Combating female genital mutilation in the EU (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Muscardini, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on combating female genital mutilation in the EU.
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is particularly fitting that Commissioner Michel is taking part in our debate. As we know, he always pays great attention to human rights issues and tragedies in Africa. In fact, Mr Michel's presence gives me hope that the Commission may give serious consideration to an issue that today not only affects 28 African countries and various countries in the Middle East and neighbouring countries, but is now a particularly distressing problem within the European Union itself.
The mass immigration that has taken place in recent years has brought this tragedy to EU countries. Tens of thousands of girls and young women are at risk every day of suffering a terrible practice that injures them irreversibly from a physical point of view, but also does extremely serious psychological damage. That is why - although Parliament has already condemned this practice on several occasions in previous years and in fact gave funding through DAPHNE to 14 projects to combat female genital mutilation - that is why today we again find ourselves discussing this topic, because the phenomenon has unfortunately not become less prevalent, but remains on the increase.
We must have the courage to adopt a more appropriate serious method of prevention through cultural campaigns able to make immigrant women, but also the fathers of these girls, understand that following a tribal rite, which has nothing to do with religion, is no way to integrate or create a future for their daughters.
Consider a girl who attends a French, Italian or Belgian school and suddenly, after having socialised with her peers, finds herself snatched from normality and forced to suffer a tragedy that will mark her for life. This girl is not only physically mutilated, but it is impossible for her to resume a normal relationship with other people; she feels diminished, different, and in our society we do not want people who are different. We want people who, no matter what their religion, skin colour or geographical origin, can work together to build a better Europe, closer to its citizens.
For this reason, Mr President, Commissioner, we as Parliament - and I would like to thank all my colleagues from the committee who helped me draft this report - want the laws of all Member States to be harmonised so that female genital mutilation is classed as an offence. We do not want palliative proposals such as 'pricking'. We want women to be truly equal with men; we do not want initiation rites, but real integration instead. We want NGOs to be able to carry out their work, we want a prevention policy that involves immigrant women's associations, we want to punish anybody who seeks to mutilate girls and drag them into a perverse spiral of desperation and marginalisation.
The report covers many areas and I think Members have had the opportunity to examine and evaluate it. I believe everyone should join in this call for a purposeful Europe that combines the efforts of its three institutions to combat this horrible crime that violates human rights.
Mr President, both on my own and my colleague's behalf, I would like to thank Mrs Muscardini for her speech, as I believe that she has put her finger on what is both a tragedy and a scandal. I would really like to thank Mrs Muscardini for her excellent report on this major issue of the fight against female genital mutilation in the European Union.
The European Commission has very clearly denounced, both within the Union and in third countries, the unacceptable nature of traditional practices that seriously undermine the fundamental right of women and young girls to respect for their physical and mental integrity. We are obviously in full agreement with the report. We think that all the Member States of the European Union should take strong measures. I would say much stronger measures should be taken to put an end to these practices, both within the European Union and in third countries, because it is totally unacceptable and quite incredible that this can still go on within the European Union. We must also ensure, in the framework of all the political dialogues that we hold with third countries, that the latter fully understand our position. I would like to move away from the text for a moment to say that I can assure you that this issue is always on the agenda in all the political dialogues that we hold with developing countries.
Just recently, President Compaoré of Burkina Faso called me and said that they were just about to adopt a law to prohibit these practices, although this will be no easy matter. It should be pointed out that there are obviously some clans and some tribes that still carry on this practice, and it is quite a sensitive subject in the country, but he really had a desire to make progress and that, I believe, is important.
You will also be aware that the Commission regularly releases Community funding to support projects in Europe and third countries that aim to prevent and eradicate female genital mutilation and to give help to the victims and young girls at risk.
In Europe, our main instrument is the DAPHNE III programme, which supports European non-governmental organisations and local and regional public institutions and authorities in their fight against female genital mutilation. Since its launch in 1997, DAPHNE has cofinanced 14 projects specifically dedicated to this issue, providing a total amount of around EUR 2.4 million. The DAPHNE projects have enabled us to implement community training and support programmes, to carry out awareness campaigns, to analyse national legislation, to gather information and statistics, to develop tools and to establish best practices for use by the actors on the ground, and to recommend policy directions to European and national decision makers.
We are evidently determined to maintain our support for such actions and to continue to deal with the issue within the European Union, not only in the context of violence prevention and victim support, but also in the areas of immigration, asylum and criminal justice.
I am going to turn my attention away from the text again for just a moment. I have to tell you that I am somewhat shocked by a certain kind of cowardice on the part of our governments and some politicians who consider this to be part of culture and therefore untouchable. I am sorry: the minimum we should expect of people who come to Europe is that they comply with the rules in force. I believe that there can be no two-speed justice; there can be no concept of two speeds. This has no effect on the capacity of a European country to welcome incomers, rather the contrary. This is a debate that I myself have experienced in my own country in the past. I must say that I am shocked that some people, on the pretext of respecting the culture of migrants, basically refuse to penalise this type of thing. I think that if we want at least to sort out this issue within Europe, we must reach the stage where we penalise these practices. We need to have this political courage, and I do not think that it would hamper a country's ability to welcome incomers if we were to say: 'This is our constitution, these are our rules, these are our human values, and you must comply with them. If you do not comply with them, you will be acting outside the law and you will be punished.' That is the end of my aside, but I am glad I have said these things because I fully share your irritation regarding this issue.
In the framework of its external aid to third countries, the Commission is also applying three policies to combat female genital mutilation. First of all, as I told you, it is making the issue of the emancipation of women, their human rights and their health an integral part of any political and strategic dialogue it conducts with the partner governments.
Secondly, it is supporting actions that argue and lobby for improved national legislation as well as for the creation of national policies suitable for promoting and protecting women's rights and for banning all harmful practices.
Thirdly, it is supporting initiatives intended to strengthen the scope for action of political leaders, along with awareness campaigns aimed at all sectors of society. The multiannual Hague Programme, covering the various actions that will be carried out to develop the area of justice, freedom and security, comes to an end in 2010. We are going to present the new Stockholm programme 2010-2014 in a communication in Spring 2009. I can confirm to you that this programme will lay great emphasis on the aspect relating to the protection of fundamental rights and of victims, including the promotion and protection of children's and women's rights.
Although the Commission has not yet drawn up a specific strategy for combating female genital mutilation, we are determined to continue our support for actions aimed at preventing it, and we intend to carry on raising this issue within the framework of the Union's internal and external policies.
The presentation is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 24 March 2009.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Each year in Europe, 180 000 migrant women suffer or are at risk from suffering genital mutilation. It is important to remember that these mutilations constitute a violation of human rights that has very serious physical and psychological consequences. These practices cannot be justified on the grounds of cultural or religious traditions. In order to put a stop to them, the Member States must enforce compliance with the prohibition laid down in their criminal law, and the practice of mutilation must be considered a criminal offence. At the same time, actual or potential victims must be given access to legal and medical assistance.
The EU must increase its support for those NGOs that are doing remarkable work on the ground in the areas of prevention and assistance. At national and European levels, targeted information and education campaigns would remove the taboos associated with these practices whilst informing families of the criminal consequences of such mutilations. It is therefore important for the EU to tackle this problem by defining joint preventive actions to prohibit the practice of mutilation in the EU and by referring to this prohibition in all cooperation agreements concluded with third countries. Genital mutilation is a social problem that concerns us all.


3. Kyrgyzstan (
(ES) Mr President, this is an oral amendment tabled by my colleague Mr Brok, who unfortunately cannot be with us this morning.
It would be an amendment to paragraph 5 and would consist of adding, after the reference to the elections on 10 October: 'to strengthen democracy and political accountability'.
(IT) Mr President, this concerns an oral amendment to item 13, calling on the Commission to verify the current situation: the possibility of providing humanitarian aid once the situation has been verified.


Question Time (Council)
The next item is Question Time (B6-0001/2009).
The following questions are addressed to the Council.
Subject: Justice in Russia
How does the Council Presidency view the justice system in Russia, in particular the imprisonment of opposition politicians - for example Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose trials and conditions of detention constitute a violation even of Russian law? How much importance will be attached to these abuses when the partnership and association agreement is being negotiated with Russia?
Subject: Justice system in Russia
One of the main obstacles to unconstrained political and economic relations with Russia and to a new partnership agreement is the presence of the major shortcomings in the Russian justice system. What steps is the Council taking to urge the review of political judgments - such as those in the Yukos case resulting in the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and Bakhmina - and the equally illegal enforcement of those judgments, and to support the creation of a justice system independent of authoritarian political structures?
Subject: The rule of law and the judicial system in Russia
As a value-based community, the EU should make the rule of law and respect for human rights the cornerstone of its relations with third countries. The judicial system in Russia is being politicised and is openly being used as a tool in the hands of Kremlin rulers. Lawlessness and corruption should therefore be on the list of priority for the EU when it seeks to pursue future relations.
In view of the latest spectacular cases concerning Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and Bachmina, my question to the Council is: How does the Council respond to Russia in cases of such unlawful and corrupt court decisions? How will the Council handle this issue in the EU-Russia relationship and what measures will the Council take to ensure that Russia makes changes to its judiciary system?
President-in-Office of the Council. - I know that my friend Milan Horáček is a man who has been committed for a long time to observing the human rights situation in Russia, and I want to thank him for doing that because this is exactly what this body, this organisation, should do.
Regarding the question on that particular issue, I would like to assure him that the Council fully shares the concerns about developments as regards the rule of law and democracy in Russia.
The Council is of the view that our partnership with Russia must be based on respect for international law, democratic principles and human rights. Therefore, the Council will continue to press Russia to implement fully the obligation it has signed up to as a member of the Council of Europe, and of course the OSCE, and also in the framework of the PCA - the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU.
The cases quoted by you and your colleagues are of great concern and the Council will continue to follow developments closely.
The Council raises its concerns with Russia on a regular basis as part of the political dialogue, in particular in the twice-yearly human rights consultation introduced in March 2005.
Russia's actions in this and other areas will be taken into account in the negotiations on a new agreement with Russia - that is very important - and also in other aspects of EU-Russia relations.
Achieving robust provisions on human rights in the new PCA currently being negotiated is also one of the EU priorities as set out in the negotiation directive which was approved by the Council last year.
The strategic partnership with Russia, which some are talking about, must be built on shared values; otherwise it would have no sense. The EU needs the new agreement, but so does Russia. It is crucial that the negotiations, as well as the text of the agreement itself, mirror values which are dear to us, such as the rule of law. Personally, I can promise that I would like to stress that the unity of the EU is absolutely decisive for achieving results here.
(DE) Madam President, I have a problem with the fact that the Council has repeatedly told us in the past that relations with Russia take priority, but in the particular cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and also Svetlana Bakhmina there is no progress of any kind to be seen.
(DE) Mr Vondra, I hold you in high regard as an experienced human rights activist, and I also regard Czech creativity very highly, hence my questions. Can you help us find new ways to bring the issue of the Yukos prisoners closer to a solution after years of talking, in other words to develop a degree of actionism? Also, how can we bring the human rights issue into somewhat sharper focus in practical terms in the negotiations with Russia?
Minister, thank you for your answers. Would you agree that, if the Council had strongly and convincingly presented this problem to the Russian side, demonstrating that the EU is serious about such a scandalous violation of justice, economic relations would also have been on a better footing today?
Would you agree that unless the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case finds a just and transparent solution, the EU cannot expect Russia to meet its economic commitments either?
President-in-Office of the Council. - I think that, having a Czech presidency, you cannot expect us to stay silent. I was not silent when we were discussing energy security and I was not silent in the past when we were discussing the Khodorkovsky case and other cases.
You probably know that we will have a troika meeting in February where the presidency will be represented by the Foreign Minister, Karel Schwarzenberg. Certainly, in those cases to which you refer, we will consider the steps, but of course whether there are results or not is totally in Russian hands. We can simply create a certain environment to keep up the pressure, but it is up to Russia to respond.
I should like to welcome the Minister to the Chamber and welcome the Czech Republic to the presidency. I wish that every Member of this Chamber could say the same thing. I have to say I was shocked by the tenor of some of the questions directed at the Czech Prime Minister today. One of our colleagues, Mr De Rossa from the Irish Republic, invited him to withdraw his remark that the Treaty of Lisbon might not be as wonderful as Mr De Rossa thought, which apart from anything else was rather insulting to that majority of Mr De Rossa's own constituency...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
Subject: World trade liberalisation
As part of the priorities of the Czech Presidency, the Czech Republic has outlined on the Presidency website its ambitions in relation to world trade liberalisation. Can the Presidency elaborate on its ambitions in this regard and in particular on the steps it proposes to take in relation to food security in the EU?
President-in-Office of the Council. - I thank you for this particular question, because I come from a country which is a great friend of free trade. It is the bedrock of our economy - about 80% of our GDP is somehow produced by the activity which relates to this trade. So you can be sure that our presidency is keen that the Union remains fully committed to reaching a balanced, ambitious and comprehensive agreement in the WTO Doha Development Round. We will be working hard on that.
Regarding the question of my presidency's ambitions in relation to world trade liberalisation, the presidency has clearly defined its main priority on this subject in the context of the Council's 18-month programme for the French, Czech and Swedish presidencies, as well as in its own work programme, which was published last week and was also introduced here to some extent by the Prime Minister today.
According to this programme, trade policy remains a very important tool for addressing the opportunities and challenges of globalisation and fostering economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all citizens in Europe. Efforts will be sustained to promote an open, market-oriented and rule-based world trading system for the benefit of all.
Trade policies should also contribute to the Union's environmental and climate objective, in particular by encouraging the expansion of trade in environmental goods and services. The Union continues to stay fully committed to reaching a balanced, ambitious and comprehensive agreement in the WTO Doha Round.
Moreover, my country has set three priority areas for its presidency of the Council. One of these priorities will be the European Union in the world. In this context my country will highlight the importance of trade policy as a means of driving forward external competitiveness, economic growth and the creation of new jobs following the EU's new trade policy strategy called Global Europe, as well as under the revised strategy for growth and jobs.
Parallel to the multilateral system, the Czech Republic will back the Commission's efforts to negotiate trade agreements with promising partners or regions - such as Korea, India, ASEAN, Mercosur and the Andean Community countries and Central America, and potentially China as well - and to negotiate free trade agreements with the EU's closest neighbours, for example Ukraine, or to start such negotiations once the prerequisite conditions have been met, as in Russia.
The presidency will present its programme on the trade area to the Committee on International Trade on 20 January 2009.
Regarding food security in the EU, the presidency is of the opinion that protectionism will not help to secure food supply in Europe or worldwide. Therefore, the presidency supports the liberalisation of world trade within the framework of DDA and discussions on CAP reform with a view to making European agriculture more competitive. That means dismantling export refunds.
These elements, such as transparent liberalisation of world trade and competitive agriculture, are the base for enhancing food security as well. Food security in the EU has much to do with the international trade in food products that makes them available at competitive prices and sets the right incentives for those Member States where they can be produced most effectively.
Food security nowadays lies not only in the local production of food, but in a country's ability to finance the import of food through exports of other goods. In this sense, an open, multilateral trading system with a diversity of countries supplying food products may be a better guarantee for stable and secure supplies.
Thank you, Council, for the detailed answer, which I will need to study, although I do not think we will agree. I would draw your attention to a report voted through this Parliament on global food security, for which I was a rapporteur, which very clearly says that the market will not provide us with food security and certainly will not give farmers the income stability that they require. So could you clarify for me whether you believe that free trade in agriculture is the way forward and that that is your priority under your presidency?
President-in-Office of the Council. - I can give you a short answer - yes! If there is free trade in agriculture, there is no hunger in the world.
(DE) Mr Vondra, it is always being said that agricultural policy is there for only the 3% who farm, but there are 100% of us who eat. I, for one, eat heartily, and I should like to state very clearly my belief that food security is existential. We are currently seeing the problems of energy dependence. I am in favour of free world trade, but we must be able to feed ourselves from our own soil, and so we need to preserve our farming structures: this cannot be left solely in the hands of the market.
First of all, like my colleague before me, Mr Hannan, I would like to welcome the Czech presidency - it will be an interesting contrast with the last presidency of the EU - and once again apologise for the disgraceful behaviour shown by some of my colleagues in this Chamber.
It is all very well saying that we want to kick-start the WTO talks, but we have had Indian elections, we have had US elections and we have got European elections. With all these elections going on and changes of administration, how can we really kick-start the WTO talks?
President-in-Office of the Council. - I think on the CAP reform we were among those who were trying to push the Commission to come forward with the new budgetary reform proposals, the white paper. I was even trying to orchestrate some kind of a joint effort with my colleague from Sweden, because 2009 is the year of the Czech and the Swedish presidencies and we have pretty similar views. But it is not up to us to bring a legislative proposal.
I say to my friend Bernd Posselt, we come from similar cultural backgrounds, but I think you know we are both living examples that there is no hunger in Europe thanks simply to the fact that trade in agricultural products has been growing in the past couple of decades. I know that we also need some tasty products to keep on the market like Bavarian and Czech beer, but I think in general, again, free trade promotes wealth in Europe as well as in the world.
Here is the question on the CAP. The Council recalls that, in the context of the political agreement reached on the CAP health check in the Council on 20 November last year, it was agreed in the joint Council and Commission declaration that, in the framework of the discussions that started in Annecy in France on 23 September on the future of CAP after 2013 and without prejudice to the new financial perspective for that period, the Council and the Commission are committed to closely examining the possibilities for the development of direct payments in the Community and addressing the different levels of direct payment between the Member States.
I can tell you that the incoming Czech Presidency intends to organise the discussion of this issue at the informal Agricultural Ministers' meeting to be held in Brno in May. My colleague from the Government, Petr Gandalovič, is really eager to open this debate.
Our goal is to moderate a discussion on the future of the CAP aimed at exploring agrarian policy instruments, particularly in the area of direct payments, which would enable a non-discriminatory and effective use of financial resources gathered from European taxpayers and spent on the CAP, strengthening the competitiveness of European farmers, improving the position of Europe's agricultural and food industries in a globalised and open world market, improving the quality of agricultural products and the provision of non-marketable outcomes of agriculture, as well as contributing to sustainable rural development.
The outcome of the abovementioned dialogue should result in paving the way towards - I would like to emphasise - the modernised CAP providing equal conditions for all Member States.
Subject: Future of the Common Agricultural Policy 2013-2020
One of the priorities of the Czech Presidency is the Common Agricultural Policy. What measures will be taken by the Czech Presidency to negotiate the future of the Common Agricultural Policy?
(GA) Madam President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. I would like to ask him a question about the Czech President's plans to provide support to disadvantaged areas. As I understand it further help is needed, and is needed desperately, by disadvantaged areas in the European common agricultural policy. I would like to find out what the Presidency intends to do about this.
President-in-Office of the Council. - The problem of disadvantaged areas throughout Europe is one of the particular problems which are constantly being discussed in relation to the CAP. I think that we are all, or mostly all, in agreement that we should move from direct payment to a payment for developing rural areas, if there is some kind of redistribution, rather than to continue with protectionist measures.
So there are the ways and means, and certainly we are working closely with Commissioner Fischer Boel. I am not an expert on agriculture but I think you certainly would have the opportunity to also approach our Minister for Agriculture and discuss this in detail.
May I wish the Czech presidency every success during its term in office. I would like the Minister to comment on the experience to date of Czech farmers and the Czech agri-food industry of the common agricultural policy, whether they are satisfied and whether it has made good improvements to their particular lots in different enterprises. How do they - and how do you, the Czech people - view the common agricultural policy as applied to the Czech Republic?
(RO) Unfortunately, the economic crisis is leading to job losses. Purchasing power is decreasing. Quality of life also means, however, healthy food.
Romania has a very large number of farmers, but their farms are small in size. I would like to ask what support you have in mind for small agricultural producers, especially in the new Member States.
President-in-Office of the Council. - In the new Member States you have different conditions. For example, my country does not have as many small farms as in certain other European countries. We have a very competitive farming industry with large farms but, if you go to neighbouring Poland, for example, the situation is somewhat different.
On Mrs Doyle's question of how we are doing: well, I have some farmers in my constituency in Northern Bohemia and, on the one hand, they are doing better because they got more money. So we have farmers with Hugo Boss ties now. We did not have this five to ten years ago. On the other hand, they also feel some kind of injustice because of the differences in payments between the older Member States and the new Member States. It is a question of elementary justice in the system, and it should be corrected.
At the same time, we believe that the CAP should be reformed. This is the only way to keep Europe competitive. So we have here a complex problem. I am not an expert who can go into the details, but I think that we should at least be able to agree on the basic lines.
And Mrs Ţicău's question?
I am sorry, Minister, I was not sure if you had addressed both questions.
President-in-Office of the Council. - I was trying to respond to both questions.
That concludes Question Time.
Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).