1. The case of Ai Weiwei in China
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on the case of Ai Weiwei in China.
Guy Verhofstadt
author. - Mr President, this is the first time that I have participated in a Thursday afternoon debate, so there are some lessons I think I can pick up for the Conference of Presidents with regard to making the plenary session more attractive.
I am pleased that this point has been put on the agenda, because the case of Mr Ai Weiwei is quite dramatic, as the latest information we have is that there is certainly no intention on the part of the Chinese authorities to release him. The best thing we can do is to approve the urgent resolution we have agreed together with all the groups so that we can increase pressure on the Chinese authorities.
I have to tell you that I have my doubts that this resolution will change anything in the attitude of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese authorities. What we are, in fact, doing on human rights with the Chinese is a game. We are talking about human rights, they are saying they will open a dialogue and we think that things have changed. Nothing shall change. That is the reality. We have the Nobel prize-winner who could not attend the meeting in Oslo. We now have Mr Ai Weiwei, who is a well-known artist and was one of the last dissidents who had the possibility to say something.
The only thing we can say is in an urgent resolution in which we deplore what is happening. In any case, I had hoped that we could ask why we should continue to participate in fora that the Chinese Communist Party organises with our political parties. I deplore that there was not enough support from the other groups to come to an agreement on that. We could at least have agreed on a principle of not continuing to participate in fora with the Chinese Communist Party, if Mr Weiwei and other dissidents were not released. For that reason at least, I hoped for the support of all the groups here - with the other amendment the Greens tabled, even if the best part of it was eliminated. Yes, it is true, they tabled a fantastic amendment and then eliminated the best part! OK, it was not their fault, but apparently the fault of others.
(Interruption by the President)
I may be taking a minute more than I usually do, but for Mr Ai Weiwei, it will take ten years longer, apparently. If we can speak in favour of somebody who may be in gaol for years, one minute longer is not too much, Mr President!
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, I do not know how often Mr Verhofstadt is here. I wanted to ask him whether he should not perhaps come more often, since he would then see that the sessions here are always very attractive. It is just that unfortunately, there are some people who do not come, but that is something that can be changed. The sessions are extremely attractive.
Rui Tavares
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I vividly recall the first time that I saw a work by the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei. At that time, in about 2000, I was a lecturer in Art History in Lisbon, and there, in an anthology of modern artists, was his enormous chandelier, the size of a room, overturned and broken. It was at once extremely beautiful and somewhat poignant and sad. This image somehow also reflects an image of China: able to show itself as sumptuous, rich, developed, and capable of presenting itself to the world, as in the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. It is a sophisticated China, yet one with something seriously broken inside. That something is the will, free speech and the spirit of the Chinese people themselves.
Today, we have met to discuss the case of the artist Ai Weiwei, and we have asked the Chinese authorities to release him, to let him speak with his lawyer and his wife, and to make any accusations, if there are any which are true, and not charges trumped up on the spot. Above all, we have gathered here to say that this artist's spirit of creativity, imagination and humour will surely survive much longer than that of his gaolers.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, once again, we are debating China, and its government's intolerance of dissent. As we know from our debate last month on the Communist regime's vandalism of the ancient city of Kashgar, China vigorously tries to suppress cultural expression that does not conform to what its Communist rulers deem appropriate.
Ai Weiwei is an heir to China's magnificent and ancient artistic traditions. He has also used his artistic talents to raise awareness of China's dismal human rights record and dearth of political freedom. Clearly, there is also a lack of freedom of expression in China. How else can the regime explain Mr Ai's arrest on economic crimes and because he failed to complete the correct departure procedures for travelling to Taiwan. This is plainly a smokescreen. In fact, the real reason was later elucidated by the state-run Global Times newspaper in a menacing editorial, which said that Mr Ai would pay a price for his resistance.
We abhor the Chinese Government's disgraceful treatment of this distinguished artist. We in this House call for his immediate release, and we express regret, once again, that China goes to such extreme lengths against those who dare speak out for their basic human rights.
Cristian Dan Preda
Mr President, more than a year ago, we spoke in this Chamber about Liu Xiaobo being sentenced to prison. Here we are now discussing a second signatory of Charter 08 who has been detained by the Chinese authorities.
As has already been said, Ai Weiwei is not only a very famous artist, but also one of the biggest critics of the Communist regime. He was arrested on Sunday and there is no prospect of his release. Indeed, in addition to this, we saw today that the Chinese authorities maintained that his arrest was an economic and not a political matter, which is blatantly a barefaced lie.
As is well known, Ai Weiwei was prevented from attending the Nobel Prize award ceremony. His arrest is part of a wider trend in cracking down on human rights activists. We have included in our resolution a whole list of people whom, I believe, Lady Ashton must mention whenever she has the opportunity. I believe that we need to reassess our dialogue on human rights more generally.
Heidi Hautala
author. - Mr President, it is no coincidence that the increasingly repressive measures against Chinese journalists, dissidents, human rights activists and lawyers is taking place in the aftermath, or during the turmoil, of the North African revolutions. The word 'jasmine' has been banned from the Chinese Internet recently.
Today's news, which Mr Preda highlighted, is very significant because now, we see how dictators copy from each other and compare notes. We can see that the methods that Russia used against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have been used by Venezuela and Kazakhstan against businessmen who come too close to political influence, who want to establish opposition parties: they are all punished in the name of economic crimes. Punishment of economic crime is the name they give to political repression. We have to be aware that this has not happened much before in China: this is a turning point that does not bode well.
It is important that Members of the European Parliament raise the persecuted activists' names when they travel to China and when meeting their Chinese counterparts, and that they insist on a prison visit. We know that many of those who are persecuted suffer terrible torture in Chinese prisons, sometimes in what we call 'black gaols' which are completely unidentified places.
This is a reminder to all European Parliament delegations that all of them are entitled and obliged to exercise their duty in respect of human rights when they visit countries. We call for the immediate release of Ai Weiwei.
Ana Gomes
The disappearance of Ai Weiwei must be understood within the context of the increasingly desperate political repression carried out by the Chinese authorities. All this is happening due to their fear that the revolutionary spirit of the Arab world will infect Chinese society. However, the EU can make a difference. Violations of human rights by the Chinese authorities must be a constant theme in its political dialogue with China, and this dialogue should be rethought to ensure that there are concrete results, in particular, the review of court rulings that have kept human rights activists in gaol.
Negotiations on the new framework agreement cannot leave aside the issue of human rights, subjugating everything to commercial interests. When pursuing its economic interests, the EU itself has a responsibility to support activists like Ai Weiwei, Liu Xiaobo and Hu Jun, who have fought courageously for urgent political reform in China, against oppression, and for human rights and fundamental freedoms. China, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has particular obligations regarding human rights, contained in the UN Charter, and it must be accountable for these not only to its citizens, but also to the rest of the world.
Sari Essayah
Mr President, I am very pleased that we in the European Parliament were able to add a current breach of human rights so quickly to the list of urgent petitions.
As we know, the case of Ai Weiwei is not actually the only serious breach of human rights of which the Chinese Communist Party is continually guilty, but, as Mrs Hautala has already previously mentioned here, the democracy movement in China has received a new boost from the uprisings in North Africa.
Over the past few weeks, officials have stepped up their surveillance of critics of the government and many dissidents, activists and human rights lawyers have been either put under house arrest or taken into police custody. As Amnesty International has said, Ai Weiwei's arrest is an alarming turn of events in the increased incidence of counterblows against dissidents by the Chinese authorities. Economic interests must not now be allowed to blur the issue of human rights and prevent the call for the immediate release of prisoners of conscience.
Rosario Crocetta
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Beijing's justification for the arrest of the artist Ai Weiwei for economic crimes is not convincing, and neither is the need to treat a free, dissident artist so harshly. It is not convincing since this arrest is one of hundreds of arrests of opponents and part of the systematic repression of all signs of dissent.
At a time when uprisings are breaking out in the Arab world, we think back to the images of cruel violence in Tiananmen Square against young Chinese who, just like today's Jasmine revolutionaries, were demanding freedom and democracy.
China has opened up to the West in economic terms without, however, linking production to respect for the environment and safety at work, and it is unable to embrace democracy and pluralism in any form whatsoever. This is not interference on our part in Chinese internal affairs, as Beijing maintains, but the appeal of men and women, of movements and parties that intend to build a world free of intolerance on every continent.
The Beijing government should watch what is happening in the world to grasp that, if it does not change, it will be historic events and Chinese citizens that will change China.
Kristiina Ojuland
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, reports on the worrying human rights situation in the People's Republic of China have become more and more frequent. In Parliament, we have this issue on our agenda for almost every session. Like the usual cycles of repression, the recent crackdown has already lasted for a while, which might be signalling a power struggle between reformers and hardliners in the Communist Party.
The Chinese Government has made it harder to access foreign websites, blocked encryption software used to jump what is colloquially known as 'the great firewall of China', obstructed access to Googlemail and intensified arrests, including that of the internationally renowned artist and critic of the regime, Ai Weiwei. Resolute action is needed. I therefore call on the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, to make a démarche with Beijing. Ai Weiwei must be released now.
Eva Lichtenberger
Mr President, Ai Weiwei was - and this is the very sad truth - one of the last remaining courageous critics of the Chinese leadership. His arrest was, without doubt, not just the culmination of a whole wave of arrests of critics, but also a message to all the others that not even international prominence can provide protection from being put back in prison by the Chinese authorities or from even disappearing completely. At the same time, our representations are regularly ignored in the human rights dialogue that the European Union is conducting with the Chinese representatives at all levels - with a friendly smile, but ignored and dismissed nonetheless.
For us, the question arises as to what strategy we can use in response to this. I believe we must respond in our own China delegation and make it very clear on our next visit to China that we want to visit these critics too, that we want to see them - for otherwise there is no longer any point in continuing our human rights dialogue. We have no desire to keep talking to a brick wall.
Paul Murphy
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Mr President, I condemn the arrest of Ai Weiwei and call for his immediate release. His detention is part of the most severe police crackdown in China in decades. Since 2008, China's internal security budget has, incredibly, grown larger than its military budget. It now stands at an incredible USD 95 billion. This pays for a massive apparatus of State repression, including over 40 000 policemen whose sole job is to police the Internet for dissent.
This repression is being stepped up because the regime fears the spread of revolution from the Middle East and North Africa. The regime is right to be afraid. The revolutions there demonstrate that a risen working class and the risen poor are more powerful than even the most brutal repressive methods, the most repressive regimes.
Mass struggle is needed, in particular, the creation of independent, democratic mass organisations of the working class. The struggle against dictatorship must be linked to the struggle for genuine socialist change in China, whereby the vast wealth and resources in China are taken into democratic public ownership and the economy is democratically planned to raise the living standards of ordinary people.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, as an artist, Ai Weiwei has given faces to the child victims of the Sichuan earthquake. As a civil rights activist, he has given a face to Charter 08. He is now giving a face to those people who have disappeared into the gaols and prisons of China - thousands of them anonymous. A hundred of them are known to us and here in this House, we must give a voice to these people who stand up for human rights but who have been temporarily silenced.
I therefore say quite clearly that of course, these human rights debates and the dialogue are necessary. I understand those who say they have no desire to keep talking to a brick wall. If we stop talking to this brick wall, however, then the dictators will have got what they wanted.
There was a great reformer, Zhou Enlai. Zhou Enlai was no democrat, but he was a Chinese patriot and he opened up his country. What we need is a democratic Zhou Enlai to arrange for a democratic opening up of his country. If the country fails to implement democratic reforms, it will end up in the same sort of crises as it suffered in the 1930s.
It is in the Chinese interest to help bring about a breakthrough in human rights and we must therefore support these initiatives as well.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, the artist Ai Weiwei, who has achieved international recognition, is someone who has enriched Chinese culture and art. Instead of rewarding him and treating him with respect, China has locked him up in prison.
Human rights are not just a European concept: they are universal principles underlying human dignity. The representatives of the European Union's External Action Service and the Delegation of the EU to China must highlight the case of Ai Weiwei with the Chinese authorities at the highest diplomatic level.
The human rights dialogue with China, however, must not simply be allowed to remain at the level of diplomatic speeches. Given the repeated breaches of human rights and a human rights situation that has failed, the European Union must draw its conclusions and reconsider its relations with China. The human rights dialogue must not simply be empty words: positive steps need to be taken, and there must be followup and twoway discussion.
Besides, culture and art are a resource that enriches society and takes it forward, both here in the West, but also in the East, the South and the North too.
Seán Kelly
A Uachtaráin, China is an enigma. On the one hand, it has modernised and taken on many Western practices, as we saw at the Olympics, which I had the privilege of attending, and indeed they were a great success. But while it has westernised in some ways, it is archaic in others, in particular, in relation to fundamental rights, especially freedom of opinion. The case of Ai Weiwei is a perfect example. Here is a world-renowned artist, arrested on 3 April for no apparent reason. Nobody has heard much about him since and this, of course, is totally and utterly unacceptable. We call here today for his return to his wife, his friends and assistants. Because one thing is for sure - and the Chinese should take note of this - Ai Weiwei will be remembered and renowned long after those who were responsible for his arrest are forgotten.
Peter Jahr
(DE) Mr President, I think that what the Chinese are doing here is a deliberate political provocation, or to put it another way, a political test. It is intended to test the strength, the resolve and the credibility of democratic countries. It is an attack on human rights. It is true that there must be dialogue, but precisely for that reason we must make it clear to the People's Republic of China that further economic cooperation must go hand in hand with further democratisation of their country. We therefore demand the release of Ai Weiwei.
By the way, whenever dictators want to avoid being accused of political trials, they always play the tax evasion or economic crimes card. It was the case in the former GDR, it is the case in Russia, and unfortunately, it is also the case in the People's Republic of China. That is why I emphatically endorse this resolution.
Gesine Meissner
(DE) Mr President, I would first like to agree with Mr Verhofstadt. It is indeed shameful that these human rights debates, which are actually very important to us Europeans who believe in values, always take place on Thursday afternoons when most people have already left. I would like that noted in the record once more. It is something that we must change.
Right now, however, we are talking about China and there we are more or less powerless, as has already been said. Mrs Lichtenberger spoke of a brick wall. Mr Posselt, I do not believe by the way that it is really in the Chinese interest - as you said - to help bring about a breakthrough in human rights. It is apparently not in the interest of the Chinese Government, although it is undoubtedly in the interest of the Chinese people.
We are talking today about many people: Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaobo have already been mentioned. We have frequently debated in the past how we can bring about a human rights breakthrough. It is not just a matter of instructing Baroness Ashton to speak out against the human rights abuses in China at every opportunity. All our foreign ministers and representatives must do so, and we need to stick together. I think that is the only way that we can actually have a small influence on China. Otherwise, as a strong economic power, China will play us off against each other and we will achieve nothing whatsoever. That would be a very bad thing, especially for the people concerned.
Maroš Šefčovič
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the detention of the distinguished Chinese artist, Ai Weiwei, at Beijing Airport on 3 April as he was attempting to travel to Hong Kong, has rightly drawn international concern. The delegation of the European Union to China and a public statement immediately condemned the increasing use of arbitrary detention against human rights defenders, lawyers and activists in China, and underline the EU's concerns regarding Ai Weiwei.
At the moment, we have no information concerning Mr Ai's whereabouts, and I wish to emphasise today that the EU's view on arbitrary detention and disappearance is that it constitutes a grave violation of human rights and is unacceptable in all circumstances. We call for the immediate release of Ai Weiwei.
Moreover, as the resolution before this House makes clear, the detention of Ai Weiwei is only one among many recent incidents of arbitrary detention and disappearance in China. Several prominent Chinese lawyers who frequently act for defendants in human rights cases are reported to have been arrested by police officials since February and have not been seen since.
Concerns about their treatment are only intensified by the ongoing disappearance of the lawyer Gao Zhisheng who, with the exception of a brief reappearance in April 2010, has now been missing for over two years. The High Representative is worried about reports based on interviews with Mr Gao in April 2010 that during his initial period of disappearance, he was detained incommunicado in a variety of unauthorised places of detention and subjected to improper treatment.
There are, moreover, reports that in recent weeks, a significant number of bloggers and political activists have either been charged with criminal offences, such as subverting state power, or have been detained without charge.
I can assure this House that the Vice-President/High Representative, Catherine Ashton, is following developments very closely and will raise these issues with the Chinese authorities at the earliest opportunity, and that the EU will also make known its concern to the Chinese authorities at the next round of the EU-China human rights dialogue, for which we have proposed dates in May. Allow me to support the statement by Mrs Meissner that what is really needed is one voice, a unified message, which comes not only from the EU institutions, but from all EU Member States.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.


17. Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment (
- Before the vote
Vasco Graça Moura
Mr President, my report is in line with all the previous documents on multilingualism, whether they came from this House, the Council or the Commission.
The alternative tabled is an attempt to bring into the European Parliament certain nationalist disputes that are ongoing in Spain. Just yesterday the Spanish newspaper El País reported that the Spanish Supreme Court decided three months ago that a box should be included on pre-enrolment forms asking parents in which language they want their children to receive their education, and also that the Catalan authorities are not complying with this decision.
The signatories of the alternative do not want this right to be recognised for parents in countries with more than one official or regional language.
They do not want to recognise the vital need for education in the mother tongue, not only for educational success in general but also in particular for the learning of other languages.
They do not want to ensure full mutual intelligibility between the languages spoken in a country in this situation, especially in relation to senior citizens and to the legal system, health, administration and employment.
They do not accept that, in these countries, one language should not be promoted at the expense of the rights of speakers of another language or other languages.
This contradicts everything that this Parliament and the other European institutions have upheld.
As a result, paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 17 of my report are omitted from the alternative. Looking at these paragraphs, such negative positions clearly clash with our fundamental rights and freedoms and patently infringe the principle of subsidiarity.
My report does not attack or harm so-called minority languages. It respects these and recognises their value, but it also tries to lay down general and basic principles.
This House cannot be an instrument of extremist nationalism nor of regional or local hatred or aversion. It is our responsibility as MEPs that is at stake. I therefore urge you to vote against the alternative and in favour of the report that I have authored.
President
- Ladies and gentlemen, please may I have your attention for a moment. There is a request to speak and there may be others. Knowing their contents as I do, I take it for granted that the statements made just now by the rapporteur will not have the support of some Members, but, as you know, provision has only been made for the rapporteur to take the floor for two minutes; there is no provision for opening the debate.
I am therefore unable to give the floor and re-open the debate; I can only do this if there is a request to speak on a point of order in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. If we are talking about a point of order, then Mr Guardans Cambó has the floor. Do not think me rude if I take it away from him as soon as I realise that it is not a point of order on problems relating to the Rules of Procedure.
Ignasi Guardans Cambó
Mr President, this is indeed a point of order. I will not enter into a debate, but the rapporteur has just said something that does not correspond to what is going to be put to the vote. He said that the alternative motion deletes four paragraphs of his original resolution, and that is not true: there are just changes in their numbering. Of the four cases he quoted, only one is not in both resolutions. That is a statement of fact. The other three are in both resolutions.
(Heckling)
So this is a point of order concerning clarification. Members are voting on what he asked them to vote. There is just one case, which has nothing to do with the Spanish Supreme Court, that is different in both resolutions. As the rapporteur's statement was not correct, I think this constitutes a point of order.
President
Thank you, Mr Guardans Cambó. We shall now proceed to the vote. Amendment 1 is put to the vote. Voting will take place by roll call. The vote is open.
Cristiana Muscardini
- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to ask whether it was not considered ridiculous that a person's report can be stolen and an identical one presented in its place, when, under the old system, amendments were tabled. For this reason, I invite you to review our Rules of Procedure, as they are causing an incredible amount of confusion and officially allowing an injustice to be done.
President
- I shall take responsibility for raising this matter again in the Bureau, even though you know that some regulatory powers are taken away from the Bureau and exercised via coordination of the group chairmen, but whoever's job it is to decide, if it is ridiculous, it will remain ridiculous, it will certainly not change.


Rare diseases (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Trakatellis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a Council recommendation on a European action in the field of rare diseases - C6-0455/2008 -.
Antonios Trakatellis
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, this Council recommendation is very timely, because concerted action in the field of rare diseases is an absolute necessity, both at European Union level and at national level.
Although the incidence for each rare disease is very low, millions of people are affected in the European Union because these diseases are measured in thousands. However, the proposal as received by Parliament was insufficient in its current state and it was not possible to produce a viable programme out of it. This is because it does not describe, at least in general terms, both the necessary funding by the European Union and the cofinancing by Member States or other organisations.
Thus it is not possible to promote certain essential aspects on rare diseases, namely the creation of networks of centres of expertise, cataloguing of diseases, collection of data, the special research required and so forth. The text asks for an implementation proposal from the Commission five years after the adoption, which is a long period during which nothing can be done in practice as there is no funding provided.
Therefore, as rapporteur, I propose that the Commission be asked to provide the implementation proposal at the latest by the end of 2012, since by this date the required data from Member States on expert centres and expertise on rare diseases will be at hand.
In this implementation proposal, specific mention should be made for funding and cofinancing in the following areas:
Firstly, the collection of epidemiological data and compiling a catalogue of rare diseases, as this is necessary in order to have a clear picture of the field of these diseases in the European Union.
Secondly, the formation of relevant networks.
Thirdly, the creation, in addition to existing expert centres, of new centres in Member States which lack such centres, the creation of special training courses in the existing centres for professionals to acquire the necessary expertise, the mobilisation of experts and professionals in order to create the necessary conditions for advancing existing knowledge and for research on diagnostic tools and tests on rare diseases and especially on genetic ones.
We should be viewing this Council recommendation as a roadmap to create helpful conditions in the field of rare diseases. We should also understand that it is of a general nature, but I would like to stress once more that, in order to be efficiently and successfully applied, the proposal needs to be more precise and to make provision for a specific timetable and funding.
An important aspect in combating rare diseases is patient mobility. This has already been examined in the Bowis report and I believe that patient mobility is absolutely justified here, because there are no special centres or experts able to undertake the treatment of patients in all the Member States. Consequently, it is absolutely vital here to make provision for patient mobility and for mobility of professionals, so that some can obtain expertise and others can pass on their experience.
Finally, I should say that, for rare genetic diseases, research and innovation are absolutely necessary in order to increase the number of diagnostic tests.
Most of the report concerns treatment, diagnosis, the acquisition of expertise and the creation of centres and networks. One point also concerns prevention. Prevention of genetic diseases is possible nowadays through a combination of in vitro fertilisation and pre-implantation tests. Because it is a recommendation, it is not binding on the Member States. The report states that it will only be carried out in the Member States whose legislation so allows and by the free will and choice of the persons who wish to follow this genetic advice and, therefore, I do not see that it clashes with the principle of subsidiarity as regards existing data.
Daniela Filipiová
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rare diseases are dangerous and very complex diseases that threaten life or cause chronic invalidity. Despite their low prevalence the number of patients in the EU with these diseases is relatively high, and joint action is therefore necessary at an EU level. These are also reasons why the area of rare diseases is an EU health strategy priority.
The Czech Presidency believes that after the Council adopts the draft proposal on European action in the area of rare diseases there will be significant advances and improvements in the diagnosis of rare diseases, which is currently problematic due to the nature of rare diseases. Conditions will also improve for a much-needed sharing of expertise and experience in this area.
Due also to these reasons the Czech Presidency has taken an active approach in negotiating the draft, carrying forward the work of the French Presidency and the discussions at the EPSCO Council in December 2008.
I believe that the European Parliament and the Council share similar views on this matter. The initiative is necessary as it should improve the current situation for millions of patients suffering from these diseases and it should lead to an improvement in their chances of receiving adequate care and comprehensible information.
This should be achieved, for example, through the creation of common definitions of rare diseases, further development of EU activities based on the Orphanet network, coordination of European research including cooperation with third countries, the creation and support of centres of expertise and the development of European reference networks for rare diseases. The Council also recognises the key role played by independent patients' organisations in developing and implementing national policies in the area of rare diseases.
The Czech Presidency is at present completing negotiations on the draft proposal in the working bodies of the Council and it will try to get it accepted by the EPSCO Council in June this year. However, due to the importance of this issue the Council has decided to consult the European Parliament also in this case, and it will carefully consider Parliament's opinion.
I would like to end by once again thanking everyone who took part in preparing the European Parliament report and particularly the rapporteur Antonios Trakatellis for drawing it up.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, I should like to thank all the honourable Members who were involved in the work by Parliament on the proposal for a Council recommendation in the field of rare diseases.
I should like, in particular, to thank the rapporteur, Rector Antonios Trakatellis, for coordinating the discussions and, of course, for his report.
Rare diseases, which individually affect a very small number of people and the majority of which are genetic diseases, can lead to death or chronic disability. However, even though the incidence of each individual rare disease may be very low, as a whole these diseases affect approximately 6% of the total population of the European Union in some aspect of their lives.
This means that, in the European Union, between 29 and 36 million people are affected or are likely to be affected by a rare disease. However, because each disease is rare, it is impossible for each Member State to have the expertise needed to diagnose it and treat the patients. This is therefore an excellent example in the health sector where Europe can add particular value, which is why the Commission has approved the strategic action.
The European strategy is supplemented by the proposal for a Council recommendation on action within the Member States. The aim of this draft recommendation is to help Member States deal with rare diseases more effectively, more efficiently and more globally. One important sector for action is in collecting expertise via the European reference networks. These networks can add value to action by the Member States on rare diseases and in other cases. They can also facilitate the exchange of know-how and expertise and, where necessary, direct patients as to where they should go when this expertise cannot reach them.
The Commission's proposal for a directive on patients' rights to cross-border healthcare includes special provisions to support patient mobility and provide a legal framework for the European reference networks.
There are still many ways in which European action can support the Member States in combating rare diseases, such as by improved identification and recognition of diseases, by supporting research into rare diseases and with mechanisms such as regulation of orphan medicinal products.
My thanks therefore to Parliament for its support on the broad spectrum of issues covered by this report. I await your debate with a great deal of interest.
Françoise Grossetête
Mr President, patients affected by rare diseases suffer misdiagnoses and, often, receive no treatment.
The rarity of these diseases creates challenges both from a scientific and an economic viewpoint. Now, having been the rapporteur on the regulation on orphan medicinal products, ten years ago, I know how these patients are too few to be a local or regional issue and how, on the other hand, the diseases are too numerous to be taught to health professionals. Expertise is therefore rare.
The response, of necessity, involves Europe, and our Committee on Industry, Research and Energy supports Mr Trakatellis in his desire to strengthen research and prevention. How can we deny, for example, a couple whose two children are affected by cystic fibrosis and who wish to have a third child, advances in research to prevent the latter being affected by the same disease? This is why patients need more coordination, more safety and more clarity. These are essential issues that meet Europe's citizens' expectations of a Europe for health.
Peter Liese
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, helping patients who suffer from rare diseases has long been a major concern of the European Parliament. Patients who suffer from rare diseases - this has been said - need European support. National efforts in this area do not suffice. Because these diseases are so rare, there are not centres and experts for them in every Member State. For research - and this is a very important point - you need a certain number of patients for the disease to be researched at all and for it to be possible to develop new therapies. The same applies to the development of new drugs. Mrs Grossetête talked of the Regulation on orphan medicinal products, which is very important.
The Commission's initiative, Commissioner, is also very important. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support you wholeheartedly on this and we also support the many improvements that have been made by Mr Trakatellis in this report. I have to say, however, on behalf of my group, that there is one amendment in Mr Trakatellis's report that goes against this fundamental aim of helping patients.
Amendment 15 talks of how genetic diseases should be avoided and eradicated through measures such as genetic counselling and the selection of embryos. This wording has shocked many people, and not only the ethics experts and the representatives of disabled groups, but scientists, too. The European Society of Human Genetics is calling on us to reject Amendment 15. They are making comparisons with the eugenics of the first half of the last century.
Politics should not exert pressure. Genetic counselling, likewise, should not be dominated by a political goal. We should therefore reject Amendment 15. We should vote in favour of this report - provided that Amendment 15 is rejected - as it is a sound report. Otherwise, it will be highly problematic. We should be helping people with rare diseases, not giving them the feeling that they are actually surplus to requirements.
Dorette Corbey
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) I am grateful to Mr Trakatellis for his fine report. If there is one area where cooperation in Europe is useful and provides added value, it is certainly the area of rare diseases. In the case of rare metabolic diseases, muscular diseases and also rare forms of cancer, it is practical and useful to work together in order to exchange information on treatment techniques and to join forces. These are all very important. The information must also be made accessible, and the Trakatellis report provides for all these matters.
I would like to draw your attention to three matters. First, patients must have a voice in Europe. In recent years we have seen increasingly well organised patient groups that also know their way around Europe, around Brussels. That is all very important and informative for politicians, for many of these rare diseases are, logically, largely unknown. It is good, therefore, to determine how these patient organisations are financed, and it is extremely important to ensure that these organisations are financed independently and are not solely dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. That is why I am arguing in favour of financing for these patient organisations.
Secondly, the development of medicines for rare diseases, the so-called orphan medicinal products, is of crucial importance. That is why we have directives, but it would be good to devote some attention to seeing whether this is actually working well.
Thirdly, this is a controversial subject that has also been tackled by Mr Liese. Many rare diseases are hereditary. Research and embryo selection can prevent much suffering, but it is important that the Member States retain the power to decide as to the eventual treatments such as pre-implementation and embryo selection. We support Amendment 15, but we wish to delete the reference to the eradication of illnesses. That term summons up very unpleasant associations, as Mr Liese has already said. We also consider it important for the treatments to be voluntary and that they should take place within the boundaries established by national governments. If these conditions are met, we are in favour of the amendment and call on everyone to support it, but the reference to the eradication of illnesses should be deleted. Under these conditions, we can agree fully with the report and are enthusiastic about the work of Mr Trakatellis. Thank you for your attention.
Frédérique Ries
Mr President, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and to apologise for my late arrival in this debate, whilst welcoming the group of visitors, who are the reason for my slightly late arrival.
During a hearing on rare diseases that I organised in Parliament last year with Eurordis - the European patients' association - I pointed out that it was up to us, that it was up to Europe, to place the bar very high for these patients who are pinning all their hopes on research, and this is what our rapporteur has done here by considerably enhancing the Commission's text.
The small number of patients involved in each country and the fragmentation of knowledge across the Union make rare diseases the example par excellence for which concerted action at European level is an absolute necessity. Our unanimous desire is to have better knowledge of these diseases, to improve their diagnosis and their treatment and to give better care to patients and their families.
There remain, of course, the questions of the timetable and funding. Various options are available, and we are exploring them. Besides the funds granted by the European Union or by the States, it is also useful to find other sources of funding. One option that is working well in many Member States is public-private partnership.
I would be annoyed with myself if I did not mention here the considerable financial support also provided by citizens' actions: the Téléthon in France and Télévie in French-speaking Belgium. The latter has allowed no more and no less than a doubling of the budget for scientific research - a miserly budget, I might say in passing: EUR 13 per year per citizen, compared with EUR 50 in France and EUR 57 in Germany, to take but two examples.
I shall conclude, Mr President. Millions of patients in Europe are watching us. The will is there. It is up to us to ensure that this is more than just a catalogue of good intentions. Just one more thing: the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports Amendment 15.
Hiltrud Breyer
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it goes without saying that we support helping people with rare diseases. That said, Amendment 15 is completely unacceptable from an ethical point of view.
There must never again be a debate in Europe about whose life is worth living and whose not. There must be no political and social pressure on parents in Europe to consciously decide against having a disabled child. The selection of embryos would represent an opening of the ethical floodgates. For that reason we must reject this amendment. It is not enough just to remove the word 'eradicate', which is actually, it is sad to say, in line with fascist language use. Doing so would mean that we would still be faced with the selection of embryos. It would be insufferable if this amendment and its idea of selecting embryos were to become a stepping stone to a new ethics in Europe.
We must stand up resolutely against genetic discrimination. Amendment 15 must therefore be rejected in its entirety. Otherwise, our group will, unfortunately, be forced to come out against this report even though the rest of it is highly positive.
Philip Claeys
(NL) The Trakatellis report refers to a number of shortcomings in the Council's recommendations, and these observations are, in my opinion, correct. I, too, am convinced, by the way, that a coordinated approach by the European Union in the area of rare diseases is necessary. Yet neither the recommendation nor the report mentions the aspect of rare diseases that are coming in from the developing world.
Thus, for instance, we are seeing the return of tuberculosis, a disease that, until recently, had completely, or nearly completely disappeared from Europe and that is now being imported again through mass migration. Here, too, therefore, urgent action is needed in the form of specifying risk areas, exchanging information, conducting spot checks where the Community's external borders are crossed, etc. It is naturally of the greatest importance that public health policy should be given primacy over political correctness.
Christa Klaß
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are aiming to work together to attain the best conditions for the provision of health care in Europe. Especially in rural areas of the European Union close to national borders - such as my home in the greater cross-border region between Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and France - the advancement of patient mobility, which we were just debating, is a particularly important building block for improving the provision of health care and making it more efficient. In everything we do, however, we must adhere to and retain the ethical standards of the Member States. This applies to DNA analysis just as it does to artificial insemination, and it also applies to rare diseases, the subject of Mr Trakatellis's report. Rare diseases need a stronger political framework in order to improve research and treatment, as companies prefer to invest in large markets.
In fighting for people's health we must not seek to eradicate rare diseases by, for example, selecting embryos. The matter at hand here, after all, is healing people. This one element represents a complete wrong turn for a report that otherwise takes a sound approach, and it is a turn that is morally perilous. In Amendment 15, it is not healing that is the focus, but selection. Who is to decide which life is worth living? Do we believe that prevention means preventing life? I do not think so. In my own country, and many other Member States besides, pre-implantation diagnosis is prohibited, and for good reason. That official European documents can use terms such as eradication and the selection of healthy embryos unabashedly is something that I find shocking and contrary to our stated goal of the acknowledgement and integration of those with disabilities and diseases into our society.
I ask you all to vote against Amendment 15 as a matter of imperative importance so that what is otherwise such a sound report by Mr Trakatellis will also be able to obtain a good majority.
Siiri Oviir
(ET) I find that coordinated actions at the level of the European Union and the Member States in the area of rare diseases are absolutely crucial. I support the rapporteur's position that this recommendation by the Council and the plan of action in its present form are insufficient, and that it is not possible to create a functioning programme in the European Union on that basis. There are no specific recommendations and definite deadlines for implementation.
It will definitely not be possible to achieve a breakthrough in this area without efforts and funding from the European Union and Member States. I believe that rare diseases must undoubtedly receive special attention, and we must consider the specific needs of those several million citizens, to make it possible to guarantee them a dignified life in future. I do not concur with the claim by the previous speaker, Mr Claeys, that tuberculosis comes into Member States from third countries. I do not agree with that. Tuberculosis comes from poverty and homelessness, and in Member States with lower standards of living this disease is common today.
Daniela Filipiová
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all MEPs for their comments, suggestions and observations. I was delighted to hear that in principle the opinions of the European Parliament and Council coincide over this issue. Of course, I cannot but agree with the rapporteur Mr Trakatellis's assertion that the draft applies to diseases which may be rare but which afflict thousands of people. I think it is important to say that in this area better coordination and cooperation between the Member States can deliver benefits for patients due to the specialised centres where financial benefits may accrue through the economies of scale that Commissioner Vassiliou has just been talking about. The Council will of course carefully consider all amendment proposals from the European Parliament and based on this will assess their inclusion in the final version of the draft proposal.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate demonstrated the high level of interest in this important sector of public health.
European action in the field of rare diseases is an issue which has obtained general consent in all the institutions and I am grateful for Parliament's support for this initiative.
Rare diseases are incontrovertibly recognised as a public health sector to which 27 different national approaches would be inadequate and inefficient. This recommendation will allow us to address the particular problems associated with rare diseases and to try to improve the lives of people affected by them. In addition to the patients themselves, this action will also affect their relatives and friends.
We shall achieve this in large part by recommending to the Member States that they develop plans and strategies on rare diseases and by creating European reference networks.
As regards Rector Trakatellis's proposal that we prepare and present a report on the results of the recommendation by the end of 2012, we have no objection and shall bear it in mind.
Allow me now to turn to two or three references which were made by the honourable Members. First of all let me refer to Amendment 15 and to say that I wish to stress that ethical issues are outside the competence of the EU. This is particularly the case in this instance, due to legal differences in the Member States with regard to screening and the ethical choices that have to be made on the basis of that information.
There was reference to the need for funding. Funding for the treatment of rare diseases is for Member States to consider. The Commission hopes that these proposals will help to support the importance of such investment, as well as helping to make best possible use of the funds that are available through European cooperation.
Regarding additional Community funding, the limits on the current health programme are due to the overall financial perspective set by Parliament and the Council. If Parliament feels that more Community funding is needed for rare diseases, then Parliament must address these through the budgetary procedures.
Reference was made also by Mrs Corbey on the help we need to give patients' groups. The Commission agrees with the importance of patients' groups. We work closely with them and in particular with Eurordis. I recently hosted the launch of a book providing 12 000 patients' testimonials. That engagement of citizens is a vital part of work in this area.
(EL) Mr President, I should like to close by pointing out that, with improved access for patients to specialist healthcare, with support for research and development of effective treatment and with cross-border cooperation, we hope that patients will find the specialists they need more easily.
Antonios Trakatellis
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I am most grateful to my fellow Members for their comments, to the Council for its comments and to Commissioner Vassiliou for her speech. She demonstrated that she is very open-minded and prepared at least to adopt the amendment in which we call on the Commission to table a proposal by the end of 2012, so that we can proceed quickly in the field of rare diseases in Europe.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place in a few minutes.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Carlo Casini
in writing. - (IT) The prevention and treatment of any disease, including rare diseases, requires the utmost commitment of the public institutions, but treatment and prevention cannot come at the extremely high cost of sacrificing the life of any human beings, even if for the benefit of others. That would be fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the European Union, which was founded on the recognition of the equal dignity of members of the human family. Genetic diagnosis of embryos to choose the best and healthy ones while killing the others is unacceptable discrimination against humans. Some Member States allow it, but the European Union absolutely cannot encourage either laws or practices that allow it.
For this reason, notwithstanding my unwavering desire to fight every disease, I am opposed to a text whose worthy parts stand in contrast to the seriously negative content of Article 4, as it would be amended by Amendment 15.


Progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: mid-term review in preparation of the UN high-level meeting in September 2010 (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the report by Mr Cashman on progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: mid-term review in preparation of the UN high-level meeting in September 2010.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Madam President, can I say, as I begin, I think we should really call these not 'Millennium Development Goals', but 'millennium development challenges'. So often the word runs off our tongue - 'the MDGs' - but do we ever actually revisit what they are?
Back in the year 2000 when we were going through economic boom times, we made promises and we made commitments. Sadly, colleagues, those commitments have not yet been achieved. We are five years away from the date that we set, 2015, when we would tackle these major challenges.
Let me restate them: the major challenges are extreme poverty and hunger, access to universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, AIDS, malaria and TB, environmental sustainability and global partnership for development: eight millennium development challenges which still remain challenges. And now, during this week, the EU will come together to hopefully forge a united position ahead of the September plenary at the United Nations in New York.
But I have to say the signs are worrying. There is a lack of commitment to that 0.7% of our gross national income that we said we would commit to taking on these challenges. In some of the least developed countries we are slipping way, way away from the targets that we need to be reaching mid-way through.
There has been some progress and, yes, the investment that we have made - and I use that term wisely - the investment that we have made so far has paid off. The maternal health improvements are there. Child mortality rates are low, low, low and, yes, the numbers of children dying are gradually decreasing.
But our problem is that, not only do we need more money to tackle these commitments, we now need additional finances to tackle the problems associated with climate change which are bedevilling the positions that we are taking in the developing countries and the least developed countries.
And that is why in my report I have looked at not only what we have done so far, but how much more we need to do. And that means looking at the big problem we have in the European institutions of policies, on the one hand, that want to deliver positive change and policies, on the other, which contradict and undermine that.
Think of trade, think of the common agricultural policy, think of the common fisheries policy. Without policy coherence our investment in these countries will never pay off. And it is investment. It is in our long-term economic interest to get rid of these MDGs, to achieve them and get rid of these problems that curse individual lives across the world.
So what I want to see is leadership from the EU. Not the minimum set that they can agree on, but a commitment to that 0.7% of gross national income, a commitment to additional financing; and we do not want a redefinition of overseas development assistance. There must be no tinkering at the edges.
So we have an interesting debate tonight. I want to thank the NGOs across Europe for supporting my report. I wish us tonight and especially in the vote tomorrow to put aside our political differences. It will not be a perfect report; nothing produced by this House ever is, but let me say this: let us not now use party political differences to take away from ourselves the opportunity to go for a united position at the United Nations and achieve the MDGs by 2015.
Andris Piebalgs
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the power and the importance of the MDGs come from being a collective commitment to shared development goals. They stand as a common framework to coordinate and check international development activities. They help galvanise development efforts and help deliver opportunity to millions of people around the world.
Despite impressive gains, however, overall progress has been uneven among the different goals, across regions and within developing countries. 2010 really is a milestone. It is necessary to consider what we got right and what went wrong, and what have been the key successes and failures since the signing of the Millennium Declaration.
It is important to reflect on how best to approach the next phase and how to accelerate progress in areas that are lagging behind. It is also critical that progress towards meeting the MDGs is robust and sustained. Strengthening country-owned institutions, policies and service-delivery systems will be essential, as will avoidance or mitigation of shocks and the promotion of broad-based economic growth.
Mr Cashman's excellent report responds to the issues mentioned and gives powerful guidance for the European Union in preparation for the United Nations high-level meeting in September and beyond.
I am pleased to see a strong convergence between Mr Cashman's report and the Commission's communication, a 12-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals. We need to respect our aid commitments of 0.7% of GNI by 2015 at the latest. We need to turn aid effectiveness from a good concept into tangible reality. We need to ensure that policy coherence for development becomes a strong tool to guide EU decision-making. We need to pay special attention to countries most off-track, including those in situations of conflict and fragility. We need to pay particular attention to the MDGs that are most off-track, at the same time maintaining an integrated comprehensive approach to the MDGs.
I very much agree that governance is central to the successful achievement and sustainability of the MDGs. The commitment to govern effectively is a basic condition of any pursuit of public development strategies and policy. With the delivery on other commitments we need improved predictability and effectiveness to support country-led developments that foster inclusive economic growth and increase public investments in education, health and infrastructure, enhance success to clean energy and promote low-carbon development. Our aid should act as a catalyst to accelerate domestic resource mobilisation to finance MDGs.
I shall also say a brief word on the discussions we had in the Foreign Affairs Council today. I am broadly satisfied with the conclusions we have reached. There is a clear commitment to meet the 0.7% ODA commitment by 2015. Council adopted gender equality and women's empowerment in the development plan of EU action for the years 2010 to 2015. Also, the 12-point EU action plan on MDGs proposed by the Commission is reflected rightly.
The Council has agreed to make a real step forward in terms of aid effectiveness, inviting concrete proposals from the Commission. I believe that, whilst we should not be complacent, it represents a package that will enable us to lead by example in New York. It is by no means perfect, but provides a basis for progress. Once again my congratulations on Parliament's MDGs report.
Alf Svensson
Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Cashman for the pleasant company as he discussed these extremely pressing and important issues. I would also like to say that it was interesting for me as an old Swedish parliamentarian to be here in the European Parliament and witness the attempts to reach consensus. We did not expect our groups to manage to reach complete agreement.
Now Mr Cashman is saying - and I entirely agree with him - that we need more resources. However, I do not believe that it should always be a question of more taxes. I would say this: give the entrepreneurs free rein and give them a chance in the poor countries so that jobs are created. I do not believe that the moratorium proposed by Mr Cashman is a wise move either. However, I would very much like to underline what is stated in paragraph 47, which strongly urges us to get to grips with the discrimination against certain groups that is found in the many poor countries. This is something that I, and surely many other people, think is an issue that we need to spend a lot of time on in our discussion of the Millennium Development Goals.
There is talk about 0.7%. I would very much like us to talk about 1% of GNI, because I believe that the rich countries actually have a responsibility to ensure that they at least achieve this amount. Then there is another matter. I do not believe that it is particularly wise to take the decision that the countries must attain 0.7% even if we want to, because I believe that in many respects this would be a waste of time.
However, these issues are urgent and, from a moral point of view, are the most pressing issues that this Chamber could be concerned with. The fact that people are dying of hunger and thirst should be something that all Members of the European Parliament find intolerable.
Corina Creţu
As has been emphasised earlier, the economic and financial crisis we are going through is leaving a significant mark on the targets assumed by Member States as part of the Millennium Development Goals. This is why I greatly appreciate the realistic, logical approach adopted by the report's author, Mr Cashman.
We are pleased to note, 10 years after setting the Millennium Development Goals, that a range of progress has been made in combating extreme poverty, hunger and HIV, even though this progress does not go far enough. While identifying critical points in the process of achieving the MDGs, the Cashman report also presents options for halting the waste of funds earmarked for development aid, using a complex, but balanced combination of legislative and financial measures, as well as market mechanisms.
I wish to stress, first and foremost, how pleased I was to read within the report the recommendation being made to the European Union to allocate at least half of the aid granted to the least developed countries and to identify the groups in the direst situation in these countries, with a particular focus on the situation of women, children and people with disabilities, as well as to incorporate more effectively the interests of these vulnerable groups into its development strategies. These groups are in a critical situation in many regions.
In September this year, as has already been mentioned, we will be given, I hope, at the UN high-level meeting a more detailed overview of the situation regarding development aid. In fact, the Cashman report expresses a very well-structured point of view, which is based on a philosophy inspired by sustainable development.
Leonidas Donskis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I hope my colleague, Michael Cashman, and our colleagues will regard my remarks as a supplement and as a token of appreciation, rather than a revision. The MDGs allow us a unique point of entry into the human condition at the beginning of the 21st century. Therefore, it is critically important to come up with a new and fresh perspective, instead of offering that of the 20th century. It is a fact of our time that no development is possible without security, and vice versa. This is why we have tried to offer a more balanced approach to the MDGs, paying more attention to such regions as Central Asia, where poverty goes hand in hand with a lack of safety, insecurity, instability, forced child labour and even slavery.
In addition to the autocratic regimes in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, ethnic violence recently broke out in Kyrgyzstan. Dire straits, combined with instability and violence, may lead to a humanitarian catastrophe in the region. If we need proof that no durable and sustainable development exists without security, we have it here.
In addition to that, we cannot forget about extreme forms of poverty in such European countries as Moldova and Albania. Let us take, for example, some grave problems relating to health care. In Ukraine and Moldova 300 out of 10 000 people suffer from tuberculosis. The aforementioned countries do not fall into the category of least developed countries but they certainly fall into that of developing countries.
If the MDGs do not embrace the least stable and least secure countries, we will never achieve a viable, social and moral order there. Therefore, the time has come to expand our horizons. Although sub-Saharan Africa is crucial to us, we cannot confine the MDGs to this sole, familiar context. We are facing new challenges and we have to react to them. Last but not least, the MDGs are inseparable from the necessity to empower the least developed, developing and least secure countries so that they can shape their future themselves.
Judith Sargentini
Welcome, Mr Piebalgs, Commissioner for Development. I should have liked to see Mr De Gucht, the Commissioner for Trade, at your side, as we in this House are now endeavouring to catch up within the next five years. The Millennium Development Goals are by no means on schedule, and yet we all put our signatures to them; we made promises. We promised - and I still remember the slogan, as I was working for development organisations at the time - to 'make poverty history'. History has yet to be written.
Yet this can be done. We can talk about 0.7% of our gross national product in aid, and even more. We can talk about new kinds of financial assistance, though this becomes more and more complicated in these times of economic crisis. Yet what we should really be talking about is a different means of coexistence, through fair trade. We are now patting ourselves on the back for being the world's largest providers of development aid, but in actual fact we should be patting ourselves on the back for being the largest consumer market.
If we were to engage in fair trade, a great deal of the assistance would probably be rendered unnecessary. Somehow it still seems simpler to provide assistance than to undertake to stop undercutting African small farmers. If we limit the opportunities for multinationals to evade taxes, very many coffers in Africa will be healthier. Also, when I see our approach to the voting lists for this resolution, with all the additions and deletions, I ask myself what has happened to the grand gesture; what has happened to our signal that we shall really attain the Millennium Development Goals within five years?
Nirj Deva
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, our rapporteur has done an excellent job and has made an appeal for Parliament to give 100% support to the report and to our efforts at the UN. My group is quite happy to give 99.9% support, with a few differences of opinion.
We keep talking about MDGs. What are these MDGs? Well actually there are eight Millennium Development Goals, and I think we should have had more. Had we had more, we would have achieved some of the targets that we have been trying to achieve faster. One of the things that is most important in eradicating poverty is to have stakeholderships, to be able to own something, to have property or to own a small business.
Members have travelled abroad and have seen millions and millions of slums in developing countries and hundreds and thousands of small businesses - garages, shops, repair shops, various people doing various things - at the side of the road as they travel in air-conditioned cars. The trouble is that none of those slums and none of those businesses are registered. They do not have a capital value. Should we be able to recapitalise those properties and those businesses, we would put nine trillion dollars' worth of capital assets into the hands of the leaders of the developing countries. Yes, nine trillion. That is larger than the entire debt that we have been worrying about in Europe and more than value of the stock markets in New York, London and Tokyo.
However, we have not found a way to capitalise on those properties and those businesses. They are outside the legal system. Had we been able to do that, we would have been able to eliminate poverty faster. This is what has happened in other parts of the world.
Gabriele Zimmer
Madam President, my thanks go, in particular, to Mr Cashman for tabling this report, which received a great deal of support when we adopted it in the Committee on Development, and I very much hope that, as a Parliament, we will together succeed in making it clear immediately prior to the Council meeting that we consider the Millennium Development Goals to be tremendously important.
We also expect the Member States to be aware of their obligation to implement the Millennium Development Goals, in particular the obligations to which they have committed themselves, namely to pay the relevant share of the development aid. Mr Cashman quite rightly said that, as the European Union, we have a deficit of EUR 20 billion. What needs to be brought to the forefront is a very clear statement that we are fighting for these Millennium Development Goals to be implemented by 2015 and we will not allow this to simply be postponed to a later date, always with the justification that, at the end of the day, as Member States we would not be able to do this on account of the effects of the crises and we would be fully justified in postponing it. However, the fact that more than a billion people are living in poverty and hunger - there are even 1.5 billion just living in poverty - proof that in recent years poverty has even increased in certain regions of the world, in the sub-Saharan region for example, leaves us no other option than to insist very clearly on what we want in this regard.
Therefore I would also ask my fellow Members, particularly those from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), not to water down the report any further with your amendments. This report represents a balanced mix of real demands, requirements and the necessary pressure that we need to exert, and we should not retract anything from any part of it.
I would even have gone further in a few places. I would also have made very specific demands for us not to sign or bring into effect any other treaty that does not serve to implement the Millennium Development Goals. In my view, we have come full circle. We not only need a coherent policy within development policy, but it has to be important for EU policy as a whole to engage in a tangible way in the fight against poverty and underdevelopment.
Gerard Batten
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, no one could fail to agree with the Millennium Development Goals formulated in 2000, and no one could fail to be astounded by the complete lack of reality in believing that such goals could be achieved by the target date of 2015.
Quite apart from the totally unrealistic timescales to achieve these gargantuan tasks, there is the amount of money that the report now says should be spent.
Where is the money to come from? Most countries in Europe, including Britain, are on the verge of bankruptcy, and only stringent public spending cuts will reverse the situation. In these circumstances the way to help poorer countries become more prosperous and alleviate their multitude of social ills is to stimulate the world economy.
We should not be thinking of more ways to tax those businesses that still make profits and drive them abroad beyond the EU's control. What we should do is the following: relax EU trade barriers and protectionist measures that restrict trade with poorer nations; dismantle the ever-increasing burden of regulation and red tape that is strangling businesses across Europe; abolish the European single currency and allow countries like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain to return to the world of economic reality.
And, of course, Britain should leave the European Union as soon as possible.
Santiago Fisas Ayxela
(ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against poverty and the other Millennium Development Goals should unite us all. I therefore regret the fact that some political groups have introduced certain issues that might make it difficult to achieve that unanimity.
They are moral issues, such as proposing abortion as a method of birth control, or economic issues, such as introducing a tax on currency transactions. I think that this tax would be very difficult to implement, control and collect, and if it were not adopted across the board, especially in the main financial blocks, transactions would be moved to the countries where it was not in force.
I regret that the report, which contains many positive points, will not receive unanimous support from all the political groups because of these particular issues.
David-Maria Sassoli
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for the work he has carried out, and for reminding us of the importance of the New York summit.
Europe has a great opportunity: that of presenting itself as a world partner for development. The information we have is still alarming: in 2009, a billion people suffered chronic hunger, and this figure has risen today with the economic crisis. We must add to this the damage caused by climate change, a factor that continues to magnify the problems that we have been trying to keep under control.
We must recognise that the targets we set ourselves in 2000 were certainly ambitious and could only have been met by donor countries. In the light of these commitments toward developing countries, it is sad to see that some European countries are falling so far short of their agreed commitments. It is disappointing, for example, that my country - Italy - is now contributing a distressingly low 0.16% of GDP.
We must introduce a binding commitment for all countries to reach 0.7 % of GDP by 2015, as established by the European Commission. All countries must feel it is their moral duty and political obligation to uphold this commitment. The outstanding work by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, enables the European Parliament to play a key role in defending people's dignity.
Franziska Keller
Madam President, the Millennium Development Goals are sure not perfect, but what makes them great and different is that they demand measurable progress, and because they are measurable we can see that we are not on track currently and we need to reinforce our efforts.
The EU institutions - and that includes us - can do a lot to reach the targets. For example, we can use the reform of the fisheries policy to support fisherwomen and fishermen in developing countries rather than industrialised fishing companies. We can use the CAP reform to focus on sustainable agriculture and eliminate all direct and indirect export subsidies - and we can stop ACTA, for which the Commission still has not delivered the proof that it will not hinder access to medicine and technology transfer. And we can finally recognise that you cannot achieve maternal health without women's rights.
All these example show that development policy is more than a small field. Aspects of development policies can be found in all our committees, and we should be aware of that. Without policy coherence - and that is not just any coherence, but it is policy coherence for development as it is stated in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty - we will not get anywhere. And this we should also take into account when designing the External Action Service.
Finally, I would like to know from the Commission what its plans are for the post-MDG commitments that we will also have to talk about at some point.
Elie Hoarau
(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must admit it is deplorable that two-thirds of the way along we should be so far from achieving the original objectives set by the Millennium Development Goals. Even though we are in a period of crisis, the least we can do is demand that all developed countries - including the European Union - keep their promises, especially to poor countries, by granting 0.7% of their GNI to development aid.
Moreover, under the Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, which I follow closely as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, too large a share of funds is earmarked for trade at the expense of programmes enabling the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved. In my view, it is necessary to redress this situation for the benefit of the Millennium Development Goals within the framework of these agreements.
Cristian Dan Preda
(RO) I would like to begin by emphasising how important I feel it is for the EU to promote an ambitious action plan during the review conference in New York. It must also adopt, as a matter of urgency, specific new measures enabling us to honour all our promises of solidarity with the most disadvantaged groups on the planet.
The conclusions adopted by the Council just today mark, from this perspective, a step in the right direction because I would say that Europe needs to remain in the forefront of combating poverty and a credible partner in the global pact for development, entered into by accepting the Millennium Development Goals. In order to achieve these objectives we need, as you are all aware, not only to find new development aid resources, but also the political will to turn these objectives into reality.
On the other hand, I think it is the right time for us to consider integrating automatically an approach based on human rights into all the measures adopted with the aim of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Respect for human rights and the promotion of mechanisms fostering accountability are extremely important in terms of improving the conditions of those living in poverty and, ultimately, of achieving the MDGs.
I would also like to highlight some problem areas in the Cashman report. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) cannot accept the unilateral introduction of a Tobin-type tax, as specified in paragraph 8, because it is hard to reconcile this with the idea of funding global public goods. In addition, it is difficult to support the notion of writing off the developing countries' debts, which features in paragraph 13, while there are debates going on about the need for these countries to assume their own responsibility for the development process and achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
Finally, paragraph 42 deals with matters relating to our individual freedom of conscience. I do not believe that it is right for us to impose on Member States the position they should adopt on abortion.
Norbert Neuser
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 is crucially dependent on how much money the rich industrialised nations make available for combating hunger and poverty, reducing child and maternal mortality and combating malaria and AIDS.
Our conclusion is sobering. Our promises will not be met. Prior to the financial crisis, we in Europe, as rich industrialised nations, had promised the poorest countries USD 50 billion for this year, 2010. It will be significantly less than that: around USD 36 billion. Even the agreed twelve-point action plan, according to which the wealthy countries want to give 0.7% of their gross national income in development aid, will not be fulfilled. Some countries are setting a good example, but my country, Germany, does not look good. We ought to follow the example of other countries like Sweden, Luxembourg, Belgium, Ireland, the United Kingdom and even Spain.
Enrique Guerrero Salom
(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Cashman, in 2000 we defined and identified the goals that we should achieve in order to fight poverty, exclusion and inequality, but we also did something even more important: we made specific commitments and we created a global impetus that has been supported by governments, non-governmental organisations and developing countries themselves.
Since then we have made progress, but not enough, and the crisis is causing us to move backwards. A few minutes ago we were given the Eurosceptic and selfish perspective that we needed to return to realism. I would like to say that realism today means fighting to change the global reality; it means supporting this report tomorrow in plenary and supporting the Council, which in the second conclusion of its meeting today said that it is possible to achieve by 2015 what we set out to do in 2000.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu
(RO) I wish to refer to paragraph 22 of the motion, which calls on the European Union to put an end to agricultural export subsidies and 'other harmful aspects of our farm policy'. I believe that this type of approach is risky as European agriculture cannot survive without these subsidies, especially at this time of serious economic crisis and wild price fluctuations.
European farmers are, at any rate, heavily burdened by the conditions stipulated for product quality and animal welfare which they must comply with, putting them at a disadvantage to external competitors. I believe that any removal of export subsidies would be a mistake entailing serious consequences and I call on my fellow Members to vote against this paragraph.
Mairead McGuinness
Madam President, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for this report and the passionate presentation of it.
I am particularly grateful about his paragraphs 48, 49 and 50 on food security. I actually think his explanatory note is much stronger than the paragraphs in the report, because we have a real problem in the European Union. We are spending less and less of our development aid budget where it is needed most - that is, in subsistence agriculture and among peasant farmers. The figures - and they were in our resolution on food security in January 2009 - are as follows: we have reduced the amount of development aid devoted to agriculture and rural development from 17% in 1980 down to just 3% in 2006.
Perhaps the Commission will tell us what actions they are taking to address that - and I see a nodding head, so I am hopeful - and also to get governments in African countries to recognise that hunger exists in the rural areas where people could actually farm if they had the tools.
I disagree fundamentally with paragraph 22. You know the reasons. We should not go alone on this, and export refunds are not the problem.
Kriton Arsenis
(EL) Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Cashman for the exceptional work which he has done. We really must all warmly support this report and send a message to the Member States that they must be faithful to their obligations to implement the Millennium Goals to combat poverty.
In the midst of this economic crisis which - let us not forget - may harm us, but it is also harming developing countries, it is often the products of developing countries which we do not consume and, in these countries, poverty is increasing, all these indicators that we want to address with the Millennium Goals are increasing.
At the same time, climate change, which we caused, is aggravating access to food, water and health services and is aggravating health itself. We therefore need additional resources to combat climate change and to help these countries adapt to climate change.
At the same time, however, we must also be faithful to the Millennium Goals. That is why these resources must be independent. I welcome the declaration made by Commissioner Hedegaard that the Commission supports this call.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult to respond to the appeal by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman. He has called upon all groups to put their party differences aside and back this report despite the fact that the report contains some elements of a clearly ideological nature.
For instance, paragraph 42 of the report, concerning the commitment to safe abortion and family planning, insinuates principles that we cannot share by the back door. As Europe, we are not calling on States to finance life, or to finance responsible motherhood and parenthood, or to support the continuation of pregnancies, but we are calling on States to finance the instrument of pregnancy termination as a contraceptive or as a birth and population planning tool.
On this point we are always bound to disagree. We categorically disagree with a form of State eugenics that backs death and does not back life, that supports the termination of pregnancy yet does not support those who choose to end a pregnancy because of socioeconomic disadvantage.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Madam President, I thank the rapporteur for the excellent work he has done. In fact, failure to achieve the intermediate goals should be an acute cause of concern to us, both due to the unwillingness demonstrated by certain Member States and due to the objective economic weaknesses caused by the crisis.
Allow me to comment on one specific point: intermediate goal 8, which refers to aid from developed to developing countries, a point to which several fellow Members have already referred. Even though the intermediate goal was to increase aid to developing countries to 0.56% of global GDP, today we have only reached 0.3% at global level, in other words half the planned goal, and we have only reached 0.4% at European level. To this is added the ethical dilemma as to whether the resources at our disposal are being channelled where they are needed, to those who really need them, and are not being squandered through corrupt practices and governments.
I will close by stressing that we need a development philosophy, an economic approach to this situation and not simply to sometimes assuage the guilt felt by developed countries towards developing countries.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, the Millennium Development Goals are without doubt important if we are to ensure the poorest of the poor are able to live a dignified life in their own country. Anyone with a reasonable basis for survival in his home country will not need to place himself in the hands of people-smugglers. I would also like to give special emphasis to the fight against serious diseases, particularly those affecting mothers and children. However, in this regard we should also remind the pharmaceuticals industry of its obligation and ensure that an increasing supply of generic medicines can be provided.
On the other hand, if we provide development aid we should also expect cooperation. In this connection, I expect cooperation from the recipients in respect of the repatriation of illegal migrants to their relevant countries of origin. Finally, we also need to take particular care to ensure that the funds are used in a sustainable and comprehensible way. Taxpayers' hard-earned money must not disappear into mysterious channels.
One thing is perfectly clear: the output capacity of our Member States is severely strained, and the quicker we recover - that is, the quicker the EU recovers - the sooner we will have the ability to provide long-term sustainable aid.
Karin Kadenbach
(DE) Madam President, I would particularly like to thank Mr Cashman. Development aid and the fight against poverty must not be a form of charity policy - by applying the carrot and stick principle, for example. On the contrary, we need reliable, predictable, sustainable framework conditions which enable people to live and work in decent conditions and to make a living. We should not merely look at faceless numbers; we need to consider the people affected and their fate. We should not waste our energy coming up with excuses as to why we cannot, or do not want to, fulfil our obligations. We should instead use our energy to hold a serious debate on the proposals for financing development aid that have been put forward here - for example the financial transaction tax.
Andris Piebalgs
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, it was a fascinating debate. I would just take a couple of points that I think require some clarification.
The Millennium Development Goals should and can be achieved, and I say this with full responsibility. It is not only my view; it is also the United Nations' view. It is the view of the developed and the developing world and we need to make an effort.
It is also important that this House calls very strongly for commitment of 0.7% of GNI. I know that it is part of sovereignty that every country decides on its budget, but, if Parliament will not call for it, who else will do it with such a strong voice? It is true that we need to be accountable, but Parliament has a lot of power in this issue. You should not underestimate your strength on this issue, and I believe that it is very important that it should be done.
I believe that it is important also to strengthen our relations with sub-Saharan Africa. I know that there have been a lot of disappointments, but being new in this job and really looking for all the complex of issues with the colonial past, Cold War years, and development, I believe sub-Saharan Africa deserves particular care and particular attention.
The trade issue is important to address and it should be fair trade, but we know that until now these unilateral trade preferences have not helped the countries evolve. They have not been substantial in regional trade either, and our approach now is really to create fair trade conditions, investment for trade and in particular looking for regional trade. I believe that is the right approach and we need to strengthen it. I will work together with my Trade Commissioner. He was, for a short while, also Development Commissioner and he takes these things very close to his heart.
Tax evasion and illicit flows are an important issue but I believe that part of the responsibility lies with the G20 and us to make a very strong global system so that tax evasion and illicit flows are impossible. We also pay particular attention in our projects to support a property register, because, definitely, growth is not possible without a strong property register and legal systems that support it.
On rural and food security issues, it is true that it is a focus of our policy, but part of the money for food security comes through our budget support and that way statistics do not always correctly reflect them. We need to think how to better reflect them, but a clear commitment is demonstrated by our food facility and the money put towards its construction.
I would finish with a call which Michael Cashman made: that this report really deserves cross-party support. I know that some issues are divisive but they should not divide Parliament in strong support for this report. We need this support because society needs it and if Parliament will give overwhelming support for the report, it will be easier for the Communities that care for development cooperation policy really to push forward this agenda and be more successful.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your closing words. I absolutely agree with you.
It has been an interesting debate. I want to thank the shadow rapporteurs, who I have really enjoyed working with - Mr Svensson, Mr Donskis, Mrs Sargentini, Mrs Zimmer and all of the others. My memory sadly escapes me - it is something to do with age. Let me say about age - I do not want to live more years and witness more suffering, more hunger, more poverty, and increasing mortality rates amongst women giving birth and amongst children under five. I want us to see these MDGs achieved.
I would say to those who have spoken with some reservation about elements of this report: let us not turn around to our citizens and say that we failed to agree and we failed to vote in favour of that report because it had elements within it that I could not vote for. What kind of signal does it send to people living in poverty and deprivation - without water, without access to health care, without access to education, without access to an equal life - that somehow in a debate in Brussels there were elements within a report that prevented us from doing the right thing for the majority of this planet?
I urge all the colleagues here today to please vote in favour of this report tomorrow - not for me, because Michael Cashman will go back to a home with running water, with health care, will be loved and hopefully be nursed into amnesia and old age. But think of that child or that woman dying in childbirth, think of that child dying through malaria or diarrhoea or TB or AIDS or HIV, and of the young woman denied access to education so that she cannot empower herself for the rest of her life. Think not of us here but think of those outside.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 15 June 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Elisabeth Köstinger
Against the background of worldwide demographic change, rapid population growth and the increasing scarcity of resources, we need to take far-reaching measures on development cooperation. Eradicating poverty and hunger, providing access to education and improving health, among other things by combating disease, must be given the highest priority in the Millennium Development Goals. The European Union must make an urgent contribution to development cooperation as part of its trade policy and international cooperation. Its main objective must be to promote the autonomy, independence and initiative of the relevant countries. It is also important to ensure that the financial measures in this area have the desired impact and achieve their clearly defined objectives. In my opinion, one of the key models for a sustainable circular economy based on fair rules is the eco-social market economy, which is based around small-scale, multifunctional agriculture. The aim of the Millennium Development Goals should therefore be to promote a small-scale agricultural model which is independent and resistant to crises, has the farming family at its heart and encourages the development of expertise that has grown up out of the local culture and is designed to meet regional needs. This sustainable form of agriculture is a means of developing regional independence and guaranteeing the supply of food, while taking environmental and social factors into consideration.


18. Food enzymes (
- Before the vote:
Avril Doyle
rapporteur. - Mr President, due to transport difficulties in reaching Strasbourg, I was not in a position last night to thank colleagues, particularly fellow rapporteurs Åsa Westlund and Mojca Drčar Murko, and indeed my colleague Pilar Ayuso, who stood in for me in the debate, and all our respective assistants and staff for their cooperation over the last 12 months, in reaching a very satisfactory second-reading agreement on this important package on food measures. I hereby thank them all.