Area project. This project will offer European consumers and firms a fully integrated payments market that is efficient in terms of costs and is of the highest quality.
The Commission therefore thanks - and I do so with particular pleasure - the European Parliament for this latest sign of its commitment to the SEPA.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, electronic money that can be used across borders represents considerable progress. It is important for the EU to improve the internal market in this way by promoting its use. However, I would like to take the opportunity to recall what it is that we are actually talking about.
When we introduced the euro in a large number of European countries, it was based on the analyses carried out on the value of a monetary union. The value is that we reduce the costs involved in exchanging money as well as other transaction costs. We reduce information costs by having a common currency. The price that we pay for this is to have more unstable economies. It is more difficult for us to maintain even and high rates of employment and to maintain stable state finances. We are seeing this right now as everything is going pear-shaped in this regard in countries such as Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece.
Take note, then, that the victims should be counterbalanced by the benefits gained in lower transaction costs as a result of a common currency, but the benefits are continually diminishing precisely because progress with regard to the payment system is so rapid. Within a short time, we will be in a position where we find that we have such an effective payment system that the costs have become negligible. Then we will have a common currency that actually only guarantees us instability in our European economy. This is something I have said before and now you can see it happening. I urge you all to reflect on this.
rapporteur. - (LT) I would like to say that the text before us is a compromise, which has been reached through complex negotiations between the Council, the Commission and Parliament.
However, it is a positive result and I would like to thank the Council representative Mr Trinka and the Commission representatives for their cooperation, and would also like to thank staff of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who helped to prepare this document. It will answer those questions which were raised by Mr Lungren, that is, it will help to bolster the whole euro area, because the procedures for euro transactions will be strengthened. As a representative of a country, which is not in the euro zone, I am delighted that this regulation can also be applied, if non-euro zone Member States wish, to payments in national currency, which in Lithuania would be the litas.
For the time being, in our countries prices for cross-border payments and prices for domestic payments in the national currency still differ. This is partly determined by the fact that we are not euro zone Member States. I think that the first step and one of the steps towards the euro zone would be for us, non-euro zone Member States, to begin to apply this principle to national currencies. The other important thing is that the fostering of cross-border payments by this regulation opens the way to modernising the European banking sector, because banks have a transition period of three years to prepare a new business model, which would make payments more efficient.
This is very important as we often talk about innovations, new initiatives and modernisation. This document creates exactly the right conditions for all this.
rapporteur. - Madam President, just to satisfy the prudential concerns mentioned by Mrs Berès, I would point out that we have insisted in this directive and report that e-money funds are not deposits; credit cannot be created upon them. We have opened the door for e-money only a bit wider.
The basic capital requirement is reduced to EUR 350 000; the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would have preferred EUR 200 000. The own-funds requirement is to be 2% of outstanding e-money funds; we would have preferred 1.6%, but with the 20% flexibility up or down that is allowed, the more liberal Member States can go down to 1.6% and the conservative Member States can go up to 2.4%.
It is not ideal that we still have the prospect of such an uneven playing field in the European Union, especially when we have insisted that e-money users' funds will be fully safeguarded and there are also other important user-friendly protections, for example in redemption, as Mrs Berès mentioned. Because of the level of capital required, the waiver level has also had to be set for purely national e-money operators at EUR 5 million instead of EUR 2 million.
All in all, this is a very cautious step forward. It is not perfect. Compromises seldom are. Almost certainly it will have to be revisited in three or four years' time and, by then, I hope more operators will have entered the business. Users and merchants will be clamouring for more choice. The more doubtful regulators, banks, Mrs Berès - and even the European Central Bank - will have become reconciled that this is a beneficial, user-friendly service which holds no risks to the European economy. We in Europe can at last take up all the opportunities which e-money offers.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place today.


15. 2007 discharge: Commission (


1. Arrest of Chinese dissident Hu Jia (debate)
- The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on the arrest of the Chinese dissident Hu Jia.
author. - (DE) Madam President, our Group has nominated Hu Jia and his wife, Zeng Jinyan, for the Sakharov Prize. Because the couple are under house arrest they used a webcam link to take part in a hearing of the European Parliament on the human rights situation in China. The renewed arrest of Hu Jia has only served to demonstrate something that he himself warned of. Does China by its action wish to show its contempt for the opinion of the European Parliament?
Human rights must be firmly enshrined as an issue that cuts across all the relations that exist between the EU and China. We too must act in a coherent and consistent way and should not simply sacrifice our values on the altar of good economic relations.
We are therefore calling on the Council and the Commission not just to take up a position for Hu Jia but also to use the next EU-China summit to call for a commitment to human rights.
China has to put a stop to the systematic intimidation of human rights activists. If China does not change its conduct we will again need to raise the issue of our participation in the Olympic Games. Moreover, Russia is set to host the next Winter Olympics and that country also has a poor record when it comes to human rights.
(Applause)
Madam President, the problem of human rights in China keeps coming up in these urgent debates, always with good reason. China's economic growth and increased international standing have still not resulted in any real difference in the approach to civil liberties, abuse of power by the authorities, room for opposition and independence of the judiciary.
Harsh penalties are still being imposed, including frequent use of the death penalty. China is not the only country that sentences people to death and executes them, but it is the champion in this. The only progress that we have seen is that more care is now taken to be certain of the perpetrator's guilt before the death penalty is carried out, so fewer people are being put to death who later turn out to be innocent.
Meanwhile, the international focus on the three great dramas in China has to a large extent disappeared. The bloodbath in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the persecution of the supporters of the Falun Gong movement and the changing of the composition of the populations of Tibet and East Turkestan are being given less and less attention.
All the attention is now going to economic growth, export opportunities to China, opportunities for cheap imports from China, the growing role of China in Africa and the coming Olympic Games in China. Under these circumstances the pressure to improve the human rights situation in China is dwindling. The Olympic Games have become an argument for pulling down residential areas and driving the residents away. Chinese ambassadors say that their national honour is violated when this is criticised from abroad.
The coming Olympic Games could have been an occasion for improvement. As things look at the moment, they will be good for tourism and good for the completion of major public works, but not good for improving human rights. In the Netherlands, meanwhile, a debate has started about the possibility of boycotting these Olympic Games.
A resolution about a single arrested human rights activist, Hu Jia, is necessary but it is not enough. The most important factor in the relations between Europe and China should not be economic self-interest but our concern about human rights in China.
author. - (PL) I agree with Mr Meyer who said just now that we should boycott the Olympic Games because of the persecution to which the Chinese people are subject in China. Indeed, it is not only the Chinese who are constantly being persecuted in that country. The persecution of the Tibetan people and other national minorities has often been raised in this House. We are today referring to the illegal detention and persecution of an activist in the cause of freedom, a person who is fighting for freedom in China, namely the politician Hu Jia. His wife and family have shared his fate.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can remember when the Olympic Games hosted by the Soviet Union were boycotted several decades ago. That action contributed to the fall of the Communist regime. We cannot now allow ourselves to be dazzled by China's economic success. Congratulations are due to China on the latter, but we must not turn a blind eye to the persecution of so many people and the violation of their fundamental rights. As I mentioned earlier, it is not only the Chinese who are affected, but also other residents of what is known as China. After all, Tibet, whose cause has repeatedly been raised in this House, is not China. I appeal for a boycott of the Olympic Games.
author. - (DE) Madam President, seven months before the start of the Olympic Games, China is demonstrating how little account it takes of human rights. The hope that the IOC decision would help improve things in the Middle Kingdom has been an illusion.
In October and November 2007 the State Security Services abducted and maltreated the attorneys Gao Zhisheng and Li Heping. At the end of December they imprisoned the human rights activist and cyber dissident Hu Jia on the charge that he had used the Internet to incite subversion of State power.
On 10 October Hu Jia took part in a press conference on human rights, which was held at the European Parliament in Brussels. He was linked to us live from China by telephone. We must thank him for this courageous act. Last year he and his wife Zeng Jinyan were nominated by the European Parliament for the Sakharov Prize. In his Internet blog he reports on political prisoners and on the victims of land confiscations for the forthcoming Olympics.
In a letter he thanked Chancellor Angela Merkel for having received the Dalai Lama. This clearly was too much for official China. In an open letter some 57 Chinese intellectuals called for the release of Hu Jia. Our President, Hans-Gert Pöttering, endorsed this. It is a slap in the face when human rights activists are arrested, especially because of their contact with the European Parliament. We have to use all diplomatic means at our disposal to ensure that he is released from prison immediately.
China is promising the world the best Olympic Games ever seen. The price for this should not be censorship or contempt for the rule of law.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Madam President, back in 2001 when it was decided that Beijing would host the Olympic Games, many of us believed that despite the controversy surrounding it, this decision would help to bring about political change in Communist China. We felt that the host country would be moved to put an end to widespread violations of human rights and increase the scope of fundamental freedoms on its territory. I agree with Mr Mann that with 7 months to go before the Games open, all those hopes have proved in vain. The opposite is actually the case: the rule of terror in China has intensified.
Human rights defenders like Hu Jia and his wife are imprisoned and held illegally without trial in unknown locations, harassed, terrorised and denied the right of defence. The Chinese authorities are sending out a different signal to the world, indicating that there is no democracy or openness in their country. At the same time, the Chinese Olympic Committee has determined that the Games' main slogan will be 'One world, one dream'. They maintain that this dream consists of a common aspiration to flourish and live in peace. One is left wondering what kind of peace the Chinese have in mind and whether they really understand what the Olympic Games are all about.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, the Chinese activist Mr Hu Jia was arrested two days after Christmas during the afternoon at his home. It is very sad news, particularly because China, a great country, a great global player in the contemporary world, is the organiser of the Olympic Games this year.
The European Parliament and all the European Union must stress that China must challenge six issues relating to human rights: China's failure to fully implement new regulations allowing greater press freedom; China's superficial commitments to upholding the rule of law; limited Chinese support for international efforts to promote civilian protection in Darfur, Sudan; limited Chinese support for international efforts to promote human rights in Burma; the absence of transparency in Chinese aid to abusive governments; and, in particular, the release from prison of all political prisoners in China.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan have come to symbolise for us the fight for freedom of expression and human rights in China. Both husband and wife have been nominated by this House for the Sakharov Prize in recognition of their activities, whilst they are repressed in their own country because of those same activities. Hu Jia was arrested on 2 January.
In the 1980s, during the period of martial law in Poland, transparency served to protect against the most drastic forms of repression. The press and radio stations on the other side of the Iron Curtain named those imprisoned, which allowed us to hope we would be safe. I myself experienced what it meant to be helped in this way by people abroad who were not indifferent to our plight. That is why it is now so very important for me to ensure that our voice, the voice of the European Parliament, the voice of hundreds of Members from different European countries should be heard in China. The Chinese authorities must hear our appeal and stop repressing Hu Jia and the many other victims of persecution.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the Olympic Games ought to be perceived by both the Chinese authorities and the rest of the world as a chance for China to change its international image, which has been particularly affected by continuous breaches of human rights, affecting very different groups, for very different reasons.
The arrest of Hu Jia, and many others, show that China is not taking up this opportunity as it should. It also serves once again as a reminder to those who saw China as a country that was prepared and sufficiently open-minded to organise an international event supposedly focusing on solidarity such as the Olympic Games.
China still has time to change that image, but to do this it must take issues such as freedom of expression and freedom of association more seriously, and put an end to its obsession with arresting, punishing and convicting Chinese men and women accused of an offence as difficult to justify as incitement to subvert state power.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group . - Madam President, every Olympics draws our attention to the preservation of human dignity as stated in the Olympic Charter. The 2008 Beijing Olympics will specifically draw our attention to that preservation - or otherwise - in China. Hopefully, this will bring pressure on the Chinese Government to rethink actions like the arrest of Hu Jia. It is an opportunity for the country to improve its poor record in this area.
Instead, the Chinese Government seems determined to sweep human rights abuses under the rug, by arresting activists and protestors. Of concern is the purchase of Western high-tech security equipment by the Chinese authorities, obviously intended to step up security during the games. My concern is twofold. I fear that such security equipment will be used against the Chinese people this summer, and that it will remain in misuse after the summer. We must either use the Olympics to promote human rights in China, or boycott them, and one thing we cannot do is have a big celebration of China if human rights continue to be so flagrantly disregarded.
(BG) Colleagues, during the 20th century millions of people all over the world fell victims to communism. Regrettably, this extremely pernicious, misanthropic and mostly anti-Christian ideology continues to take its victims to this day and to have its representatives. Even here in this Chamber. I will give you an example to illustrate and make things somewhat clearer.
Currently Hu Jia is under house arrest in China because there are a sufficient number of people there who believe that he is a proponent of their ideas. This is what makes his dangerous for the Chinese regime. Here, at the European Parliament, thank God, there is a sufficient number of Members elected by millions of citizens to represent their views, yet the powers that be in this European Union, which many compare to a 'pyramid', have their own priorities and a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is not among those priorities.
This makes us, those Members, just as dangerous as Hu Jia is for the Chinese regime. We are not placed under house arrest but Mr. Pöttering, if he is honest and open enough, would admit that he might go that far. However, I assure him that an honourable representation of our voters counts more than that prospect. Thank you.
Madam President, the case of Mr Hu Jia and his wife, unfortunately, is not an isolated one.
In order to have the privilege to host this year's Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese Government undertook additional commitments to meet internationally recognised human rights standards. Contrary to these expectations, Beijing sees the Olympic Games as a justification for increasing repression against human rights activists. So, by systematically violating its own commitments, the Chinese Government has demonstrated that it does not intend to respect the core values of the Olympic tradition. In fact, it is about to lose its credibility.
Therefore, the democratic states cannot limit their reaction to mere complaints. If the Chinese authorities do not make credible changes to the situation, then the democratic participants in the Games risk their own credibility with regard to the values they advocate.
(PL) Madam President, in 2001 the Vice-President of the Beijing Organising Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Liu Jingmin, stated that awarding the Olympic Games to Beijing would help to promote the development of human rights. In recent months, however, the Chinese authorities have been allowing themselves to violate freedom of expression more frequently than usual. They have also repressed journalists and activists. The arrest of Hu Jia, a leading human rights activist who was nominated for the Sakharov Prize in 2007 sent shock waves through society. Hu Jia was arrested on the pretext that he had been inciting others to overthrow the national government. He is still being denied the right to a lawyer and to medical care.
China must be forced to comply with international standards in human rights and to respect those rights. It must also put an end to exploitation of the Games as an excuse for the illegal detention of journalists and dissidents. We should remind the Chinese authorities of the idea inspiring the Olympic movement, namely linking sport with a vision of a peaceful society and the preservation of human dignity. At the same time we should call for the immediate release of Hu Jia and of all the other activists detained without trial, so that they can return to their families and access essential medical care.
(PL) Madam President, I simply wished to establish whether the 'catch-the-eye' strategy also works here. If so, I wished to state briefly that when in China one cannot detect any obvious signs of how the control system operates, but it does. The citizens feel strongly bound up in the oppressive regime imposed by the system. We believe we are called to make the rest of the world aware of the situation, as other Members have already stated. That is the only weapon at our disposal. We can respect the economic development achieved in China, but hardly anywhere else in the world have people become so permeated by fear and self-censorship. I am therefore full of admiration for those courageous individuals in China who are brave enough to risk their careers, their freedom and their very lives to draw attention to the situation. It is our moral duty to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. There is no other solution, no other way forward.
(PL) Madam President, further to the comments of my fellow Member from Poland, I should like to pose the following question to Commissioner Kuneva, taking advantage of her presence in the House. Against the background of the last few years, can we really say that genuine respect for human rights is on the increase in the People's Republic of China? Have the Games due to take place this July in Beijing really meant that Chinese dissidents can now feel more secure, and that relations with Taiwan are on a more civilised footing? Has free access to the Internet increased over the last two or three years? I would be grateful for the Commissioner's reply. After all, the Bible tells us: 'Ask and ye shall receive'.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, only a month ago my colleague, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, expressed in this Chamber the Commission's deep concern at the continuous and systematic repression of human rights' defenders in China. The Commission was, therefore, all the more concerned to learn about Mr Hu Jia's arbitrary detention and recalls that he has been subjected to repeated acts of harassment in the past due to human rights activities.
We also express our concern for Mr Hu Jia's health. He suffers from hepatitis B and must take daily medication. It is not clear whether daily access to the medical treatment he needs is guaranteed and whether he can count on doctors' assistance during his detention in the Beijing Municipal Detention Centre in Dougezhuang.
In the Commission's view, the detention of Mr Hu Jia places an obligation on the EU to act in a firm manner because of the clear inference that he was arrested as a consequence of speaking freely and honestly about the repression of human rights defenders via a telephone link to a meeting of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights in November 2007.
As such, it has echoes of the case of Cao Dong, a Falun Gong petitioner, who was arrested and is still in prison after meeting the Vice-President of the European Parliament in Beijing in May 2006. The detention of Mr Hu Jia also calls for a reaction from the EU as an international actor for the protection of human rights defenders. Yesterday the EU troika carried out a firm démarche to the Chinese authorities asking for his immediate release. We sincerely hope that the Chinese authorities will understand that the issue of human rights defenders has an important impact on China's standing with the European public and will act accordingly.
I would like to reassure this Chamber that the EU will monitor very closely the evolution of Mr Hu Jia's case.
The Commission would like to use this opportunity to urge again the Chinese Government to permit expressions of all forms of opinion. This is an important factor in how the international public views China, especially this year, when the eyes of the world will be on China in the build-up to the Olympic Games. We are convinced that a far more stable society can be achieved by allowing freedom of expression.
Let me close by saying that the Commission will intensify its efforts to seek an improvement of the overall human rights situation in China. In this respect, we will continue to play an instrumental role within the troika in preparing the EU-China human rights dialogue and seminar so that discussions continue to become more target-focussed.
Despite the slow progress in the human rights situation in China, we firmly believe that the EU-China human rights dialogue remains one of the most effective ways of engaging China in frank and detailed discussions with a view to achieving human rights reforms on the ground.
- The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.


Announcement by the President
As you know, a large number of French trade unions have officially announced their intention to strike on Thursday, namely, on 23 September 2010. The strike action will include public transport workers and will begin on Wednesday, 22 September, at 22:00. We have also received information that the strike may even start two hours earlier, namely at 20:00. The Conference of Presidents has decided that Parliament will follow its normal work schedule and that this month's part-session will end, as planned, after the vote on Thursday.
The strike will have an impact on air and rail services, as well as public transport services, including buses and trams, in France. It may, therefore, become impossible to ensure the same access to transport that we have enjoyed to date. However, we have taken all the necessary measures to provide you with transport which will enable you to return home. The first arrangements have been made, although there are more to come.
The initial arrangements are as follows. The chartered Thalys train will circulate as usual, and the bus shuttle service between the European Parliament and the train station will be guaranteed. That has already been arranged. Travel to various airports outside of French territory will be provided by our services. The College of Quaestors has already issued a communication containing details of additional resources to allow the current travel restriction of 20 km for vehicles used on official business to be lifted, in order to facilitate travel to airports in Switzerland and Germany. The 20 km limit which applies to the European Parliament's official vehicles will therefore be lifted. You will be able to travel further in those vehicles. The Strasbourg municipal authorities will make an announcement this week and will keep MEPs up to date on all alternative means of transport.
The Bureau of the European Parliament will meet today at 18:30. We will discuss, step by step and in detail, how we can best ensure that Members can travel from the European Parliament in Strasbourg to their homes. You will receive an e-mail containing information on this issue tomorrow morning. If we receive any new information, I will contact you again on Wednesday morning. The first in-depth information will be sent to you by e-mail before noon tomorrow and you may receive additional information on Wednesday morning. If we receive any information from the Strasbourg municipal authorities, I will also pass it on to you immediately. We will continue to monitor the situation in order to ensure that you get home without difficulties. I would like to remind you that this information is preliminary. We will provide you with further information tomorrow and the following day.
Mr President, thank you for the announcement you made today. People across the whole of Europe and, in particular, in my country, the United Kingdom, will be appalled at what a mess we are in. We come to Strasbourg once a month - twice this month - to sit, which is a complete and utter farce. The voting could take place quite easily in Brussels when we are there. The extra cost every time we come is millions and millions of euros, throughout a period of time. Surely the time has now come for us to wake up - for you to wake up, and for this Parliament to wake up - to the fact that we should not meet in this place at all.
(Applause)
I would like to point out to my fellow Member that the matter is unrelated to today's discussion. We are discussing technical matters, namely how to reach our destinations on Thursday. The issue you have raised is an entirely different problem. It relates to the treaties, to agreements within the European Union, and has no bearing on the matter at hand.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to add that Strasbourg, in comparison to Brussels, has the advantage that it borders Germany and therefore it is much easier to find alternative means of transport than in Brussels.
That completes this item. I would like to repeat that further information on this subject will be provided on Tuesday and Wednesday.