European Protection Order (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Jiménez-Becerril Barrio and Mrs Romero López, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection Order (00002/2010 - C7-0006/2010 -.
Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio
Mr President, today is an important day for all victims, because today we shall adopt the European Protection Order, which is a significant step forward in terms of their rights. Victims are unfairly forgotten about, and it is paradoxical that aggressors often have many more rights and that there is more said about aggressors' rights than victims' rights.
Today, Parliament will honour all victims, reminding those who believe that the borders will shield them while they persecute their victims, that this European Protection Order will protect all victims equally in the European Union from this day onwards.
We started working more than a year ago to achieve this objective and make progress with the area of freedom and security that was mentioned in the Stockholm Programme, and today we can say with a degree of pride that, although the path has not been easy, as many people have frequently failed to understand the order, and doubted its effectiveness and clarity, we have achieved it.
I must say that, following the trialogues with the Belgian Presidency, and many conversations with the Commission, we have achieved a text that almost all the political groups were happy with. This report was therefore adopted by a huge majority with no votes against in the joint vote by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality.
I hope that today, Parliament will reflect the decision made by those committees and by those of us who produced this report, which was adopted by a huge majority. This would send a clear message to the Council about what Europeans want, which is nothing more than to live in an area of security and justice, to be protected, and for a victim who has a restraining order against her aggressor in her country not to have to begin further court proceedings when she moves to another country.
We have an obligation to facilitate access to justice for Europeans, and especially for victims, who are the most vulnerable. The protection of all victims, without exception, has been my beacon throughout the development of this report. I therefore wanted to include victims of terrorism, people trafficking, organised crime and honour crimes, along with a special chapter for minors, who are the most vulnerable victims, and we never think about how to protect them.
Although this order will protect all victims, women who suffer from domestic violence will benefit most from this instrument for judicial cooperation, as their aggressors will not be able to travel through Europe with impunity, and will know that they will be pursued in the same way as in the country where they attacked their partners.
Parliament must therefore send a clear message to the Council today about what we want. We will therefore vote with our eyes fixed on the victims, on those who suffer, on those who need us to protect them, on those who are afraid and need to live in freedom and hope.
We are not going to give up on such a fair and necessary aim that is supported by the majority of Europeans just because there are some who are afraid and never dare to take that one step further. We need to be brave, the Member States need to be brave, and I hope that the vote today will be a majority in favour and encourage those who still have doubts as to whether this instrument will open a door for victims. I also hope that in the near future, the Commission will put forward wide-ranging legislation in favour of victims' rights, for which it has my full support and, I am sure, Parliament's support.
I repeat: this small but major step that is the European Protection Order will improve protection for all victims, preventing further crimes and relieving the consequences of those that have already been committed.
Today, we have an obligation to remove the obstacles that have so far prevented real protection across Europe. Through our vote today, we have the opportunity to save lives, which is what we are going to do, and we should be genuinely proud of that.
Carmen Romero López
Mr President, this proposal for a directive that we are bringing to plenary today to keep away aggressors who pursue their victims until they kill them, wherever they hide, is a clear message that Parliament must send to European society and to the Council.
We are not going to remain defenceless against the crimes that are still repeatedly committed on a daily basis in European countries, and remain hidden in the shadows of people's homes. These crimes also remain in the statistical shadows, as if the law of survival of the strongest took sole precedence at the heart of cohabitation, but we are trying to enforce the Charter of Fundamental Rights that we adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon.
Did it not occur to those drafting Chapter I of the Charter that a threat to physical integrity and dignity could come not only from the public institutions and the state, but also disguised as affection? For the 25% of European women currently suffering some form of violence, their torturers have private names, and defending themselves against the attacks does not allow them to be citizens.
According to non-governmental organisations, more than 2 500 women die every year in the European Union without us having asked ourselves whether those crimes can be prevented or avoided. European women have therefore welcomed the initiative by the Member States and the Spanish Presidency to bring a European Protection Order before Parliament.
We are creating a European area of security: the European arrest warrant means that none of our countries can be a haven for criminals. Let us create a climate of mutual trust; through the protection order, we are creating an area of justice and freedom, because the victims of these crimes can be received in any country without having to go through further proceedings, as my co-rapporteur, Mrs Jiménez-Becerril, said.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about 'private terrorism', which is the name now given to this continuous crime of attacks hidden in the privacy of the home. We are also talking about preventive measures from a different source. Not all countries have or are going to have the same legal traditions: the more progress we make, the more an instrument that can provide for our diversity is and will be necessary The Council's legal services have taken this view, as have Parliament's legal services. Where does the resistance lie? Ladies and gentlemen, it does not lie in the complexity of our legal system, which will continue to exist.
The law is not a tool for creating conflicts, but for resolving them. This has been the view of the conservative governments that have supported the initiative based on sound judgment. If we were talking about guarantees and fundamental rights when we talked about terrorism, how could we have implemented international agreements if it was not because we were talking about security? Are 2 500 women every year not a security problem for Europe?
It is not the first time in history that the law has faced a challenge. We therefore regret the Commission's position throughout the procedure, because we cannot talk about legal basis when we are talking about political will. Let us not invoke the law just when it suits us.
This text is the result of an agreement. The improvements that we have incorporated regarding the right to information, translation and procedural guarantees have taken into account the fact that this is a recognition instrument, and Parliament has decided that it is a priority for the Member States to put the existing data on the table out in the open.
We have not forgotten about victims' rights to psychological assistance and legal aid. We will continue to fight for these things, and let us hope that they will be included in the next package on victims.
We would like to thank the Belgian Presidency for the work that it has done, along with all the shadow rapporteurs and our team. Through this vote today, we want to send a message to the Council that this is Parliament's will; now it is up to the Council to take on its responsibilities. We will not succeed in tackling prevention if some Member States believe that we do not have a problem because we do not have the data.
Now it is the Council that is going to decide whether Europe is truly getting involved in combating violence and defending fundamental rights.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the protection of citizens, in practice mostly women, subjected to or at risk of violence is very high on the agenda of all the institutions working on this subject at the moment.
It is important that it be on the agenda because we share the same objective: providing protection for victims in the best possible conditions across the borders of the EU. That is also why I have supported the aim of this protection from the outset, and that is the reason why I am preparing the ambitious package on victims' rights to be adopted in spring 2011.
I am fully aware of the work of the co-rapporteurs, Ms Jiménez-Becerril Barrio and Ms Romero López, and of both the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, who have added a lot of value to the ongoing work in order to improve the protection of victims. I look at some of the proposals you have made: for instance, that victims do not have to bear the costs, that they receive translation and interpretation services or that delays in the recognition procedures are reduced. I am ready to work on an effective and legally sound mechanism designed to help victims benefit from civil law protection measures across the European Union.
We have been working on the procedural rights for persons who are accused. The corollary of this is that we work on the rights of persons who have been victims, because we very often speak about the accused in court proceedings but forget that there has been a victim, so we have to 're-put' the victim at the centre of attention.
That is why the Commission's future victims package will build on and develop the excellent work undertaken by the Spanish Presidency, the Belgian Presidency, the Council and, of course, the European Parliament. All this work is very important. It will be put together so that when the victims package is on the table, it will be comprehensive, it will be complete, and it will make a real difference to all victims - be they women, children or men, although most are women and children - to enable us to quickly come up with concrete measures which are applicable and do not create legal uncertainty. Thank you for this work. It is going to be taken into consideration when we prepare the victims package.
Monica Luisa Macovei
Mr President, roughly 8 000 Romanian women in Spain have benefited this year, as victims, from protection orders which are valid in Spain. They must also be extended to Romania and other Member States in which they travel.
According to unofficial estimates, there are roughly 100 000 women in Europe benefiting from protection orders which are valid in the state that issued them. The draft directive changes the limited, territorial aspect of these protection measures. The instrument being introduced will ensure that a protection order issued in one Member State will be recognised in the Member States in which the victim travels so that the area of freedom, security and justice becomes a reality and the victims of violence or other victims can live and travel without fear.
Parliament's desire is for victims' protection to be extended. This is why, after this directive, we are asking for and anticipating from the Commission that the next step will be to extend protection to victims in this common area of justice and security. We are therefore awaiting the package with eagerness and interest in spring 2011.
I would like to end by reiterating that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) gives its support to protection for victims, this draft directive and extended protection for victims.
Silvia Costa
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, through this proposal for a directive - for which I should like to express my great thanks to the rapporteurs, with whom I worked as a shadow - Parliament is supporting and expanding the Council's proposal, which was designed to protect people across all 27 Member States who suffer forms of persecution or serious and repeated threats from known and previously identified persons - often ex-boyfriends, husbands or partners - who threaten their physical and sexual integrity, dignity and personal freedom.
Indeed, the number of attacks and killings - particularly against women - is on the increase. Their complaints are often not taken seriously enough by the police and the judiciary, and protection orders and measures against the aggressor are currently only valid in the country in which they are issued. Commissioner Reding, the measure under approval may not be perfect, but it plugs a legislative vacuum.
After all, in creating the European area of freedom, security and justice, we have always acted empirically, at times pushing matters through where necessary. Indeed, we believe that this initiative is important because it will allow all citizens of the European Union - men and women - and all European residents to travel freely across borders, taking their human rights and their rights to protection and security with them, as stated in Article 3 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament intended as the legal basis, in order to give a more coherent direction to the structure of the proposal.
Through the establishment of the European Protection Order, the protected person is guaranteed to be looked after even in other Member States, through a fast and free-of-charge procedure. Each Member State must appoint a competent authority to inform victims of their rights, carry out campaigns, collect statistics and inform the person as soon as their national protection order has been issued. Furthermore, it gives a great boost to the creation of the European legal area and the implementation of freedom of movement, and it also applies the ordinary legislative procedure involving codecision between the Council and Parliament for the first time.
I hope that the Council will confirm this commitment and I hope that the Commission - though showing particular attention to the coming 'Security for Victims' package of measures - does not miss this particular chance to respond right now to this extremely serious situation, which is also demonstrated by European and national statistics. Amongst other things, this could lead to important legal convergence among Member States.
I would therefore suggest that we avoid any delays and make a specific commitment to this particular type of victim protection.
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica
Mr President, I want the European Protection Order to be particularly effective in preventing violence against women and to serve as a helpful prelude to the proposal that the Commission is preparing in order for us to have a similar instrument for all types of crime.
I regret the fact that the drafting of this text has been so difficult and complex, despite the fact that we all share its central objective.
I would also have liked this order to have incorporated two issues. Firstly, the European register of protection orders, with the corresponding privacy guarantees, in order to prevent bureaucracy for the beneficiaries and have the orders applied immediately. Moreover, this would reduce the cost of the processes that have to be carried out by the competent authorities, and would ultimately provide standardised, constantly updated statistics.
Secondly, I believe that we should have made an effort to explore cooperation in this field with third countries, especially if we pay attention to the statistics regarding the origins of the victims and their possible changes of residence.
The incipient European External Action Service has thus lost the opportunity to publicly introduce itself with a mission such as this, which Europeans understand and which solves problems that are real to all Europeans at the moment.
I would like to thank the rapporteurs for all their work, and I hope that Commissioner Reding will be sensitive with this initiative.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Mr President, I think that we in Parliament need to be very responsible and act within the mandate that we have been given, which tells us that, at European level too, we must protect women who are victims of violence and put a stop to murderers.
As has been said, this is about combating a type of social terrorism, which is chauvinist violence. We must not, therefore, get caught up in statistics or legal ins and outs. We are talking about justice, basic rights, life and death, defending those that must be defended against their attackers, and, most importantly, not having to regret the fact that 2 500 women every year are victims of the legal lethargy in which we are all immersed.
We are all aware of the legal difficulties and that this is an innovative exercise in the post-Lisbon interinstitutional dynamic. However, those difficulties should not, under any circumstances, be an excuse for not moving forward. The protection of the rights of the women who have been or could be victims of violence and murders and the prevention of such acts cannot be subordinated to a few legal issues. We need to adopt the political will required by the urgency and importance of this case.
It goes without saying that it is important to do things well but, above all, it is essential that we do them and, in my view, that is the fundamental vision that we can send to both the Council and the Commission through this text that I hope we are going to adopt. It needs to be understood that under no circumstances can we paralyse initiatives because there are technical difficulties that we have not been able to resolve before.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the two rapporteurs and both the Spanish and Belgian presidencies for the work they have done in order to continue making progress, working and overcoming the scourge of what is, I repeat, chauvinist violence.
Timothy Kirkhope
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I have been following the trialogues closely and would like to thank my colleagues, especially from the EPP and S&D Groups, for the work they have been doing.
As a lawyer in the UK, I have had experience over the years of providing legal advice and support to people who have been victims of domestic abuse, stalking or harassment by a relative or a former partner. I have seen at first hand the distress that physical, psychological and sexual abuse can cause and the state of vulnerability of its victims.
I fully support the aims and objectives of this proposal. However, I also have to express concerns regarding the legal base and scope. It seems clear to me that this proposal has a criminal base only, through the use of Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. By their nature and by law, some of the offences that this proposal intends to cover are civil law matters, yet there is a noticeable absence of the use of Article 81.
Whilst I do not object to EU legal cooperation, I strongly believe that we need to ensure that the legislation we produce at EU level is legally sound, robust and can be effectively implemented at Member State level without compromising existing Member State legal systems.
Paul Nuttall
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, I support the protection of victims. However, when I first came across the European Protection Order, I thought it sounded scary, like the European Arrest Warrant, which, in my opinion, is one of the most intrusive and dictatorial pieces of legislation ever to be imposed on the British people.
The proposal for the European Protection Order which is being touted says it is about the protection of women. We were told that the European Arrest Warrant was about helping to fight terrorism - and we all know it has gone on to be a lot more than that. Let us be clear and honest here: the underlying goal is to put in place footings for a pan-European justice system which will undoubtedly undermine British law. If proof were needed, we only have to look at the European Arrest Warrant.
I also see these orders as being extremely difficult to enforce in the UK, for we will end up in a situation whereby an order is handed down by a foreign judge in a foreign land who knows nothing about the conditions of a British town or our way of life. We have a saying in England: 'once bitten, twice shy'. We have been bitten once by the European Arrest Warrant. I suggest that we shy away from the European Protection Order.
Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa
(PL) Mr President, taking the proposed amendments into account, there is no mistaking the fact that the directive in question is one of the first initiatives aimed at achieving these important goals. We should ensure not only that the victims of violence are safe from further harm in their own country, but also that they benefit from such protection measures throughout the European Union. For this reason, I believe that we should support the rapporteur's position.
It should be noted, too, that the initiative has a deliberately broad scope. Although the majority of protection orders issued relate to women who are victims of gender-based violence, the initiative can cover all victims of violence - children and adults of both sexes, provided the perpetrator has been identified. In this context, the Stockholm Programme states that the victims of crime, including terrorism, who are most vulnerable or who find themselves in particularly exposed situations, such as persons subjected to repeated violence in close relationships, victims of gender-based violence or persons who fall victim to other types of crimes in a Member State of which they are not nationals or residents, are in need of special support and legal protection.
In connection with the above, the European Protection Order should apply to the victims of all crimes, including human trafficking, the victims of female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honour killings, incest and other crimes of this type. This initiative should therefore be supported, and I lend my full support to the rapporteur.
Emine Bozkurt
(NL) Mr President, one hundred thousand people are currently benefiting from the European Protection Order. One of them is Rasja, who would like to move to Spain with her children. If the order pronounced against her stalker in the Netherlands does not relocate with her to Spain, she and her children, too, will become a sitting target there, unless the Spanish authorities recognise or enforce the same order. Fortunately, however, Spain does recognise it.
This protection also applies to those being persecuted for exercising their right to free speech. They have to be able to speak in other European countries with the knowledge that those who have threatened them will not be sitting there in the audience. The European Protection Order makes that possible; it is a splendid initiative and one that has been supported by the Dutch Government. Unfortunately, with the new coalition, the status of people enjoying such protection has undergone a 180 degree reversal: women, men and children who are having to live in fear every day are callously being left high and dry. It is simply unacceptable that an individual's safety should stop at the border.
For the sake of one hundred thousand people, I am now saying 'yes' to the European Protection Order. I expect all governments, including that of my own country, to do their utmost to increase the safety, protection and freedom of their citizens, so that all people can live in freedom and security.
Nathalie Griesbeck
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should, of course, like to thank the two co-rapporteurs who, following difficult negotiations in the trialogue, are proposing a compromise agreement which, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and for my group, I naturally invite you to adopt.
Secondly, although I regret, as some have said today, that certain points such as, for instance, the translation of documents for victims, were not included in the body of the text of this agreement, or that the simplification elements were not sufficiently detailed - and I am counting on the 'victims package' to polish them up - I want to stress that in the end, all this sounds like common sense today, like a logical continuation of the ever-greater integration of a European area of freedom and justice and, in essence, of the establishment of a corresponding legal system.
This bears witness to a certain amount of political boldness and of the will to go beyond political posturing for a large majority of us, in order to have a clear tool for cooperation in criminal matters. That tool represents to a certain extent, as Mrs Reding highlighted earlier on, a true 'rights' policy in Europe, that is to say, a real policy for the people, especially for women, whose physical integrity can be threatened, a policy that corresponds to the freedom of movement which has existed for a long time, hence, a 'rights' policy.
Véronique Mathieu
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I say first of all that I find the Council's absence since yesterday regrettable, since the Council has generally been present in the negotiations on all the issues we have been discussing since yesterday, namely, those concerning civil liberties, justice and home affairs. We regret the fact that the Council is not here to listen to Parliament's voice; it is a real shame.
I wish to congratulate the two co-rapporteurs - who have done a huge amount of work on this text - on this landmark progress for victims of all kinds: victims, firstly, of domestic violence - did you know that 45% of European women are victims of domestic violence, as are some men, for we should not forget those men who are subjected to violence by women - and then victims of terrorism, including children, particularly vulnerable ones of course.
The text being presented to us today is an extremely important text, and I once again extend my congratulations. We are anxious to see the 'victims package' that you will be presenting to us next year, Commissioner, and which will complete the text that we will vote on tomorrow.
Antigoni Papadopoulou
Madam President, domestic violence, genital mutilation, honour crimes, forced marriages and trafficking are just some of the types of violence against 45% of women across Europe.
Women and minors need improved protection. The European Protection Order is a good step forward to doing just that, in full compliance with the vision of the Stockholm Programme for a united Europe: an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen.
Protection orders issued in one European country against an offender will thus be enforced in all the other 26 EU Member States. The initiative of the Spanish Presidency, embraced today by all of us, emphasises the protection of victims and prevention, and promotes uniformity in legal order procedures. It empowers victims to break their silence in seeking protection beyond geographical boundaries in Europe.
I hope the Commission fully endorses the report of the two co-rapporteurs in its ambitious package on victims' rights.
Salvatore Iacolino
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that this directive on the European Protection Order to safeguard victims is another sign of a momentous shift in real guarantees, above all for women, but not exclusively so, as has already been said.
The guidelines for this measure had already been developed, firstly by the Treaty of Lisbon, and then by the Stockholm Programme. In particular, I should like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mrs Jiménez-Becerril Barrio and Mrs Romero López, on their diligent work and on tackling the many problems encountered in the Council to smooth the way for this particularly important proposal, for an area of freedom, justice and security that will really serve citizens.
The proposal combats domestic violence firmly and determinedly, has quite a significant range of measures and a scope that appears to be wholly consistent. These ready-made, timely and effective precautionary measures lead us to believe that this proposal could also be used effectively to protect victims' families. We await with interest the more structured package announced by Commissioner Reding regarding the protection of victims of violence, which will be ready in the coming weeks.
I should like to conclude, Madam President, by affirming how important it is to have close cooperation between the Member States as well as great sensitivity for the application of this measure in practice, just as it is crucial not to forget the importance of psychological support for the victims. I am sure the Commission will duly bear this in mind in the final phase of the legislative process.
Heidi Hautala
(FI) Madam President, the European Protection Order is an important step towards the protection of victims throughout Europe. We are now sending a powerful signal to the Council and the Commission that the European Parliament is keen to have this protection order and that it should enter into force soon. We should now try to overcome the opposition that there is to it in the Council as well as all the legal reasons that the Commission is putting forward for opposing it.
It is important that the directive should be applied over a wide area. It must incorporate not just orders in respect of criminal acts but also various other kinds of protection order. It should not involve any sort of legal hairsplitting. This protection order should also be flexible enough to take account of the differences in national legislation.
It is important that Parliament focuses attention not only on the victims of genderbased violence, but on other victims of violence. The directive needs to spell out what a victim's rights are and what the procedures are for lodging a complaint, and these are some of the things that I myself have tried to highlight in Parliament's position. It is also important that the country in which the protection order is being requested informs its citizens of these procedures.
When the protection order enters into force, the work will not have really stopped there. The authorities need to be educated, and we cannot be completely satisfied with an information campaign that is simply restricted to the framework of the present one.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
(PL) Madam President, the provisions included in the report under discussion today fill me with great enthusiasm. The guarantee that protection granted to victims in one Member State will also apply in any other European Union Member State to which they are forced to travel for fear of repeated violence represents an opportunity for them to lead a normal life. The European Protection Order will mean that protection measures adopted in one EU Member State can be recognised, applied and enforced by courts in another Member State.
What is more, extending the application of the directive to the victims of any kind of violence, not just the victims of gender-based violence, represents a further milestone. All victims deserve respect and expect that the perpetrators of their suffering will be punished fairly. It seems to me that only a protection mechanism which follows the victim can be fully effective and prevent a repeat of the same offence, as well as offering real protection to the victim. I am delighted that Poland was one of the countries that put forward this initiative.
Monika Flašíková Beňová
(SK) Madam President, if the European Union is to become a genuine area of freedom, security and justice, we must eliminate the differences still persisting in this area between Member States.
Victims of violence must be protected against the perpetrators not only in their own countries, but must have protective measures made available to them throughout the EU. Although this is a broad proposal, it directly concerns women who are victims of domestic violence. It is good that this also provides an opportunity to deal with the situation of other potential victims, whether victims of human trafficking, forced marriages, honour killings or incest, or the situation of witnesses or of victims of terrorism and organised crime. I personally very much applaud the effort to provide the best possible protection to victims also by ensuring the necessary legal certainty, among other things. Victims should be able to rely on clear rules and should always be informed about the measures that are available to them in their country of origin and in the countries they want to move to, or to which they have already moved.
Sonia Alfano
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I greatly appreciate the work carried out by the two rapporteurs. However, the problem with this draft directive is that it is based on the most usual kind of stalking, in which a person has been a victim of violence by another and therefore must be defended against a repeat of whatever physical or mental abuse took place. Obviously, this is a matter of fundamental importance for hundreds of thousands of women in the European Union and therefore I fully support its content.
Unfortunately, however, these measures do not take into account the victims of organised crime who, in the majority of cases, do not need to be defended from an identified or identifiable person, but from organisations against which a restraining order certainly cannot be applied. Therefore, I think that the European Parliament should regard this directive as a first step in implementing the Stockholm Programme, which talks expressly about measures to protect the victims of criminal activity, and it seems to me that Mrs Jiménez and Commissioner Reding are of the same mind.
I appeal to the European Commission to ensure that the package of measures to protect victims, which is planned for 2011, also protects victims of organised crime and victims injured in the course of duty on a European level.
Cornelia Ernst
(DE) Madam President, the European Protection Order is a step in the right direction. The principle must be that recognised victims of violence are afforded the same level of protection in all Member States. The best solution would be harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on this matter, but it was not possible to achieve this. A positive aspect of this protection order is that it is to benefit every victim of violence as much as possible and its scope is broad: sexual violence, stalking and, above all, exploitation of minors, which I consider to be very, very important. It therefore sends a positive message to the victims of violence and to women in particular. However, there is one fly in the ointment: the grounds for non-recognition in Article 9 are very extensive and may also, to some extent, represent a means for Member States to avoid compliance with the directive. Therefore, in a year's time, we need to assess very carefully how we can take this debate further, because all victims in all countries need the same protection.
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) Madam President, I would like to support the idea contained in the draft European Protection Order.
The protection of persons under threat at the level of individual Member States appears to be insufficient in many cases. Thanks to the openness of the European space today, young people often enter into international marriages and international marriage commitments. Not all of these commitments last long, however, and the children often then become hostages to disputes between their parents. Hostile parents often refuse to respect the decisions of courts from other countries granting custody of the children to one of them and simply take justice into their own hands and carry off the children of former partners to their own countries, exploiting differences between the legal systems of individual Member States to overcome valid court decisions. The victims of this European legal anarchy are often small, innocent children. I hope this problem will be resolved by the European Protection Order.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Madam President, even though some measures have been taken in recent years to protect victims, many of the people affected often feel left in the lurch. While lawyers and judges hear a great deal in their training about the rights of defendants, they learn very little about dealing with victims. This is not the only area where greater awareness is necessary. It is also needed in medical training so that the use of violence can be better recognised. For child victims, the matter of the statutory limitation of civil compensation claims in the case of sex offences is essential. Only those who have an unblemished criminal record are allowed to work with children. If, for example, forced marriages are now being prosecuted in Liechtenstein, even without the consent of the victim, and it is possible to take legal action in the case of genital mutilation performed on a minor, this clearly shows the potential danger of the much lauded multicultural enrichment. In my opinion, it is important to take this development in the EU into consideration, as well as its significance in the fight against human trafficking.
Krisztina Morvai
(HU) Madam President, as a lawyer, I have dealt with cases of victims of violence against women and children for over ten years, whether it was domestic violence, rape or trafficking in women; and I had the opportunity to see for myself that the protection order, which is the topic of today's debate, is one of the important and indispensable means of protecting victims, but it is far from being the only one. Complex measures are required, such as legal advice, psychological support, support to the children concerned, and it is very important to listen to the victims, who are, I am sorry to say, the greatest experts in terms of what they need.
I have two questions for Mrs Reding and the rapporteurs. First, I would like to know to what extent they are involving the victims of violence against women in this work in order to enable them to share their experience. Secondly, I would like to know how familiar Mrs Reding and the rapporteurs are with the convention on violence against women that is currently under preparation by the European Union's twin, the Council of Europe, and to what extent we are participating in the preparation of this work.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Madam President, the safety of the women affected really ought to be a matter of concern to all of us. Regardless of where victims are, it is a question here not only of them receiving physical protection from their aggressors, but also of their human dignity being taken into account. This European Protection Order should apply to all victims of violence, irrespective of their age or gender.
Antonyia Parvanova
Madam President, I would like also to thank the rapporteur. Safeguarding life, physical and psychological integrity, as well as sexual integrity and freedom, are priority objectives where victim protection is concerned. With our political support for the European Protection Order Directive, we have given the issue the visibility it deserves and provided a Europe-wide, comprehensive package of special protection measures that are effective within the Union and grant legal protection and assistance for victims of crime, in particular, violent crimes.
The right to protection from violence is a basic human right regardless of ethnicity, legal status or immigration status, and it is therefore a moral duty for all of us to uphold this right within and beyond national borders. I am convinced that this new approach to the protection of vulnerable victims is a very strong political message with a view to strengthening freedom, security and justice within the European Union.
Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio
Madam President, I think that in this debate, we have clearly seen that we are all in agreement in supporting the objective of this report.
The various political groups have shown their support for this directive, which offers greater protection to victims. My question is, therefore: what obstacles are there to adopting this instrument? I repeat: what fears are there regarding something as essential and simple as protecting victims equally across Europe finally becoming a reality?
In the hope that Parliament will adopt this report by a majority, I would like to address the Council and the Commission to remind them that we have overcome the legal hurdles in our negotiations, and I welcome the fact that the Commission acknowledges our work, just as we acknowledge the work that it will do in the future.
We should not therefore exclude ourselves, but rather help ourselves by adopting this more specific instrument today, and tomorrow by adopting the broader package of measures to help victims that will be presented by the Commission, with which I promise to cooperate.
Let us therefore be brave and responsible, and let us help all those who have the right to live in a safer Europe. I repeat: let us help everyone, be they men, women or children. Let us help those who are looking to us today to give them a better life, a life that will restore to them their freedom, their security and, above all, their dignity.
Carmen Romero López
Madam President, Commissioner, we know that there are no legal measures included in the package that is being prepared for victims. This has just been criticised by the European women's lobby in Parliament: there is talk of good practice and coordination, but we still have a long way to go
I would also like to say that the origins of the violence that we are experiencing are not exotic: it is our own violence. I would like to say to the Council and the Member States that violence that comes from other cultures also requires a legal instrument. It is not possible to combat genital mutilation, honour crimes and all the harassment suffered by women from other cultures without an instrument of this nature.
This is why it is so important that they are also included, and Parliament has worked, through all the amendments from the shadow rapporteurs, to ensure that all these victims are also included in this legal instrument.
This is why it is so important that we work together on this issue, and why we regret the fact that Parliament and the Commission have not agreed on the same text throughout this procedure. Even if Parliament and the Commission had agreed on the same text, we would still have a battle to fight.
Commissioner, it does little to help victims of violence to consider that delaying the initiative by two, three or four years would be better for them, because that is not the case.
You said during your previous appearance that we had not realised the significance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We did realise its significance. The problem is that it has to be applied; the problem is that we need to take measures, and sometimes when measures need to be taken, they are legal measures, and sometimes there are obstacles in their path. The greatest obstacle is political will.
This is why it is so important that we all agree on an initiative of this nature, and it is now up to the Council. It is now up to the Member States to decide whether this instrument is really one that is going to be effective for victims and necessary. We believe that it is, which is why we have defended this instrument and why we are here. We also defend its urgency.
That is why we wanted Parliament to vote in favour by a huge majority, so that the countries that have not yet decided or have decided that they are against this initiative will see it as the only procedure that can be used now and in the future. It is an instrument that is difficult and complex in nature, but which opens the way and will protect victims and the citizenship of women.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I did not intend to speak again, but what has been said needs to be corrected. The measures which will be part of the victims package include an overarching communication, the Lisbonisation of the 2001 framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, a proposal on civil protection measures and, if necessary, a proposal on criminal protection measures. This will be put on the table of this House in May next year.
We cannot just go ahead and put our ideas on paper. All our proposals must be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment. We need to take this very seriously, aiming for sound studies with real added value. That is what we are doing at the moment. We are finalising the impact assessment in order to determine the details of any actions on legislative and practical measures, with the aim of legal certainty and rapid and efficient protection measures.
Having said that, I would also like to inform this Parliament that, to date, four opinions have been sent by national parliaments on the protection order: positive ones from the Italian, Greek and Portuguese parliaments and a negative opinion from the German Bundesrat arguing that the directive goes beyond the scope of Article 82, as it covers non-criminal measures and the prevention of crime. It has been rejected on the basis of subsidiarity. We are in the middle of a very complicated issue. By carrying out a serious analysis before putting the legal and non-legal proposals on the table, I will try to propose measures which are sound enough not to victimise victims a second time when it comes to protection measures.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Rovana Plumb
In Romania, domestic violence incidents are estimated to affect 1 200 000 people every year, yet only 1% of the victims of violence are brave enough to report it to the authorities. Frequent domestic tension, brawls and beatings turn family members into traumatised victims who are forced to accept this situation as being the norm. Violence affects a child's normal, harmonious development. Studies show that the pattern of violent behaviour is passed down from one generation to another in 75% of cases. Stockholm syndrome must be treated, but not through feeble reforms, as is happening in Romania. Proactive measures are required to combat this phenomenon, along with amending the relevant legislative framework and establishing dialogue and cooperation between all the state institutions with powers in this area and civil society. In this respect, the European Protection Order must be a strong instrument capable of providing a safer haven for victims of violence across Member States' borders. This will also include protection against acts of violence committed by groups of people and will apply to all victims of crime, such as victims of human trafficking, female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honour crimes, incest, gender-based violence, as well as witnesses and victims of terrorism and organised crime.


35. Insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) (recast) (
- Before the vote:
Charlie McCreevy
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of the Solvency II file by the European Parliament and for your willingness to compromise.
With Solvency II, the EU will have a modern framework for insurance supervision, which will then be official for the insurance industry and for policyholders.
I personally regret the deletion of the group support regime, because it is a missed opportunity to make further progress in group supervision. However, the Commission will support the agreement between Parliament and the Council if it is endorsed by your vote.
This, of course, is not the end of the story. Much work remains to be done: implementing measures will need to be in place some time before October 2012 in order to give the Member States and the industry enough time to prepare for the introduction of Solvency II.
I can assure you that the Commission will play its role in order to facilitate this process and to put these long overdue reforms into practice as soon as possible in the interests of all parties concerned.


2. Belarus, in particular the cases of Ales Michalevic and Natalia Radin
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Belarus, in particular, the cases of Ales Mikhalevich and Natalia Radina.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Mr President, I think it is important to remember that this is not the first time we have talked about Belarus in this Parliament, and from that point of view, this resolution is important insofar as it clearly condemns the arrests and imprisonment of members of the opposition and the violation of fundamental rights to which these people have been subjected.
Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement in countries such as Belarus should be a priority, and it is therefore necessary to call for the immediate and unconditional release of these people, who cannot be called anything other than political prisoners.
Secondly, I think it is also important to condemn - and this is what the resolution does - the use of torture in these countries, as in others, in the strongest, toughest, clearest and firmest way possible, even when this occurs in the European Union, which, unfortunately, is sometimes the case. However, in a country with which our neighbourly relations are continuing to grow, and with which we are strengthening our relationship, the use of torture as a form of treatment in prisons, especially when it is fuelled by political motivation, is something that demands our total rejection and full condemnation
Finally, I would also like to openly condemn the sentence imposed on the young opposition activist simply for having taken part in the demonstrations on 19 September 2010. I think Parliament is right to position itself clearly against these options, and I insist that its voice must be heard.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Mr President, a large number of opposition figures, including former presidential candidates but also journalists and human rights defenders, were arrested after the events of 19 December 2010 in Minsk and they have been kept in KGB detention centres ever since. There have been reports of torture and of forced confessions at the hands of the KGB. These developments fit into a larger pattern of repression and politically motivated trials against opposition activists, civil society, the media and human rights defenders that continues to this day.
We urgently call upon the Belarusian authorities to allow political opposition, civil society, free expression and media pluralism. The rule of law needs to be adhered to. The credibility of the Belarusian authorities would be won if investigations carried out in line with international standards, with international experts, were to start right away. We should consider restrictive measures, including economic sanctions on Belarusian government-owned companies, but we hope this will not be necessary. We would welcome it if more countries in the international community were to join the call for such actions, because the status quo is unacceptable.
Kristian Vigenin
author. - Mr President, Belarus is so often on our agenda and this is because we care, because we want to see a democratic Belarus where human rights are respected. I have the impression, however, that the messages that we send so often to the Belarusian authorities are not heard - neither those from the European Parliament, nor those from the European Council. The decisions of the Council have had no effect so far on the situation in Belarus.
After a year of very modest progress, 19 December 2010 became a turning point for Belarus. Since then, the country has been falling into self-isolation: this can save the regime for some time, but it is at the expense of the future of the Belarusian nation. This has to be understood, and we will not stop reminding Lukashenko and his friends of it. I hope that President Lukashenko will take good note of the events in the southern neighbourhood and understand that the only responsible behaviour is democratisation and the social and economic reforms in the country.
We in the European Parliament will not give up; we call for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained protestors and for the dropping of all politically motivated charges. At the same time, we still believe that Belarus has time to change; we are working together with the other five eastern neighbours to find a solution leading to democratisation and to the creation of a situation in Belarus where free and fair elections can take place at the end of this year or at the beginning of next year.
Jacek Protasiewicz
Mr President, the sincere and moving statement issued by Ales Mikhalevich nearly a fortnight ago, in which he revealed the methods of torture used by the Belarusian KGB against Alexander Lukashenko's political opponents, caused a shock. It is shocking that in the 21st century, a European country which has begun cooperation with the European Union as part of the Eastern Partnership uses methods characteristic of Naziism and Stalinism.
Our resolution is an expression of our shock and outrage, and of our solidarity with those who are being persecuted. Today, I would like, from here, to send three messages. The first message is to Ales Mikhalevich, but also to Anatoli Labiedzka and Mikhail Statkievich, who are in prison: we admire your courage; we are with you and we will not desert you.
The second message is to Alexander Lukashenko: start showing respect for the international conventions your country has ratified, including the Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership, and stop persecuting your citizens.
The third message is for Mrs Ashton: it is time for economic sanctions, because only in this way can we change the way that the opposition is being persecuted in Belarus.
Thank you.
Ryszard Czarnecki
Mr President, Belarus is a country which shares a border with the European Union but which seems to be 1 000 light years removed from it. It is as if Belarus were inhabited by people who are guided by different standards. However, this is not the case. There are also Europeans living there - people who want to feel they live in a common Europe. The problem is the president of the country, who makes use of methods known from the Soviet Union of several decades ago - what President Lukashenko offers us is a singular journey into the past. Unlike Mr Vigenin, who spoke a moment ago, I think we should believe in our European voice and that Parliament and the European Union can put pressure on the Belarusian authorities so that they will respect human rights. This is a question not so much of policy but of fundamental morals and ethics. We should say to our Belarusian brothers today that they are not alone.
Rui Tavares
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there have always been reports of human rights cases outside the European Union so I shall take the liberty, in this urgent debate, to begin with our vote today on the freedom of the press in Hungary, or rather in the European Union, because respect for fundamental rights in our House and respect for human rights outside the European Union are inextricably linked.
Given that we have managed to discuss the problems we are facing within the European Union in a vote that divided this House and split it in two, and which has given us a lot of work over the past two months, we can now confront President Lukashenko of Belarus with our heads held high. We can tell President Lukashenko that he must stop his repression of demonstrations, his repression of opponents and his repression of the press in his own country, because he himself represents a government that thinks it has a monopoly on the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is balanced, what is neutral and what is objective, not only in its own assertions, but also in those of the opposition and those of the foreign press. We even saw President Lukashenko confronting the international media with profound arrogance, following the repression of the demonstrations in December.
This is why I believe we can have hope that the voice of the European Parliament, the voice of the Commission and the voice of the Council will be heard in Belarus, and that we will achieve a moral authority, beyond that which we also need to preserve through our example in this House.
Eduard Kukan
Mr President, during last week's meeting of the Visegrad Group in Bratislava, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, which is currently chairing the group, sent a clear message to President Lukashenko of Belarus. As long as there is even one political prisoner in the prisons of Belarus, the country can expect to be totally isolated in Europe.
Even today, unfortunately, three months after the presidential elections, the situation in the country is still critical. Democratically-minded people are investigated, arrested, imprisoned and held in inhumane conditions just as we have been discussing today, with no possibility of legal assistance and with no possibility of visits from family members.
It is therefore also important for the EU to adopt a tougher stance towards the last dictator in Europe. It may also be necessary to widen the scope of the economic sanctions we are applying, as all the evidence suggests that words, however tough, will not improve the situation for people in Belarus.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
Mr President, this resolution is a clear signal to the Belarusian authorities that the European Union cannot and will not tolerate restrictions on the right to demonstrate, nor will it tolerate political prisoners in the country and, in particular, torture in detention facilities. Brussels is intensifying its assistance to Belarusian civil society, non-governmental organisations, the independent media and students. Furthermore, we need to abolish as a matter of urgency the expensive visas which prevent Belarusian citizens from travelling to the European Union, reduce the fee and negotiate a relaxation of the visa regime. I feel that in this situation, it would still be useful for a European Parliament delegation to travel to Belarus, despite the fact that there are obstacles, and if a whole delegation is unable to travel, then Members of the European Parliament should travel there individually in order to better understand the situation and exert some influence.
Kristiina Ojuland
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it was in January when we adopted a resolution on Belarus. It is not a good sign at all that we have to express our concerns on the situation there again and again, with no positive reaction from the Belarusian authorities.
Although the European Union has re-established sanctions and taken a hard line on Lukashenko's regime, fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly and of expression are still violated and trampled upon. Furthermore, the reports on continuous mental and physical torture of political prisoners and attempts at recruiting informants to the KGB give the European Union a clear signal that Lukashenko's regime did not get our message from the previous time.
Perhaps we ought to speak up and make it even clearer that the situation in Belarus is unacceptable. I would like to ask the Commission to report on further measures that can be taken against Lukashenko's regime.
I would also like to call on European enterprises and investors to withdraw from Belarus if they have no desire to be handling blood money and directly or indirectly supporting Lukashenko's criminal regime.
Marek Henryk Migalski
Mr President, Mrs Ojuland is right when she says she has the impression we are always talking about the same thing and never seeing the expected results. However, unfortunately, she is mistaken in saying we are unanimous on this. I would like to ask all of us here to speak with one voice, and to speak as strongly as Mr Protasiewicz, who has sent a clear signal to all those fighting for liberty and democracy in Belarus that we are with them, and who has given a clear warning to the regime in Belarus that what they are doing is unacceptable. Well, alongside that voice, which ought to be supported by everyone, there are also other opinions being expressed, and unfortunately by one of the authors of the resolution, that incidents of torture occur in Belarus just as they do in some European countries and in some of the European Union's Member States. This is unacceptable. Mrs Ojuland is right that we are being listened to, and that it is not only we who are listening to each other, but that there is also someone else who is listening to us. If there are going to be such divergent opinions, then in my opinion, we are going to continue to be ineffective. Thank you very much.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, Europe's last dictator, Lukashenko, has ruled Belarus with an iron fist for more than 16 years. The country's media and judiciary are under his sovereign control, and he also has no hesitation in using them to crush the political opposition, as we saw in the recent fraudulent Presidential elections in December. At that time, special troops and the police, of course, violently broke up demonstrations and arrested hundreds of people, including nearly all opposition presidential candidates.
The EU's demands to release political prisoners and end the violence against citizens have been totally ignored by the Lukashenko administration. It is now imperative that the EU introduces more robust economic sanctions, since Lukashenko has simply exploited the Eastern Partnership programme and all the benefits of neighbourhood policy. We cannot accept such brutal violations of human rights anywhere in the world, but least of all in the backwoods of Europe.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, we do not actually have to go beyond Europe's borders to find countries that violate fundamental rights. In Belarus, you can be indicted and go to prison merely for taking part in a protest, standing in elections, or stating your opinion. Political awareness on the part of the people and civil activism are not a burden for society: they should be something that enriches it.
It is difficult, however, to believe that democracy could be strengthened in Belarus merely through EU coercion. There is also a need for dialogue at grassroots level and participation in civil society. The EU should support democratic development in Belarus and continue to organise cultural and educational projects with it. The European External Action Service should actively monitor developments in Belarus and support the Belarusians so that European values might also be internalised there.
(Applause)
Cristian Dan Preda
(RO) Mr President, two days ago, on 8 March, International Women's Day, Natalia Radina was unable to enjoy this celebration because she was under house arrest. On the same day, Ales Mikhalevich celebrated his 53rd birthday in prison. The simple reason for this is that he is a free man, a man who dared to enter the presidential contest and, in a dictatorship like Belarus, the penalty for making such gestures of freedom is to have one's movements restricted and get sent to prison. I would like to highlight two points in our resolution which I regard as extremely important. I feel that we need to support the extension of the restrictive measures imposed by the European Union by producing a list which includes the prosecutors, judges and members of the secret police involved in the recent human rights violations in Belarus. Secondly, I also believe that we must do everything we can to support civil society in this country, which can give us some hope.
(Applause)
Elena Băsescu
(RO) Mr President, I would like to begin my speech with an appeal to the Belarusian authorities to stop the censorship against the democratic forces and independent press. I also propose reopening the OSCE Office in Belarus.
Human rights were dealt a heavy blow at the time of the presidential elections in December 2010. The demonstrations organised by the opposition against election fraud were mercilessly crushed by the security forces. Those arrested include one of the presidential candidates, Ales Mikhalevich. He publicised the torture he was subjected to in prison, a fact, however, which has been denied by the authorities. Journalists close to the opposition were also targeted at the same time. In spite of the ban on making statements, they confirmed Mikhalevich's assertions in the hope of attracting the EU's attention to the critical situation in Belarus. The circumstances under which the arrests were made are vague, but the treatment they state they were subjected to amounts to serious human rights violations.
Krzysztof Lisek
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to express my very sincere thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak, because several days ago, when I spoke to Ales Mikhalevich, whom I have had the opportunity and honour to know and be friends with for over a decade, I promised him I would do everything possible to speak today. Although I know this is not the place to be sending personal messages, I would like to say: 'Ales, we are with you, as Mr Protasiewicz has said'.
I think that today, it is very important to say to the opposition that we are going to support them - and we should say this not only to the opposition. It is important to say this to those who are involved in carrying out the persecution - the prosecutors who conduct investigations as they are told to do, the judges who hand down unjust sentences, the directors of workplaces who fire people for their political activity, the rectors of universities who expel students for taking part in demonstrations - we should say to all of them: 'We will remember. We will remember what you do and how you act today, and there will come a time when you will all suffer the punishment you deserve'.
Corina Creţu
(RO) Mr President, I, too, would like to join those calling on the Council, the Commission and the international community to increase their support for civil society and the democratic opposition in Belarus, in response to the events which have taken place since December 2010.
The arrest and detention of more than 600 civil society activists, journalists, teachers and students, the majority of presidential candidates and leaders of the democratic opposition, along with the disproportionate use of force following the demonstrations organised in protest against Lukashenko's election, are characteristic features of a dictatorship and show deep contempt for respect for human rights. The case of Ales Mikhalevich, one of President Lukashenko's opponents, who was tortured during his pre-trial detention, and that of journalist Natalia Radina are significant in a current situation which we are duty-bound to counteract by supporting the efforts of civil society in Belarus, the independent press and the opposition to encourage democracy.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, the fact that in Belarus, President Lukashenko's secret police is still called the KGB tells us all that we need to know about his mentality and methods. Twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he remains the archetypal homo sovieticus, a strong man whose addiction to power is as strong as his instincts for crushing dissent.
Lukashenko used the KGB, or uses the KGB, as a political tool to silence the popular protest, including the cases of Ales Mikhalevich and Natalia Radina, that followed yet another disappointingly rigged presidential election in December last year. More than 700 people were arrested. Stories abound of opposition activists being abducted, detained extrajudicially, and then tortured mentally and psychologically by the KGB.
Belarus matters to us so much because it is a European country and has become a Cuba on our own doorstep. If the EU is to have any moral force in the world with regard to promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it must surely start in Europe itself, our own continent. I do not dispute the need to engage with the Lukashenko regime. An empty chair policy would be counter-productive with the EU, but we need to increase support to the opposition in Belarus and tighten EU smart sanctions on Lukashenko and his KGB cronies.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
Mr President, the events of the past months in Belarus clearly show how civil and political rights continue to be violated systematically by the government. The arrests of the supporters of the opposition in December reflect the way in which an attempt is being made to silence Lukashenko's opponents using violent means.
The imprisonment of Ales Mikhalevich and six other opposition presidential candidates on the unjustifiable pretext that they had provoked violent demonstrations contravenes political rights. Similarly, the imprisonment of journalist, Natalia Radina, for more than a month makes the likelihood of free expression of opinion in Belarus an even more distant reality.
We need to take seriously the accusations of inhumane treatment and torture in KGB prisons made by Mikhalevich, Radina and others, and these should be investigated by an impartial body. I want to remind Belarus of the international commitments it made by ratifying the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention against Torture, and, as a consequence, the responsibility it has towards the international community and, in particular, its own citizens.
Johannes Hahn
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we are concerned about the worsening situation in Belarus, which unfortunately comes as no surprise. The widespread detention and prosecution of civil society activists, including presidential candidates, in the post-election period led us to expect harsh sentences to follow. As of today, we already know of four cases where individuals have been sentenced to several years in prison. We fear that many more such sentences, involving up to 40 people who now stand accused, will follow in months to come. What is more, we have been appalled by reports of the torture and ill-treatment of people detained on political grounds, including ex-presidential candidate Mikhalevich.
All these despicable events may call for an update of our EU response. The situation today is as follows: as you know, the EU reacted to the fraudulent elections of 19 December and to the subsequent repression by putting nearly 160 people on a sanction list. This was a very clear and strong message of condemnation to the authorities. At the same time, the Commission and the European External Action Service have swiftly designed new dedicated assistance tools to provide urgent support to the victims of repression, their families and civil society, up to an amount of EUR 1.7 million. This assistance is being delivered with the initial focus on providing legal assistance and counselling to victims of repression and on support to civil society organisations and civic campaigns.
We are also finalising a re-orientation of our mid-term assistance to Belarus to increase support to civil society. The Commission is quadrupling its aid to Belarusian civil society for the period 2011-2013 to a total of EUR 15.6 million, with particular attention given to strengthening independent media and supporting students, including by maintaining funding for the European Humanities University.
It is now time to reflect on whether an additional response is needed. The High Representative issued an immediate condemnation following the first sentence on 18 February, and she recalled that political motives had no place in a legal process. The EU also strongly condemned the harsh sentences and torture allegations at the OSCE and is discussing the matter at the UN Human Rights Council.
Finally, the European Union will discuss whether the latest events call for a further expansion of our existing sanction list to add new names such as those responsible for issuing the latest sentences and leading the recent crackdown. The EU stands ready to consider further targeted measures in all areas of cooperation as appropriate.
Parliament's resolution will certainly be a useful and timely contribution to our reflections and discussions. I thank Members for their attention.
President
I have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.


Agriculture in areas with natural handicaps: A special health check (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Herbert Dorfmann, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on agriculture in areas with natural handicaps: a special health check -.
Herbert Dorfmann
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this report, we are concerned with a communication from the Commission regarding agriculture in areas with natural handicaps.
Specifically, it is about delimiting disadvantaged areas and, in particular, about finding new ways of delimiting them. They are currently defined on the basis of mainly or exclusively national criteria. There are over 100 of these criteria, and they are completely different in the different Member States of our Union.
This does not ensure uniformity, a state of affairs that the Court of Auditors has criticised on a number of occasions. In its communication, the Commission is now proposing a new way of delimiting these areas using eight different criteria, which are intended to lead to a complete re-definition of these areas.
Parliament does not know what impact these criteria will have because the area simulations that the Commission asked for from the Member States were not available when we were working on this report, nor did we get to look at these simulations.
I would like to summarise what we are now proposing in this report. We think that, in principle, a uniform method of delimitation is sensible and possibly also necessary to ensure uniformity within the European Union. We also believe that the compensatory allowance - which you could say is the most important result of this delimiting process, as this is primarily carried out so that these areas can receive compensatory payments - is an extremely important element of agricultural policy and, above all, makes agriculture possible where it would otherwise be very difficult, in other words, in disadvantaged areas, especially in mountainous areas.
However, we are unable to carry out an assessment of the quality of these criteria, that is to say, whether or not these criteria now work, because we currently have no access to any area simulations. There are nonetheless very specific doubts as to whether the proposed criteria will be sufficiently precise.
It also still needs to be clarified whether the criteria that the Commission is now proposing should actually be dealt with in this way, in other words separately, criterion by criterion, or whether, under certain circumstances, an accumulation of these criteria needs to be taken into account. The handicap is often associated with several factors at the same time and it seems perfectly sensible to us to consider whether it would not be absolutely essential to take an accumulation of these criteria into account.
We also need to consider whether the principle of subsidiarity should be taken into account in this regard, in other words, whether, in this case too, it would be necessary for us to draw up a rough framework using the new criteria and then give the Member States and the regions the opportunity to fine tune it.
Finally, I believe that it is essential to also consider having transitional periods. This delimitation will result in some areas being removed from the delimited areas and these areas need a sufficiently long transitional period.
In summary, I would like to say - and I believe that the report also reflects this opinion - that the current communication from the Commission still requires further refinement and that, before it is implemented, it needs to be given very careful consideration, because it will have far-reaching consequences for the farmers affected.
Finally, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my fellow Members here in Parliament and also to the Commission staff who, over the last few months, have helped to put together this report.
Peter Jahr
(DE) Mr President, many thanks to the rapporteur for his excellent report. Subsidising disadvantaged areas is a core element of the common agricultural policy, with the aim of maintaining the universal spread of agriculture throughout Europe. The Commission's approach to develop a system that can be used EU-wide for delimiting these areas is therefore to be welcomed. The crucial point, however, is whether the eight criteria that have been developed to do this will actually be sufficient. I am not convinced that these are really the right criteria to use. I cannot understand - and I think the same can be said of the rapporteur and the entire Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development - why the Commission has not made the simulation results for the effects of these eight criteria available to us. I therefore appeal to the Commission: this really should not happen as often as it does.
When we want and need to evaluate something, we naturally also need to know the results. I view this to a certain extent as a lack of trust in Parliament. That means that, for this particular proposed regulation, there is still much to be done. I hope that the Commission will look closely at the Dorfmann report that we have made into our own report. Personally, I hope that Mr Dorfmann will be able to continue to have political input on this matter.
Martin Häusling
(DE) Mr President, I, too, would like to thank Mr Dorfmann for his report. What he has presented clearly shows that there are still a few things that need to be clarified with regard to this matter. Like the speakers before me, I, too, think that the current framework for delimiting these areas is too rough and ready. Many parts of it do not meet the needs of disadvantaged regions. I question whether we will be able to manage with these natural criteria alone.
We also need to look closely at the social situation, which plays a major role in disadvantaged regions. As the payments for disadvantaged regions are vital for the survival of many holdings, the Commission needs to think once again about refining the current framework in order to give many regions a chance of survival.
I fear that implementation of the current system would lead to very large shifts which are not always comprehensible and will lead to a large amount of disquiet and uncertainty within agriculture. We ought to look at this again.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) It is very important that on the basis of the Dorfmann report, the common agricultural policy's budget continue to give priority to supporting agricultural areas with natural handicaps, since without such support, there would be serious ecological damage and social problems in these areas. It is gratifying that the Commission - and here the Commission deserves praise - leaves the identification of the eligible areas, based on the eight criteria, up to the Member States. At the same time, I would like to call attention to the fact that to this day, there are differences and discrimination between the Member States, not only as regards direct payments, which are imposed on new Member States, in particular, the Commissioner's own county, Latvia, and on other new Member States as well. In my country, supplying water to the sand dunes region (Homokhátság) is a concern, since the groundwater level has fallen by 4-5 metres over four decades, and the area has become a semi-desert. The same problem also arises in Southern Europe, and therefore finding a solution to the question of water management in the future common agricultural policy is of particular importance.
Michel Dantin
(FR) Mr President, I would like to thank our colleague, Mr Dorfmann, for his excellent work on this report. I think it sums up perfectly the issue as it stands today in terms of the Commission's proposals.
It is the Commissioner whom I would like to address in particular. This work has been going on for several months now. It is creating great agitation within several of our countries' industries, which are threatened with reclassification, and this reclassification is happening or may happen at a time when - and this will be the subject of tomorrow evening's oral question - many production sectors are experiencing particular difficulties. We therefore need to move forward and move forward quickly. I do not think we can wait three years to come up with a clear answer for the farmers who are affected by this delimitation exercise.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, it is extremely good that less-favoured regions have been particularly highlighted in this report. The really central idea, which probably everyone here supports, is that the preconditions for profitable agricultural production must be safeguarded everywhere in the EU, both now and in the future.
There seems to be a lot of confusion arising from the criteria for defining less favourable regions. We must focus particular attention on agriculture in less favourable regions, because previous reforms to the common agricultural policy have very often been carried out from the point of view of favourable regions.
In order that we can continue to grow in less favourable regions, it is extremely important to use proportional regulation mechanisms. The cancellation of some of the previous agricultural regulation mechanisms by the EU has not been successful. For example, the withdrawal of milk quotas and the abolition of the set-aside scheme have been unsuccessful decisions as far as less favourable regions are concerned.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, the subsidising of European agriculture cannot be called into question. The reasons for the subsidies include a variety of conditions of production, such as climate, soil quality, the problem of access to water, the situation of the land and social and historical conditions. Most of these have a significant influence on the results of production and economic performance, and have influenced the current constituent elements of the common agricultural policy.
I share the views and fears of the author concerning the lack of expected effects of the new approach. Can it be that the criteria used up till now have been so inappropriate? We expect calculations and a more profound analysis of the effects. An important question is how to maintain agricultural production in less favoured areas. In my opinion, support for these areas still needs to be continued at a suitable level as part of the common agricultural policy in the future Financial Framework.
Andris Piebalgs
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Dorfmann for an excellent report on the Commission communication entitled 'Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps'.
I would like to address a couple of issues. The overall objective of the natural handicap payments is to ensure continued land use and, through agricultural land management, maintain the countryside as well as to promote sustainable farming systems. The payments to farmers in these areas compensate farmers' additional costs and income forgone, which occur due to the existing natural handicap.
The Council has decided to remove the socio-economic criteria from the objectives of natural handicap payments. The removal of socio-economic criteria should be seen in the context of the whole suite of measures available to Member States in the Rural Development Regulation - the diversification into non-agricultural activities, the development of micro- and small and medium-sized enterprises and tourism activities, as well as the provision of basic services.
So, the natural handicap payments are not the intervention lever that aims to tackle this issue of depopulation. Compensating farmers in areas where production is not hampered by natural handicaps and where there is no additional cost or income forgone would distort competition with farmers in other areas. Furthermore, socio-economic indicators change over time and would, therefore, require a continual follow-up and revision process of each area concerned.
The proposal to take remoteness into account is not practical against the agreed framework set down by the Council, which relates to natural handicaps. In terms of their peripherality, there are other levels of delimitation possible, for example, the specific handicap article of the Regulation.
At the different stages of the process, the Commission invited Member States to submit alternative proposals for biophysical criteria and their thresholds. These proposals will be analysed by scientists for their validity and, above all, for their transparency and possible Community-wide applicability. The alternative thresholds, however, must lead to the conclusion that an area in question is affected by a significant handicap, as desired by the Council.
Once the exercise of testing a delimitation based on biophysical criteria is completed, the Commission proposal for the common agricultural policy after 2013 will take the results of this exercise into account. Any legal proposal will also aim for a smooth transition for those areas which may lose their status of areas with a natural handicap.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place in two weeks' time, at the next part-session in Brussels.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
in writing. - I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. Maintaining diverse and active rural areas is important for several reasons, not least because of growing global demand for food products and environmentally sustainable tourism. Additionally, it would be a serious setback in many areas to stop to cultivate the land, both in terms of vital rural income and the loss of landscape, which might have been formed during several centuries.
Petru Constantin Luhan
The aid scheme for areas affected by natural handicaps has effectively helped the farming of agricultural land to continue in these regions. The importance of granting appropriate compensatory payments for less favoured areas is indisputable.
The process for delimiting and classifying these areas has been carried out by Member States based on a number of criteria, according to their own set of indicators. However, it is extremely difficult even to compare these sets of indicators as they use different methods for classifying and weighting the regions. Establishing a common set of classification criteria would increase the scheme's transparency, reliability and efficiency across the whole of Europe. In this regard, I support the need to review the aid scheme for farmers in areas with natural handicaps and devise a global strategy for the less favoured areas, thereby reducing the disparities which have appeared between Member States in terms of allocating financial support.
James Nicholson
in writing. - We should remember that 54% of farmed land in the EU currently falls into a LFA classification. The continuation of the LFA scheme is vital if we are to compensate farmers for providing public goods, avoiding land abandonment, assisting in promoting biodiversity and helping to support rural communities. The market neither rewards nor compensates farmers for these achievements in areas where farming is at a natural disadvantage. We must, therefore, ensure that further reform of the LFA system is adequately financed within the overall budget for CAP and that the system used for classification is fair and non-discriminatory. In its initial communication, the eight biophysical criteria proposed by the Commission to assess the classification of areas with significant natural handicaps were undoubtedly biased towards the warmer and drier climates of continental Europe. Therefore, I was glad to see that amendments that mention 'soil moisture balance' and 'field capacity days' were passed at committee level. This is a first step in ensuring that countries in Northern Europe, such as the UK and Ireland, are not discriminated against in the framework of a new classification system.


4. Census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy (vote)
- Before the vote:
Jacques Barrot
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on Monday night you had a debate following media reports that the Italian authorities would be fingerprinting the inhabitants of nomad camps. I can of course confirm the Commission's position on this, as outlined on Monday by Commissioner Špidla, who specifically referred to the letter that I sent to the Italian authorities on 3 July. During this debate, Mr Schulz expressed the view that I should inform the European Parliament.
In addition - since Mr Deprez is here, I can say this before the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs - I kept the Bureau and coordinators informed. Yesterday, Madam President, if I have understood correctly, the Conference of Presidents wanted me to make a brief statement to update Parliament on the latest news. I will briefly go over the measures taken by the Commission, which is of course extremely vigilant when it comes to these matters. I met with Mr Ronchi on 26 May. On 3 July I asked the Italian Government to explain the purpose and proportionality of the measures. We had an initial meeting with Mr Maroni in Cannes, during the Informal Council. Mr Maroni is the Italian Minister of the Interior.
During this meeting, Mr Maroni explained that the census would be used to check on entitlements to welfare benefits for the inhabitants of the nomad camps. He explained that fingerprints would be taken only if it was impossible to establish identity by other means, and that children would be fingerprinted only with a court order.
(Uproar)
I am merely repeating what the Minister said. I will tell you in a minute what I did. He said that he had asked to abolish any census on the basis of religion or ethnicity, and that the Italian Government, in cooperation with Unicef, had launched an action plan for the education of minors. Nevertheless, I have to say that the Italian Government has agreed to send us a status report on the situation by the end of July, which is extremely important.
After this informal meeting, I asked the Director-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, Jonathan Faull, to write to the Italian authorities to obtain written confirmation of this information and to ask for additional clarification ahead of the report expected at the end of July. A letter was sent on 9 July. Late yesterday evening my staff in Brussels received a preliminary response. This document provides clarification on the identification of ethnicity and religion.
As for the other aspects, I am unable to say at this point whether these will fully answer the questions asked by the Commission. It is our intention to obtain all the necessary information about the fingerprinting process. What is the purpose of fingerprinting and how will fingerprints be processed? What is the legal basis authorising this kind of processing of personal data? Will this data be kept? How will it be kept? Can it be used for other purposes? Are the people who are fingerprinted given preliminary information in writing?
As far as children are concerned, we requested confirmation of reports that under-14s would be fingerprinted only if this was authorised by a judge, for the purpose of establishing their identity.
We have also asked about the situation in the 17 regions of Italy that are not affected by the emergency decree.
Finally, we have asked for texts, measures, decisions and legislative, regulatory or administrative acts to be sent that will give us an idea of the situation. It is up to you to decide whether we intend to follow up this issue with all the required vigilance and of course whether we enter into the necessary dialogue with the Italian authorities.
To conclude, Madam President, the Commission wants this matter to be handled transparently and with respect for fundamental rights and Community law. Our role is to act as the guardian of the Treaties, verifying objectively, once we are in possession of all the relevant information, that Italy has correctly applied the Community law applicable in these cases.
Generally speaking, as Commissioner Špidla explained, I am convinced - and I said as much to the Italian Government - that it is necessary to find effective solutions tailored to the problems faced in particular by the Roma, especially Roma children, who are the primary victims of the situation of poverty and exclusion. The Roma must be helped and not stigmatised; this is why, in the report that it presented last week, the Commission emphasised that the European Union, the Member States and civil society must join forces to effectively coordinate their efforts to this end.
Manfred Weber
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I refer to Rule 170 of our Rules of Procedure and wish to table a motion on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats regarding this vote.
There are issues and political views that divide us, but there are also things that unite us in this Parliament, and these include a commitment to human rights, the fight against all forms of racism, so we should not allow ourselves to become divided on those topics where we are in agreement because, otherwise, we shall weaken the very issue that unites us. Our competent Commissioner Jacques Barrot has explained that there continue to be some unanswered questions when it comes to assessing the facts about the problems we may have in Italy.
At the moment we are referring mainly to articles in the press, and we are referring to a wide variety of forms that have been sent around Parliament over recent weeks. Therefore we, the PPE-DE Group, move that today's vote on the resolution be postponed until the September part-session because, by then, the facts will have been clarified and we shall know what we are voting on.
I should like to say to all the Members who disagree with this that, as long as you are not out to get a quick headline, but instead have the objectives of cooperating to achieve something for the minorities in Europe, and of all groups in this Parliament, both large and small, pulling together, then jointly we can achieve something for these people. Those who just want a quick headline, just want to get publicity, should vote now. We advocate postponing it until we know the facts of the matter. I have to acknowledge that the debate we have had over the last few days has exerted enough pressure to get the matter moving. I would ask those who want proper answers to support the motion for us to discuss this in September.
(Applause from the right)
Martin Schulz
Madam President, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament asked on Monday evening and again yesterday for the Commission to give a report on its discussions with the Italian Government. Commissioner Barrot has reported in a very factual but conclusive way that, for one thing, the Italian Government has passed on information that was very incomplete and, it seems to me, not particularly relevant.
You are all familiar with this form. It is a form of the type normally used to record crimes, a form that clearly shows that the Italian Government is taking measures that would be suited to criminal investigations, at the most, but which most definitely do not serve the protection of children. Judging by what Mr Barrot has just told us, it is more imperative than ever to adopt this resolution today, to send out a clear signal from the European Parliament.
(Applause from the centre and left)
Roberta Angelilli
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak in favour of Mr Weber's proposal and I would like to thank Commissioner Barrot, not only for what he has said today in this House, but also for his commitment to resolving, in the best and most constructive way, a situation that in Italy should be recognised for what it is, namely an emergency involving thousands of people. I assure you that thousands of minors are living in conditions of total neglect, with no right to medical treatment, vaccinations or schooling.
It seems to me that the Commission and the Italian Government are working together... - Mr President, may I finish speaking? May I continue or must I stop speaking? Would you please remind the House that I have the right to speak? - I was saying that the Commission and the Government are going in the right direction and in particular I believe that we should not vote on a resolution that is full of inaccuracies, actual errors from a legal point of view, i.e. full of legal falsehoods. It is therefore an entirely political resolution, with no basis in fact.
Among other things, I would like to remind the House - and I am reaching my conclusion - that, while Commissioner Barrot has been extremely clear today, three days ago Commissioner Špidla said that he had yet to read the act, which I believe consists of no more than two pages. Therefore if those on the left must at all costs make a premature judgment on a government's methods, I believe it to be entirely illegitimate.
(Parliament rejected the request to postpone the vote)
Before the vote on Amendment 10:
Marco Cappato
(IT) Mr President, to add 'on a case-by-case basis' in the second part of the amendment, where we ask for the use of ordinary, non-discriminatory identification procedures. Therefore, in English 'to employ, on a case-by-case basis, ordinary, non-discriminatory...'.
(The oral amendment was accepted)