9. EU and PNR data (vote)
- Before the vote:
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the European Commission, group chairmen, ladies and gentlemen, first of all it is not without emotion that I address you at voting time.
I am delighted that the French Presidency has been given the opportunity to speak to the House on European PNR. This project raises a great many questions, fears and expectations, which all deserve close consideration.
It involves a large number of public and private agencies and it is the internal security of the European Union, its notion of fundamental freedoms and rights and even, from certain points of view, its international policy which are at stake.
That is why this programme needs a methodical, concerted and progressive approach.
We have had open, well-argued debates on specific and concrete questions over the last six months. We have heard from companies in the air travel sector, the services in charge of security in the Member States and the EU Anti-Terrorism Coordinator. We have worked with complete transparency with the data protection authorities and, I must say, the contribution by the European Data Protection Supervisor was extremely helpful.
The French Presidency obtained the opinion of the Agency for Fundamental Rights and this initiative was a first.
In the same spirit of openness, the Council communicated its wish to associate very closely with this House, regardless of the legal basis or institutional framework actually in force. That is why we proposed to this House that views should be exchanged as frequently as possible on this programme. Your rapporteur also received detailed information informally at each step of the work carried out over the last six months.
Next week the Presidency will present a written progress report to the Justice and Internal Affairs Council for approval. I promise the House that this summary document will be sent to you.
The discussion between us needs to be able to cover all the important issues raised by this programme. They are of three orders.
The first is that this instrument is an indispensable tool, as evidenced for example from its use in the fight against drugs. In France, the data programme is responsible for 60% to 80% of drugs intercepted at airports. One and a half tonnes of drugs a year is hardly anecdotal and what is valuable in the fight against drugs is equally valuable in the fight against terrorism. For the EU Anti-Terrorism Coordinator, who works in close contact with the services in charge in the Member States, the data from this programme are undeniably useful, mainly by reason of the particular vulnerability of terrorists at border crossings.
The second important issue is that we obviously require a set of principles to protect rights and freedoms which will need to be respected throughout Europe whenever data are used. These data are collected and processed today using very different methods, which is unsatisfactory within the framework of the European Union. We need harmonised standards and whatever is useless or disproportionate must of course be discarded or sanctioned.
Finally, the third important issue is of an international order. There is an interest in developing a global policy, in having an alternative model to the American model and Europe must be in a position to promote this model at international level.
The European Union has the authority to intervene in the concerted global effort in order to influence the way in which these data and programmes are used and regulated. It is a question of influence; it is also a question of respect for our values. Our airlines and our fellow citizens are asking us to do this in order to limit the constraints caused by overly diversified national requirements.
That, Madam President, committee chairmen, ladies and gentlemen, is what we need to reflect on together.
(Applause)
Madam President, I will be very brief. I thank the Council for its statement. I would like to say that - on behalf of the shadows of the other groups as well - I think the European Parliament is a serious partner, fully available to give input in this process. However, we will only issue a formal position once there are full, satisfactory and detailed answers to all the concerns and objections that were raised on several occasions by the European Parliament, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the national data protection authorities, the fundamental rights agencies and the airlines, because I think they are entitled to a real answer.
Council has often pledged its commitment to the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty. I would ask the Council, in the absence of those reforms, to act in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty and to follow the recommendations of this House or to explain - not so much to the European Parliament but to the European citizens.
Eight years after Nice, decision-making on these issues in the area of police and justice cooperation unfortunately still takes place behind closed doors, not subject to any meaningful democratic scrutiny. Therefore I wish that the Member States would show the same determination, courage and resolve to democratic reforms as they did in the financial crisis.
Finally, I appeal to my colleagues to endorse this resolution and give a very clear political signal to the Council.
(Applause)
(FR) Madam President, as Minister Jouyet is to leave us, I think that Parliament should thank him. He has been one of the most assiduous ministers we have known. I wish him good luck.
(Loud applause)
Thank you very much, Mr Cohn-Bendit. Such good humour today!


World day against the death penalty (debate)
The next item is the Council statement, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on the World day against the death penalty.
Before giving the floor to Mr Chastel, I will read an excerpt from a letter addressed to MEPs by the children of Sakineh. This was sent to me through AKI International specifically to coincide with the debate on the World day against the death penalty.
Here is the extract: 'We would like to thank you for your efforts and the attention that you have given to the case of our mother Sakineh. We would first like to ask for your moral support. Our only hope remains the international community and, for this reason, we would like to ask the European Parliament to intervene in a decisive fashion with all the instruments that it has available to it, to help our mother. We beg you not to abandon us and to listen to our request for help. Lastly, in the hope that primitive punishments, such as stoning and hanging, will be eliminated for ever throughout the world, we send you our warmest greetings.'
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as the President has just said, I speak before this House on the World Day and also the European Day against the Death Penalty on behalf of the high representative, Baroness Ashton.
As you know, the picture of the use of the death penalty in the world is still a mixed one. On the one hand, the vast majority of states today are in favour of its abolition, either in law or in practice, and it is encouraging to see that the number of such states continues to grow. Indeed, we are seeing a strong tendency towards abolition and the restriction of capital punishment in most countries.
On the other hand, the number of executions and the procedures in place for using the death penalty around the world are unfortunately alarming: the 5 679 executions reported in 2009 were 5 679 executions too many. And with 58 countries and territories still using the death penalty, our work is far from finished.
Furthermore, we all know that wherever capital punishment remains in force, there are serious problems with regard to respect for international rules and standards, especially with regard to limiting the death penalty to the most serious crimes, excluding juvenile delinquents from its scope of application and guaranteeing a fair trial.
The conclusion is clear: there is no room for complacency in the matter. Therefore, we must use every available means, including diplomatic channels and public awareness, to achieve our goal, and that is why the High Representative has made the European Union's action for the abolition of the death penalty a personal priority.
What does this mean in practice? The future European External Action Service will undoubtedly be able to rely on the fact that the European Union is already today the leading institution in the fight against the death penalty, but the service will also stand as our best opportunity for fulfilling our potential.
It will notably strengthen our ability to speak as one, giving us the opportunity to engage and bring together all the instruments available in Europe for the fight against the death penalty.
Moreover, the European Union is also continuing to improve the way that it joins forces with other international and multilateral organisations that work for the abolition of the death penalty.
The resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty under the 65th United Nations General Assembly this autumn should reflect progress towards universal abolition. It should reinforce and extend the tendency towards abolition that we are seeing in every region of the world. Close cooperation between the European Union and the Council of Europe is another asset in our fight against the death penalty.
In this regard, and as a very specific example, we are going to join our efforts to encourage Belarus to abolish the death penalty, especially by organising joint events in Minsk during this World Day.
Ladies and gentlemen, because we fundamentally believe that the abolition of the death penalty is essential to the protection of human dignity and to respect for human rights, we oppose the use of capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and we will continue to call for its universal abolition.
Universal abolition is, and will continue to be, a key priority of our external action on human rights and so I reaffirm here, on behalf of Baroness Ashton, our determination to keep the European Union at the fore in the fight for the universal abolition of capital punishment.
I must clarify that, on the basis of a proposal from the Conference of Presidents, a debate will take place with only one speaker per political group. Therefore, it will not be possible to take the floor under the catch-the-eye procedure. This is a shame, because the debate is very important.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, the European Union is based on values and the respect for human rights, which need to be continuously defended and protected worldwide. The right to life lies in the very foundation of them. The World day against the death penalty reminds us that there are still countries in the world that continue in the practice of capital punishment. It is the reason why we need to continue in our efforts and step up the struggle against this practice.
Robust opposition by the EU against the death penalty puts us in the forefront of this struggle. Since the European Parliament is the first EU institution to engage in this effort, it is our duty to influence other states in order to reach a universal abolition.
For the European People's Party, the fight against the death penalty worldwide is a key priority of our external human rights policy. The EU should continuously raise awareness on this issue and support initiatives which could lead to universal abolition.
Saying that, I would also like to call on the High Representative, the Commission and the Member States to keep encouraging the countries that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to do so. Those Member States that did not ratify Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights should do this as well.
I regret to say that Belarus is the only country in Europe which still applies the death penalty in practice. We should make every effort to change this situation. Equally, the EU should constantly raise awareness on the abolition of the death penalty, both in bilateral negotiations and in international fora.
In conclusion, the EU has to be an inspiration to the rest of the world. Only a few days before the World day against the death penalty seems like the right time to reaffirm this as our position.
Belarus, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan: what do these countries have in common as regards respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms? They continue to share a primitive and abominable practice: the death penalty. Some countries use this barbarous method in secret, without even making their statistics on capital punishment public, such as China, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Sudan, Thailand and Vietnam. Only one Member State of the European Union still retains national legislation permitting the death penalty for certain crimes under exceptional circumstances, and in this resolution, Parliament is calling on Latvia to take urgent steps to repeal this legislation.
It is Parliament's view that the European Union should make use of every opportunity to promote abolition of the death penalty, in particular, at bilateral and multilateral summits and meetings, and especially at the United Nations; when negotiating international agreements during official visits; or during dialogue with third countries within the framework of external action, cooperation and financial assistance policies. It is important for the Member States of the European Union to strive for the application of the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on the universal moratorium.
The High Representative, Baroness Ashton, should instruct the European External Action Service to actively promote the universal abolition of the death penalty. There is still a long way to go. Despite everything, today there are already 154 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.
European Union delegations must include an adequate number of officials specialised in human rights and dedicated to pursuing the universal abolition of the death penalty. I call on the High Representative to promote a system for identifying all EU citizens sentenced to death in any country of the world and to mobilise all efforts to save them from execution. As regards the EU's domestic policy in this area, Parliament hopes that the review of European Union directives on the death penalty planned for next year will be brought about quickly.
Externally, the Union must not just comply with its obligation under the Charter of Fundamental Rights to ensure that no one is deported or extradited to a country in which they run the risk of being subjected to the death penalty, but must also make sure that no information sent to third countries within the framework of international agreements on data exchange puts anyone at risk of being sentenced to death.
In this resolution, the European Parliament makes clear its disgust at the most brutal forms of carrying out this type of punishment, such as stoning. This resolution includes the names of some men and women who are on death row in their countries: may the light of civilisation and compassion save their lives. This House therefore calls on the Commission to use every means to act and save them.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, it gives me great pride that the European Union, as a community of values where the death penalty is abolished, is strongly committed to act as a global player on the abolition of the death penalty everywhere.
In negotiations with candidate Member States and in our dialogues with other countries, whether it is the United States or whether it is Iran, we consistently push for the abolition, de jure or de facto, of this most inhumane punishment. The impact of the death penalty in preventing crime is not even proven. Therefore, its practice is even more contested. While there should not be impunity for the most serious crimes, the death penalty in and of itself constitutes a human rights violation according to the right to life, as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We believe in prosecuting crimes under international law, but always under fair trial and with due process. Too often, this is not the case and, in any case, the United Nations has established that drug-related crimes do not qualify as the most serious crimes.
The United Nations has also spoken out in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty, and this is an important statement. At the same time, the UN is struggling for its credibility when Iran is among the members of the Women's Rights Council.
The EU should still speak with one voice and operate more strategically when it comes to addressing important human rights topics, such as the abolition of the death penalty.
Today, the China-EU cultural summit is taking place here in Brussels as we speak. This important step should be applauded, but at the same time, we cannot overlook the fact that China holds the record for the highest number of death penalties, the true number of which we do not even know, due to a lack of transparency and the fact that certain people are qualified as non-people. China is beaten only by Iran when it comes to the execution of juveniles, and killing children cannot be justified under any circumstances. A celebration of culture reminds us of the essential freedom of expression, but too many people across the world are subject to the death penalty and a fear thereof as a result of the words that they have expressed.
The EU should also step up its responsibilities in providing shelter for people from countries that practise the death penalty. The Shelter Cities programme should become operational as soon as possible.
Madam President, the annual anti-death penalty resolution really is a very impressive example of how much the EU is doing and has done in the struggle to get the death penalty abolished worldwide. Granted, there are still too many executions - a great many executions - as the representative of the Commission Vice-President has stated. We should not forget, however, that the global fight against the death penalty is a success story. There are now only 43 countries that impose the death penalty. At international level, the EU is one of the most important active players driving this fight forward and also including it in all bilateral relationships, and we cannot afford to scale back our efforts.
Perhaps we should give some consideration to acting in a more targeted way, because different countries and different governments are structured differently and we may need to apply differentiated strategies. It will be different in Japan, where top politicians are fighting elections and use the death penalty as often as possible. We need a different strategy there to the one we adopt in Iran or Belarus. We may have to proceed one step at a time; for example, by narrowing the circle of those on whom the death penalty may be imposed so as to exclude minors and those with learning difficulties, or by limiting the range of crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed. In China, for example, people can still be executed for what is purely a crime against property. These could be steps along the way to our real goal, which is to abolish the death penalty completely. The EU needs to be somewhat more sophisticated in its approach.
What we cannot do, on any account, even if we take a different approach with different countries, is apply different standards and make different demands of those countries that still have the death penalty.
This year's anti-death penalty resolution has a particular focus, which is the US. As an example, I would like to present one case to you here. This is the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been on death row for over 20 years. He is not rich, he is an African American, and at the time of the offence, he was a journalist whose thoughts and writings were politically radical. Justified doubts and shortcomings have been brought to light concerning his trial. In this case, I am asking the EU to do everything it can and to use every means at its disposal to ensure that the death penalty is not enforced and that he gets a fair trial.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, whilst I rise under the umbrella of the ECR Group, my comments are entirely based upon my personal convictions. I welcome the debate that is taking place in this House today, as it is quite clearly a display of our commitment to a fundamental value of our Union.
Last year, at least 714 people were executed by states. This excludes China, as it will not provide transparency on the issue. Many of the states that still have the death penalty as a punishment tool do not have the mechanism to deliver fair trials to those that they accuse of capital punishment crimes. The distinction between those countries that have capital punishment and use it, and those that retain the power but do not actually carry out the death penalty, is not as dramatic as one would first assume. The figure I stated earlier does not include all those who sit waiting to see what their fate may be, many of whom are actually innocent and have been denied the possibility of a fair trial.
So, whilst we have this debate, it is a very personal one. It is not just about those who are facing conviction and the death penalty but, along with them, all the many others that are affected, their families and so many other people in society, simply because those people face execution without any opportunity of a fair trial. We should concentrate on addressing those cases as well.
Madam President, the motion for a resolution that we are debating today sets out our categorical opposition to the death penalty. There are simply no excuses for States coldly and deliberately exterminating defenceless people in their charge. The death penalty is therefore a crime in itself. It is often more than that, however. When people who have been sentenced to death are waiting for years in wretched conditions, the death penalty is also a form of torture. When the death penalty is used to make people frightened to rise up against oppression and dictatorship, as we have seen in Iran, for example, the death penalty is also a form of terrorism.
As Mrs Lochbihler quite rightly said, the African-American journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal is today a symbol in the fight for the abolition of the death penalty - 'the voice of the voiceless', as he was called when he was charged with the murder of a white police officer in 1981 and sentenced to death. For nearly 30 years, this man has been sitting on death row following a trial characterised by errors and shortcomings and with racist undertones. It is therefore also fitting for the motion for a resolution to highlight the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal as one of the specific cases on which to focus in the coming period, among other things, by representatives of the EU taking up the case with the US authorities, the US administration and, of course, the US President too. This example is no less important because it comes from the United States, which is, of course, the EU's ally in many areas - in fact, it is perhaps more important, because in the fight against the death penalty, there is no room for double standards. In the fight against the death penalty, only one standard applies: an unconditional 'no' to the death penalty.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree on the fact that Europe must use its moral and political influence to further the cause of abolishing the death penalty. If, however, we are not to remain at the stage of abstract declarations of principle, the European Union really must start using the specific instruments at its disposal.
For example, Europe must remember that many third countries that still apply the death penalty in the most brutal and barbaric ways are countries with which the Union has concluded lucrative economic and trade agreements. Above all, Europe must remind these countries that, by signing such agreements, they have committed themselves to respecting minimum standards of fundamental rights. This requirement is routinely ignored, while Europe looks the other way.
Let us then begin to speak clearly about the death penalty with China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Yemen, Bangladesh, and so on, forcing these countries to honour the undertakings they have assumed in terms of respect for human dignity. So far, Europe has only preached. We can only hope that it begins to put its words into action as soon as possible, something that it has unfortunately not yet succeeded in doing in many cases.
(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for the eighth World day against the death penalty, I have a thought for all those who have not been spared death: for the 200 000 innocent unborn children we get rid of every year in France; for Natasha Mougel, the young 29-year-old woman murdered a few weeks ago, stabbed with a screwdriver by a repeat offender; for the four year-old child whose throat was cut a few days ago near my home in Meyzieu; for the elderly gentleman stabbed in Roquebrune in January by a man who had already been prosecuted for knife attacks; for the six to seven hundred innocent people killed each year in France and the many thousands of others in Europe and across the world; for Marie-Christine Hodeau, Nelly Cremel, Anne-Lorraine Schmitt and so many like them, whose only crime was to one day cross the path of a criminal freed by the law after committing a first terrible crime; for the victims of all the likes of Dutroux, Evrard and Fourniret, whose lives have been wrecked forever if not lost; for those who were killed in London, Madrid and elsewhere, victims of blind terrorism.
I think of them because no one organises a world day for the victims, but they do organise days for their executioners, who often do indeed deserve death.
In a state governed by the rule of law, and only in such a state, the death penalty is not a state crime. It helps protect society and citizens against criminals for whom it is sometimes the only means of redemption.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only thank you for your interventions as almost all of them back up our actions. It is clear to me that we agree on the importance the European Union must attach to this action for the abolition of the death penalty.
As I said earlier, and as I repeat once again, the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has made this a personal priority.
We sincerely hope that with its partners, the European Union will draw a satisfactory result, as I have already said, from the 65th United Nations General Assembly with a resolution that will further strengthen the move for a universal moratorium.
Because we fundamentally believe that the abolition of the death penalty is essential to the protection of human dignity and to respect for human rights, we oppose the use of capital punishment in all cases and, I repeat, under all circumstances, and we will continue to call for its universal abolition.
As I said earlier, the conclusion in the matter is clear: there is no room for complacency and therefore, we will use every available means to achieve our goal.
I have received five motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 October 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The death penalty infringes man's fundamental right to life and there is no justification for it. Various studies have shown that the death penalty has no impact on violent crime trends. This is why I wish to stress that Europe and the whole world must take uniform action aimed at the universal abolition of the death penalty in states where it is still frequently applied, as well as against its reintroduction. As of the end of 2009, governments in 43 countries, retain this measure, including one in Europe. The reality of this situation should give us food for thought. We have the clout to persuade governments and citizens globally to stop using this act of torture, which is unacceptable to states that respect human rights. This is a priority objective and can only be achieved through close cooperation between states, raising awareness and education. I welcome the European Parliament's resolution on World day against the death penalty, emphasising that total abolition of the death penalty remains one of the European Union's main human rights objectives.
in writing. - The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Indeed, let us not forget that the death penalty affects, first and foremost, underprivileged people. I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases and under all circumstances and would like to emphasise that abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. This resolution was timed to coincide with the European and World day against the death penalty, which are both on 10 October. The EU is the leading institutional actor and lead donor in the fight against the death penalty worldwide and its action in this area represent a key priority of its external human rights policy. In the United Nations, the EU has successfully sponsored from 1997 a yearly resolution at the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) calling for abolition and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. I urge the EU institutions to redouble efforts and use all tools of diplomacy and cooperation assistance available to them to work towards the abolition of the death penalty
The death penalty is an irreversible, inhuman punishment that breaches human rights. It is cruel and demeaning, and a punishment to which an innocent person can be sentenced. The death penalty has not been proven to prevent or reduce crime significantly. It is most regrettable that it is still in use in 43 countries. Prohibition of the death penalty is one of the priority areas of EU human rights policy. I am glad that on this day, the World day against the death penalty, the European Parliament is taking a tough stand against capital punishment, which should be banned everywhere in the world. It cannot be regarded as proper justice in any circumstances. Thank you.
in writing. - As we mark the World Day and the European Day Against the Death Penalty, I recall that this Parliament stands united in its opposition to the death penalty. This is because capital punishment erodes basic human dignity and contradicts international human rights law. Studies show that there is no evidence that the death penalty has a significant deterrent effect on crime, while it does disproportionately affect underprivileged citizens. Despite these facts, there are over 20 000 people around the globe on death row; dozens of them are European nationals. From this Parliament, we must continue to oppose executions in all circumstances and support an unconditional international moratorium on capital punishment. We also need to encourage states to provide accurate and official statistics on their use of the death penalty. Under our treaties, Parliament must give its consent to international agreements with third countries. We should keep in mind the stance of these countries on capital punishment when we do so.
in writing. - The World day against the death penalty is an important cause that reminds us of the unfortunate fact that 43 countries worldwide still retain capital punishment. I agree wholeheartedly with President Jerzy Buzek, who stated at the opening of the plenary session that death can never ever be considered an act of justice. I welcome the European Parliament resolution reiterating the commitment of the European Union to the abolition of the death penalty everywhere and calling upon the countries applying the death penalty to declare an immediate moratorium on executions. However, I would like to see the wordy commitment reflected more concretely in the actual policies of the European Union and its Member States towards third countries. Highlighting the importance of the matter on 10 October every year is worthwhile, but we must go further than this in order to see some real progress. The European Union must act in a coherent manner and have the abolition of the death penalty on the agenda as an actual priority item in order to live up to its image as a torchbearer of human rights and human dignity.
Currently, 43 countries use the death penalty. Most death sentences are carried out in China, Iran and Iraq. China alone accounts for 5 000 death sentences or 88% of all executions in the world. There are also EU Member States where the majority of citizens are in favour of the death penalty. There are even more countries like this in the world at large. The main argument is that such a punishment apparently deters potential criminals and reduces crime. However, the statistics tell a different story. I agree with this resolution because I believe that the instruments of the death penalty belong in a museum. The strong calls on Belarus - the last country in Europe using the death penalty - to abolish it at the earliest opportunity are justifiable. There, execution still remains a state secret. Relatives of those sentenced to death do not know whether or not the condemned are still alive, because the bodies of those executed are not returned to their parents or children.
Although the campaign against the death penalty is already one of the European Union's human rights priorities, creating the new European External Action Service offers a good opportunity for us to restate the importance we attach to this issue at EU level. To be able to conduct an effective campaign, it is important for us to differentiate between, on the one hand, the progress made in certain countries and, on the other, the critical situation elsewhere. Therefore, although we are concerned that the death penalty continues to be applied in the US, we must acknowledge that there has been a 60% drop in the number of executions in the United States during the last decade. On the other hand, we must strongly condemn the Chinese Government which has executed more people in 2009 than the rest of the world put together. I absolutely deplore the fact that, after not having had, for the first time in modern history, a single person condemned to death in Europe in 2009, the Belarusian authorities have condemned two people to death and are likely to execute them during this year. In conclusion, I believe, as does President Buzek, that the death penalty cannot be regarded, under any circumstance, as an act of justice.
Use of the death penalty is based on the mistaken conviction that the severity of the sentence deters others from committing crimes. In reality, it is not the severity of the punishment which determines its importance in prevention, but its inevitability. Therefore, it is important to have an effective system for the pursuit and prosecution of criminals. It is essential that those who break the law be aware that they will be apprehended and punished.
In 2009, the greatest number of executions were carried out in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and the US. The use of capital punishment has not been observed to reduce the incidence of the most serious crimes. This is why, during their social development, civilised countries abandoned the use of capital punishment, as they had first abandoned particular forms of it, such as the breaking wheel, dismemberment by horses, burning at the stake and impalement. For they are practices which unleash the basest instincts and have a brutalising effect on society.
In Poland, restoration of the death sentence is advocated by right-wing conservative parties, who equate government with the intimidation of society. Such methods cause fear in society and uncertainty as to what will happen tomorrow, and this, in turn, makes them lead to still greater brutality and crime. Capital punishment, therefore, causes the opposite effect to the one intended. Therefore, it is essential to educate people properly about this and to make society aware that capital punishment does not solve the problem of the most serious crimes.
The death penalty is outlawed in the Member States of the Council of Europe and hence, in all 27 EU Member States, but it is still routine practice in many countries in the world. The sad thing is that in many cases, the death sentence is handed down not for common criminal offences but for the consistent, courageous expression of political or religious views or for infringements of cultural customs. Europe has come to recognise that it cannot enact laws that permit ending a human life by violent means. The time has come for it to firmly assert this wise recognition and extend it to those countries around the world that do not think this way at present. Cultural diversity and different world views are a source of enrichment for human civilisation, and no law can justify the practice of the death penalty.
Unfortunately, 'man is not a beautiful animal', if I may quote the great Polish philosopher, Barbara Skarga. There are many among us, citizens of the free and democratic Member States of the European Union, who are supporters of capital punishment. This is horrifying, but true.
Fortunately, the death sentence is not found in the legislation of the European Union, and no Union government, not even the most populist, can introduce it. However, the European Union, by its values and the way it upholds them, should be extending its influence to other countries, as indeed it does want to do. Therefore, it is important that we act at global level. Perhaps the World day against the death penalty, proposed by the Belgian Presidency, is a step in this direction. I hope it will focus our attention on this important matter and strengthen respect for every human being, but also that it will strengthen our responsibility for human rights standards in the European Union as well as in those parts of the world where the death penalty is in use.
The European Union has introduced a ban on the use of capital punishment. This is the end result of a process which has been taking place in the countries of Europe, although the continent does still have many supporters of the death penalty. I do not think it is the role of the European Parliament to adopt a position on the deterrent effect of capital punishment, particularly because numerous studies which have been carried out recently, mainly at universities in the US, show that the death sentence does act as a deterrent. Our role is to take care to ensure that our societies are safe.
Regarding currently prevailing law in the European Union, we should remember that just as we demand respect for our decisions, so we should respect views encountered in other democratic societies and not impose our vision of justice upon those societies. The societies of the US, Japan and South Korea are entitled to establish such laws as they see fit. We, however, in Europe, should remember that renouncement of the death penalty must not mean indulgence towards the most abominable of crimes, the crime of murder - in such cases, we need severe punishments which are a deterrent and which isolate the perpetrator, such as a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of conditional release. For if we want to live in a secure society, we must have severe laws against those who violate the fundamental human right - the right to life - and who, in addition, are often prepared to violate it again and to kill innocent people.
in writing. - As we move forward with our efforts to fully abolish the practice of capital punishment, it is important to recognise that there are 58 countries worldwide that still utilise capital punishment when sentencing in criminal cases and a handful of others that use it in particular situations such as wartime sentencing. The European Union has worked diligently as a whole to abolish this inhumane practice and our continued efforts will pay great dividends. There is, however, work to be done; we have European neighbours that have not fully abolished this practice and it should remain our focus to continue our efforts toward complete abolition. It is my belief that through continued communication and resolve, we will be successful. Although it is clear that this practice violates fundamental human rights, many cultures around the world have laws that are based on other factors such as religion, tradition and control. These factors make the abolition of capital punishment increasingly difficult, but it is our duty, not only as Members of the Parliament, but as members of the human race, to continue our tireless efforts to bring this practice to an end.


Order of business
The final draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 20 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:
Monday
No amendments have been proposed.
Tuesday
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have requested the inclusion on the agenda for Tuesday morning of a statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the rule of law in Russia. First of all, I would like to call upon Mrs Harms to speak so that she can give the grounds for this request. The floor is yours, Mrs Harms.
Mr President, I take the view that, in the light of what has happened in the Khodorkovsky case, we absolutely should debate the state of the law in Russia. However, given the Duma elections still to come in the autumn, we have good reason to concern ourselves with the situation in this, our major neighbour in the east of this continent.
Of course, we are all repeatedly confronted at the moment with the question of whether we are actually doing enough in our neighbouring countries to help bring about human and civil rights and freedom. Many of us have also certainly asked ourselves self-critically whether we actually always debated what was necessary when it came to Egypt and to Tunisia. I do not want us to allow ourselves such negligence in the east of our own continent and I therefore call for us to deal with the question of 'The Rule of law in Russia' without fail this week - or, more specifically, tomorrow.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I want to support this request by Rebecca Harms. I also want to tell you that, since we formulated this request in the Conference of Presidents and now here at this plenary session, we have received more and more pressure from the Russian side not to do it.
Mrs Kristiina Ojuland, who organised a seminar a few weeks ago on the rule of law in Russia, was visited by a representative from the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry saying: 'do not push for this' and 'do not push for a resolution in the European Parliament on the rule of law in Russia'. I do not think it is up to the Russians to decide the agenda of the European Parliament: it is up to us ourselves to do that.
(Applause)
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, as a standing rapporteur on relations with Russia, may I inform you that we have already launched a very thorough process in order to deal with all the serious matters which are important in our relations with Russia.
We have already had a hearing with the representative of the External Action Service and a representative of the Russian Government. On 2 March, we are going to organise another hearing with experts which will deal with all the important aspects of relations with Russia.
In the second week of March, we are planning to have a comprehensive text, including a recommendation, which will be open to discussion and amendments and which will wind up with a debate in plenary with the participation of the High Representative, who, to our knowledge, is not available this week.
So therefore, without neglecting or denying the importance of this topic, it is much better to allow this process to continue and reach its end in such a way as to have a wide-ranging debate which will lend credibility to our decision.
(FR) Mr President, there is something that I do not understand. Last week, during the Conference of Presidents, you said that we would be holding a debate on Russia in March because Baroness Ashton would be present. Secondly, during the Conference of Presidents, you said that we needed to organise a debate on Russia because Mr Putin was going to visit the Commission, or rather Mr Barroso.
According to the information I have received this afternoon, Mr Putin is not coming to see the Commission. Do you have any information on this issue? The debate was requested last week only because Mr Putin was coming. However, a debate on Russia, together with a resolution, is still scheduled for March.
I should now like to receive some information concerning what we discussed.
(Parliament agreed to the request)
The statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the rule of law in Russia will be included as the third item on the agenda for Tuesday morning. The deadline for tabling motions for resolutions falls on Tuesday, 15 February at 10:00. The deadline for tabling amendments and joint motions for resolutions falls on Wednesday, 16 February at 10:00. However, the deadline for tabling amendments to joint motions for resolutions falls on Wednesday, 16 February at 11:00. So, after 11:00 on Wednesday, 16 February, no more additional motions or amendments will be accepted. The vote will take place on Thursday.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one more request concerning Tuesday. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has requested the inclusion on the agenda of a Commission statement on the situation in Lampedusa. The reasons for this request will be given by Mr Mauro. Mr Mauro, you have the floor.
Mr President, as you have rightly remarked, we are in the presence of epoch-making events that are shaping an extraordinary increase in the flow of migration into Europe. Although today it may be Lampedusa that is overrun by this extraordinary flow of migrants, it is nevertheless the whole of Europe that will be involved in the process of destabilisation and change being faced by the whole of the Maghreb.
We therefore consider it to be a matter of the greatest urgency for the Commission to take the floor to respond not only to the humanitarian implications but also to those of a more profoundly strategic nature which we must resolve in order to review our policy as regards the Mediterranean. Accordingly, given the urgency of the matter, we are asking for a separate debate to be held on Tuesday afternoon with Commissioner Malmström, by reducing question time to the Commission by half an hour.
Mr President, we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament also wish to table a motion of this nature. However, I would like to recommend to Mr Mauro and the House that we formulate it somewhat more precisely. After all, we have to deal with an enormous influx of people. I am sure that Italy, like every other country on the Mediterranean, is overstretched in trying to deal with the current problem alone, and she is not the only country facing this massive flow of refugees. We can assume that Malta, Greece and Spain, too, will be confronted by this problem in the foreseeable future. We would therefore ask that the title of the debate be very precisely worded so that, specifically, we obtain a statement from the Commission on immediate measures on the part of the European Union to support Italy and other affected EU countries in dealing with the influx of refugees.
Mr President, I want to speak in favour of Mr Schultz's proposal because this issue is much broader than Lampedusa alone: there are 5 000 kilometres between Morocco and Syria, and with each kilometre, the humanitarian risk grows larger. It is not a question of knowing if the European Union will help the Italian Government but to know if we are ready to act as a continent to face a continental risk. This is the task that we face.
We now have to establish a title for this debate. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has suggested the following title: 'European Union measures for Italy in relation to migratory movements'. If I am not mistaken, Mr Schulz would like to table an amendment.
Mr President, I will attempt to formulate this very precisely once again. We would like the Commission to issue a statement about immediate measures on the part of the European Union to support Italy and other affected States in dealing with the current influx of refugees.
I see. The proposed title is as follows: 'Presentation by the European Commission of measures in support of Italy and other Member States affected by exceptional migratory flows'.
(Parliament approved the title)
Wednesday
No amendments have been proposed.
Thursday
The Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group has requested the inclusion on the agenda of its oral question to the Commission on the use of the European Arrest Warrant in the Julian Assange case. Who wanted to speak on this request?
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, this oral question is not about the guilt or innocence of Mr Assange in the rape accusations against him in Sweden. It is about the procedures of the European Arrest Warrant and whether it is being misused for political purposes.
The European Arrest Warrant allows any European citizen to be judicially surrendered without a court being allowed to consider the prima facie evidence against them and with almost no power to refuse surrender. The European Arrest Warrant has tremendous potential for abuse and for use against political dissidents.
Is the Assange case about the crimes allegedly committed in Sweden or is it about the desire of the United States of America to extradite him from a compliant European country? Discussing the procedures is key to understanding this case and deciding if the European Arrest Warrant is being misused and abused. We need to have a full debate in this House from all sides of the political spectrum. Please vote in favour.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, in 2004, an Irish citizen caused a fatal accident in Hungary. It was only last Friday that we received the decision by the Irish authorities that the man could be sent back to Hungary to stand trial.
Therefore, at European level, this procedure has to be stronger than it is today. Otherwise, victims will have to wait many years, not only in this case, but also in other cases. This procedure has to be much stronger, so we are, of course, in favour.
Mr President, I would like to ask for a clarification of the Rules of Procedure. I do not know whether the European Parliament is able to hold a fundamental debate about the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). One may be for or against the EAW and its implementation, but whether we here in Parliament are able to discuss it in relation to criminal proceedings that are currently under way is something that I venture is doubtful under the Rules of Procedure. If that were the case, I would also have another couple of cases to bring up that we could happily discuss. However, I would urgently advise, at this point, that we do not make legal proceedings currently under way the subject of a fundamental discussion here in the European Parliament.


Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes


2. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (


Documents received: see Minutes


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Adjournment of the session
I declare suspended this session of the European Parliament.
(The sitting was suspended at 12.30 p.m.)


3. Zimbabwe (
That concludes the vote.


8. Passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy (vote)


Problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control.
rapporteur. - Madam President, over the past decade, laws and practices have been introduced enabling the retention and exchange of huge volumes of personal data. Currently the EU itself is proposing a number of measures that facilitate profiling, a technique of pulling together data from various sources in order to make a sort of template against which are identified those people whose characteristics, behaviour or associates seem suspicious and who merit further screening as likely perpetrators of crime or terrorism.
There has also been a move in policing towards a predictive and preventive approach which, while not without value in some circumstances, can lead to repressive measures against innocent people based on stereotyping, often on the basis of race or even religion.
The reason I am concerned about profiling and data-mining is because they depart from the general rule that law-enforcement decisions should be based on an individual's personal conduct. The danger exists that an innocent person may be subject to arbitrary stops, interrogations or travel disruption. Then, if that flagging of them as a person of interest is not promptly removed, longer-term restrictions could follow, such as refusal of visas and entry, bans on employment or even arrest and detention.
In a world of increasing international exchange of data, the identification of someone as a person of security or policing interest, if not corrected, could have not only inconvenient or expensive but indeed appalling consequences. One need only remember that Canadian torture flight victim, Maher Arrar - on whose horrendous experience the film 'Rendition' was based - was picked up due to profiling based on people his brother happened to know; having done nothing himself to merit suspicion, he nonetheless spent seven months in a Syrian torture dungeon.
The report I am presenting to you has benefited greatly from the considerable input of the shadow rapporteurs, whom I warmly thank. It outlines human rights, data protection and non-discrimination standards in an attempt to uphold two basic principles for any profiling exercise to meet: that repressive consequences should be based on individual behaviour, and that the principle of equality under the law should be upheld.
Not all profiling raises legal objections. We are all familiar with thrillers where the psychologist is called in to draw up a criminal profile of the murder suspect; and if a witness gives a clear description, a profile - of a bank robber, let us say: white, male and 30 - it would be nonsense to arrest someone who was Asian, female and about 50.
The most obvious risk of profiling is on the basis of ethnicity or race. If used by police officers as the only basis of deciding whom to stop, search or arrest, it is lazy, misguiding stereotyping, which amounts to illegal discrimination against minorities.
There is much concern about the victimisation of Roma people in this way. In my own city, London, the impact on young black men has led to tougher guidelines and safeguards - none of which, it must be stressed, should impede the intelligence-led investigation of crime.
Besides concerns regarding legitimacy, I strongly question the effectiveness of profiling. To keep looking for suspicious people on the basis of looks or behaviour can distract from the search for those who are really dangerous. There is also the risk of the real criminals adapting to the profile by using innocent-looking people as drug mules or suicide bombers or by changing travel routes away from those monitored.
Counterterrorism efforts focus the spotlight on Asians, especially those of Pakistani origin. Thirty-two per cent of British Muslims report being subject to discrimination at airports. There is a great risk of alienating these people, who may then end up not cooperating with the police, ultimately hindering security.
This report therefore asks for European or national legislation on profiling to be brought in compliance with existing European law and international treaties. If possible, all safeguards for profiling should be drawn together in a single legal instrument.
Besides the legal assessment, further studies should be conducted into the proportionality and effectiveness of profiling. The Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in their respective capacities, should play a key role in those studies.
Finally, if profiling is to be used legally and fairly as a means of contributing to the maintenance of security, a coherent and just legal framework must be established.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, on behalf of the Commission I would like to welcome this initiative by Parliament to bring the issue of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counterterrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control, to the centre of attention at European level.
The Ludford report represents a very good platform that contributes further to this issue by launching a broad discussion and suggesting how to tackle this problem. I want to underline that already existing data protection legislation ensures a high level of protection of personal data - including sensitive data such as information on ethnicity or race - and applies regardless of the technology used. Therefore, it is obvious that general data protection principles apply to profiling as one of the ways of data processing as well.
The Commission strongly believes that unjustified or unnecessary ethnic profiling is an unfair and prohibited practice, even when this is done for law-enforcement purposes or in connection with immigration, customs and border control, and is contrary to the fundamental values of the European Union.
Under important instruments proposed by the Commission - like the Schengen Border Code, Eurodac, SIS, VIS - the use of unjustified ethnic profiling techniques is not authorised. For example, as regards border controls, the provisions of Article 6 of the Schengen Borders Code require that border guards execute checks with no discrimination against travellers on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief.
I would also like to mention the activities of the Fundamental Rights Agency in this field. The Agency is about to present a good practices handbook for combating and preventing ethnic profiling. The Commission supports the inclusion in the 2010 work programme of the agency of joint training with FRONTEX, where the said handbook could be used. The Commission also supports the inclusion in the 2010 work programme of the agency of a project on implementing Article 6 of the Schengen Border Code that aims at collecting data.
Finally, the Commission welcomes the minorities and discrimination survey that was presented yesterday. The sections on law enforcement and border control provide us with further and recent data on experiences of ethnic profiling. The Commission will, of course, carefully study the results of the Minorities and Discrimination Survey, which will be published chapter by chapter through the year. But already now we can conclude that racism and xenophobia are still persistent phenomena in the European Union and that they affect the lives of members of ethnic minorities.
The Commission agrees with the draft report that processing of data for statistical purposes, including ethnicity, race or origin, could be used to identify indirect discrimination or unjustified law enforcement practices. However, this angle has to be properly assessed. Therefore, the Commission is looking into the opportunity to ask the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party to prepare an opinion on the processing of personal data for statistical purposes, including ethnicity, race or origin.
The Commission is also following closely the activities of the Council of Europe on the draft Recommendation on Profiling. The Commission is about to launch a request to the Council for a mandate to be authorised to negotiate this draft recommendation.
As regards the need for a legal framework to define profiling, the Commission believes that the relevant EU legislation on border management and data protection is adequate to protect fundamental rights. Indeed, it requires that any processing activity has to be grounded on a specific, recognised legal basis and respect particularly the principles of necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation and accuracy. It is subject to supervision by independent public authorities. Currently the framework also contains strict rules relating to the processing of sensitive personal data or automated decisions. All these principles also apply to profiling as one of the ways of performing processing of personal data.
The Commission is committed - and I am personally committed - to fighting racism and xenophobia to the full extent of the powers conferred by the Treaties, and this includes cases where racism comes from public authorities. The Commission is determined to reinforce our policy to fight racism and xenophobia in the Stockholm context, which should include tackling the issue of ethnic profiling.
Again, on behalf of the Commission, I very much welcome the draft report, and I look forward to its adoption in plenary tomorrow.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, as Socialists we fully support this report and contributed to it because we believe it is the first time in this Parliament that the political, legal and moral debate surrounding ethnic profiling and its effects on ordinary people has been raised properly.
We believe that predictive profiling and data mining are issues which have long been unexamined and I very much welcome the Commission's positive approach to both recognising this issue and understanding the possible indirect discrimination that can be caused by ethnic profiling.
The Socialists hope that if this report is adopted tomorrow and following the upcoming Council of Europe recommendation on profiling, there will be sufficient political impetus to address this issue at the highest levels. Why? For my constituency of London and for myself personally, I can say that I know what ethnic profiling means. It means being stopped and searched regularly because of how you look, rather than being stopped and searched because of proper intelligence, proper policing, with proper procedures put into place.
This kind of profiling is a waste of resources. It does not catch terrorists; it does not catch criminals. What it does is target indirectly or directly those who are vulnerable, who have an ethnic background which is just the wrong background
This can lead - and I think people should understand this - to strip searches and other abuses which we have seen. This report is an important step forward in protecting people against something which so far has been unexamined, but I am glad that Sarah Ludford had now raised it in Parliament and we will fully support this report tomorrow.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank Sarah Ludford for her report. Kathalijne Buitenweg cannot be here, but I will represent her views.
I must begin by asking: what is a terrorist? What kind of feeling do terrorists create? They create insecurity. Terrorists also make everyone vulnerable, and prevent them from pursuing their life as they want to.
Then you look at the anti-terror legislation with profiling and you see it creates insecurity and it creates problems for people living their daily lives. You cannot combat terrorism with anti-terror laws that create the same feelings of insecurity.
I think the European Court has been very clear on this, saying that this should be banned. We can see that it is neither efficient nor legal. The Carter Center in the US has showed it was not efficient. The German surveillance scheme on 18-40-year-old Muslim men in Germany was not efficient. It does not work, and I very much hope that we can take away the last exemptions allowing airports and harbours and so on to use these inefficient methods that make people feel bad.
And how can you say that you will have a high level of protection when people leave CDs with 20 million people's data on them lying in cafés, and when we know how easy it is to hack into computers? I did it myself as a kid actually.
So I think this report is important. The Council needs to adapt its logic and spend the resources efficiently, targeting specific individuals and focusing the time on them instead of going for ethnic registration, which is in complete violation of any human rights standards.
(NL) First of all, I would like to thank Baroness Ludford for this fine report. The report should have been even stronger, but it represents progress in the debate on this subject.
Sometimes 'profiling' can be necessary, but such cases must be clearly delineated and protected against abuse. The possibilities for storing, exchanging and interpreting information have, in recent years, increased faster than the necessary limits which democracies set for themselves in this regard. The US security services have not gained better or more reliable information as a result of data mining and investigation based on profiling, but instead primarily a heavier workload. A security agent compared it aptly with filling a water glass with a fire hose, in other words, particularly inefficient.
Naturally, profiles based on ethnic origin have been used for years, even if we generally call it by another name. Even I, all of 1.60 m tall, and thus hardly the most threatening physique, have been regularly taken aside at customs. A minor personal irritation, but many people who scrupulously abide by the law experience this inconvenience not regularly, but systematically. Such people get the message from our society that they are always suspect, less worthy and unwelcome. We are not going to catch true criminals, who come from every population group, by this method.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the interventions of the different MEPs show the importance of the issue of profiling and the respect of fundamental rights and the attention paid to it by Parliament.
The report gives an excellent picture of the questions raised by the use of profiling techniques, in particular when they are based on ethnicity, race, nationality or religion for law enforcement, immigration or border control purposes.
The Commission follows closely - and will continue to follow - the problems posed by the use of profiling in general and, in particular, in the sectors expressly referred to in the report.
The Commission is currently launching a consultation on the challenges posed by new technologies to data protection. Its results should provide the Commission with elements that will feed its reflection and guide it when dealing with the problems that profiling can pose in the areas of justice, freedom and security.
The recent results published by the Fundamental Rights Agency on minorities and discrimination in the EU, which the Commission welcomed yesterday, show that racism and xenophobia are persistent phenomena in the European Union and that they affect the lives of our minorities.
The Commission has to carefully study the results of this survey in order to decide the way forward. Again, I very much welcome the draft report, and I am looking forward to its adoption in plenary tomorrow.
rapporteur. - Madam President, I very much welcome the Commissioner's positive response. I think some of the things he has talked about will be extremely useful - the Fundamental Rights Agency, guidance on ethnic profiling, the Commission working with the Council of Europe on its recommendation, and the suggestion that the Article 29 Working Party can be asked for guidance.
I would like to push the Commission a little bit further, though, on focusing on the specific problems of profiling. After all, we do have a recommendation on the table for profiling in the context of PNR data, so there are special problems.
I would like to thank very warmly the small but select band of colleagues who have contributed to the debate. I think two things came out strongly: first of all, the fact that so-called 'security' measures can create insecurity and, secondly, that they can be a waste, instead of a targeting, of resources. So we are talking here about effectiveness as well as civil liberties.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Friday, 24 April 2009, at 12 noon.