Community Statistical Programme (2008-2012) - Timely transmission and verification of statistical data provided by Member States (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by Zsolt László Becsey, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community Statistical Programme 2008 to 2012 C6-0427/2006, and
the oral question to the Commission on the timely transmission and verification of statistical data provided by Member States by Zsolt László Becsey and Alexander Radwan, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats - B6-0123/2007).
Zsolt László Becsey
rapporteur and author. - (HU) I am very pleased because now, after first reading, it looks like we may reach the consensus needed for a joint decision before the summer recess. A very great work on the part of three institutions lies behind all this.
First of all, let me acknowledge the excellent work done by the Committee. Their proposal reflects superbly both the Community's current priorities and the mechanism of the present Treaty of Nice. I wish to give special recognition to the German Presidency, and more particularly to Mr Radermacher, president of the Federal Statistical Office, who, by setting an incredibly fast pace, made it possible to elaborate and become familiar with the Council's position. The priorities of the European Parliament were thus taken into consideration even while the work was in progress.
Similar special acknowledgement must also be extended to the shadow rapporteurs of the other two major groups, the socialists and liberals, for the job they have carried out. It is thanks to this work that an almost overwhelming majority lined up behind the joint compromises in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
What did Parliament accomplish in this joint text? One major result is that in the principal section, the range of otherwise well-chosen items recommended as priorities by the Committee has been expanded. Considerations regarding innovation, development of human resources, regional cohesion and demographic challenges now come into the picture. As a result, the list of priorities has become balanced without being overabundant.
Another important result is, in my opinion, the compromise reached with respect to cooperation between administrations at both national and local levels as well as in the area of statistics management. I hope that this will bear fruit with regard to quality as well, which is a particularly important point that will be addressed later on in connection with the oral question raised about the reliability of macroeconomic projections and short-term statistical data.
What, then, was the priority of the rapporteur? In addition to improving the quality and speed of statistical services, I considered my main task to be the lessening of the financial and administrative burdens, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. It was also important to make sure that the demands of regulation does not lead to a confusion between protection of individually submitted commercial data and the obligation to provide general statistical data.
We also managed to minimize the burden of supplying the data required by international, mainly UN obligations, thanks primarily to the flexibility of the shadow rapporteurs. A huge challenge is also presented by our own as well as international commitments, but in this regard I expect a more cautious approach, and that is what we have approved. We must not overburden ourselves in the area of statistical capability and the export of know-how.
I consider it a good outcome, as well, that we were able to agree on the main points of the 2010 mid-term progress report. On the basis thereof, I would like to see a Commission proposal for a directive that would help overcome the political problem of the statistical conception determining the work programme of another, new Parliament and Committee, and would ensure instead that our new colleagues can incorporate their programmes of work directly into the clear framework of statistical work.
In addition, we made reference to the major challenges facing us, also expected for 2010, namely the reforms of CAP and of the Financial Services Directive, the entry into force of the Services Directive or the appearance of new Community policies, the monitoring of immigration, crime and climate change in the area of statistics as well.
The greatest success of Parliament is the fact that, as of January 2010, the mid-term progress reports will not only reach members of the European statistics network and committees of experts, but will also be formally submitted to the Council and to Parliament, on the basis of the proposal. As a result, these fundamental institutions will be able to have their say, as of the next parliamentary cycle, about the strategic and tactical problems of the day.
In the area of sectoral priorities, questions by Parliament were also successfully incorporated into the report; suffice it to mention the challenges presented by the human resources development indicators, urbanisation, equal opportunities for women and the measurement of the processes of agglomeration.
Thank you, Madam President, and now I would like to continue with the other line of questioning. There is great hope, upon joining, that the macroeconomic supervisory system, and the fact that a Member State's economic policy is a shared concern, along with the existence of a stability and growth pact, would help us to be more secure inside the European Union than outside of it. The EC Treaty declares joint responsibility for the economic policies of Member States, and I suppose for their failures too. The European Parliament votes for and supervises the Commission, which, among other things, oversees Eurostat.
Since 2004, the Greek and Hungarian problems revealed grave deficiencies in this system. In both countries there occurred economic policy and data manipulations that even influenced elections, necessitating not only severe corrections later on, but also undermining trust in common institutions. The Eurobarometer showed a steep decline in Hungary.
In Hungary, since 2004 there have been continual discrepancies of several percentage points between the promised results and the reality that was later acknowledged. There is great discrepancy between the end of 2005 and of 2006, for instance: the amount of debt showed a difference of more than 10 percentage points in comparison to the GDP, in other words between the promised and the subsequently demonstrated reality.
Unfortunately, Mr Almunia is absent, because if he were listening now, he would hear that in 2005 and 2006, instead of taking into account market projections like those of Goldman Sachs and Standard [amp] Poor's, the government's misleading remarks were heeded instead. The market saw the catastrophe, and also sensed the unlawful dismissal of the Statistics Office staff. Yet the forecasting system was a fiasco.
The most shameful situation occurred in May 2006. At that time Mr Almunia predicted that all the indices would improve in Hungary, inflation would be low, growth would be high, while the prime minister was predicting extremely grave problems and an austerity programme. He admitted they had made phone calls to Mr Almunia and used hundreds of tricks. Afterwards Mr Almunia, - he would hear this if he was present - threw up his hands: we did not include the pensions in the deficit, we did not include the hidden deficits of state enterprises, we did not know how to account for the motorway. I believe all this is double-talk.
In conclusion: the Hungarian prime minister admitted serious political collusion, regrettably also with a member of the Commission, and it shows. Such "wizardry" should never be allowed to happen again, because elections are approaching after all, elections will take place again in the future, and only the admission of truth can help. I think therefore the Commission must also acknowledge these political conclusions, because the price of this lack of credibility will ultimately be paid not by us but by the population of Hungary.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. Madam President, Members of Parliament. I would first of all like to thank Mr Becsey and Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the excellent report on the Community Statistical Programme for 2008-2012.
This will indeed allow a timely adoption of the legal basis and a smooth start to the programme in 2008. The Community Statistical Programme constitutes the framework for the production of all statistics as well as the financial framework for the production of Community statistics during the programme period. Statistics are a key element for policy-making and, as such, the new programme has indeed focused on the current priorities of the Union, from growth and competitiveness to sustainable development and security. Parliament's amendments, aimed at strengthening the gender and regional dimensions in statistics and substantiating the reporting obligations, are particularly welcomed by the Commission.
I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Becsey, once again, as well as the Committee on Regional Development for their valuable efforts to provide the Community with a solid basis for the production of statistics over the next five years. Regarding fiscal statistics and the oral question by Mr Becsey and Mr Radwan, the Commission certainly agrees that the quality of fiscal data is vital for the correct functioning of Economic and Monetary Union and its budgetary surveillance system as well as for the assessment of the convergence criteria when evaluating the application of a Member State for entry into the euro area.
Fiscal statistics, like any other statistics, are subject to revision. Data are routinely revised when new information on government transactions becomes available or when errors or inconsistencies are identified and corrected. Revision also takes place in a paramount effort to comply better with the accounting rules. For statisticians, data usually become final only after four years at the earliest. Most revisions, in fiscal statistics, are small and have no significant impact on economic analysis and fiscal surveillance.
Unfortunately, there have also been some episodes of large revisions in fiscal statistics that put fiscal surveillance under stress. However, it is important to note that, in most cases, those revisions have not been a surprise. They were indeed preceded by public statements by Eurostat, drawing attention to the fact that the data initially reported by the Member States were not in compliance with the accounting rules and requiring Member States to amend them. Whenever necessary Eurostat has even itself amended data reported by the Member States. In compliance with Regulation 2103/2005, Eurostat has reported - and will report regularly to the European Parliament and to the Council - on the quality of the fiscal data transmitted by Member States.
With regard to forecasts, the Commission regularly assesses the forecasts and projections announced by Member States in their stability and convergence programmes by comparing them with the Commission's own forecasts. For several Member States, the Commission has publicly noted on some occasions that the fiscal forecasts contained in the stability and convergence programmes were based on optimistic macroeconomic projections.
The Commission has also pointed out cases where the national projections were not compliant with the accounting rules for specific transactions or where the planned policy measures underlying the forecasts had not yet been confirmed. In preparing its own forecasts, the Commission systematically compares its numbers with projections released by the IMF, the OECD and other organisations. Experience shows that the forecasts published by the Commission - both the macroeconomic and the fiscal figures - are not biased and are at least as reliable as those of other forecasters.
Mieczysław Edmund Janowski
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. - (PL) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Becsey for his report. I would like to thank him twice, firstly as the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee for Regional Development, and secondly as a representative of my political group.
I will not dwell on the definition of statistics. I will only say that it is a science that assesses phenomena and processes of a mass nature in a quantitative way. Its aim is to assess the rules governing these phenomena and quantifying them. Statistics also make it possible to summarise the results of analyses and to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the results. I say this for good reason, as statistical data are often the basis for important decisions taken both at local and regional as well as at national, European and even world level.
It is therefore a good thing that we have a community statistical programme for the years 2008-2012. The realistic and responsible preparation of statistical data is exceptionally valuable. Obtaining them, therefore, involves costs. I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner whether our ambitious programme for the next five years has sufficient financial backing.
We are undertaking a task that will cover 27 Member States with differing degrees of experience in this sensitive area. So let me ask a second question: what steps have been taken to secure the best possible coordination in statistical analysis? The Commissioner was kind enough to emphasise the importance of the Committee on Regional Development's opinion, and I would like to thank her for this flattering assessment.
To go on to regional issues: in the 2007-2013 Perspective the European Union allocated over one-third of its budget to regional policy in the broad sense of the word, thereby implementing the principle of cohesion and solidarity between regions with very differing levels of prosperity. This money was European taxpayers' money, which should under no circumstances be squandered. That is why we need completely impartial, sufficiently comprehensive and reliable methods of monitoring the implementation of structural policy. Do we have such methods? They involve collating and processing statistical data, both at Community level, at Member State level and at regional and lower, at local level.
The nature of the data must be comparable, both with data recorded outside the European Union and with the data recorded within it, as we often compare ourselves with other countries. The implementation of short-term or temporary objectives or technical problems have resulted in temporary lapses in compiling statistical data, all with drastic results.
Statistical analyses of regions are based on NUTS units. The question this raises is does this separation always result in equally reliable data? I have my reservations in particular of situations where there is a large gap between the development level and the prosperity of a regional capital and the rest of the area.
Another question I would like to raise is that of development level indexes for countries or regions: is the per capita GDP enough, what weighting should be given to unemployment levels, how can quality of life in a particular area be measured, etc. These are important issues, and I know that there are no simple solutions.
We often speak of innovation in this House. So we need to have reliable data on education, science, research and innovation. The question this raises is what methods should be used to compare data that often come from unofficial sources? How can we define the dynamics of change?
One more question of a social nature. Changes associated with large-scale migration, particularly of workers, are taking place before our very eyes. How does this affect the social situation and families? And we should not forget either that the high level of reliability of statistical data is always dependent on the reliability of the sources of information, which in turn requires the reliability and frequently the anonymity of the original data.
To finish, I would like to express my hope that the Community statistical programme will serve the fundamental aims of the European Union well. The attitude of Eurostat, and also of the Polish Central Statistical Office convince me of this. I hope that this is so.
Othmar Karas
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by congratulating and thanking the rapporteur. In his report, he has called for the legislative and statistical cycles to be brought into synch, for a reduction in the administrative burden for small and medium-sized companies, he has said that we need to ensure that we receive quality data, which means better data, and that we should also include a number of social and macroeconomic indicators.
He has also reported that we have submitted a request to the Commission, for two reasons. One reason is the recurring complaints about Member States who supply incomplete statistical data - the main culprits are Greece, Portugal, Italy and Hungary. In one country, Hungary, the Prime Minister actually admitted to fudging the data and hiding the truth from the public and the Commission.
The second reason is that many requirements have not yet been implemented. I would like to mention one: the Commission must be entitled to verify the data supplied in the country. It should be possible for the Commission to hold discussions with the national banks, the finance, economy and labour ministries, and with economic research institutes in the country. We cannot simply rely on the data provided.
The Commission's data has to be compared with the European Central Bank's data. There are various figures of varying degrees of importance that need to be compared.
Thirdly, for all euro-related information - data relating to budgets, the Stability and Growth Pact and the Maastricht criteria - the European Central Bank, the Commission and the Member States have to produce a joint final report.
We need unified, transparent data collection standards. We are all familiar with the unemployment figures from the Member States and for the European Union. One is played off against the other for reasons of political expediency. This creates uncertainty, not transparency, and only engenders distrust.
Ieke van den Burg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I would also like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on his excellent work on this report on the statistics programme 2008-2012. I think we fully agree that statistics are essential, and how to get the correct data is an important issue.
I agree that it is not only a technical issue, as we can see from this debate and particularly from the oral question that has been asked, it is an issue of high political relevance and not only because politicians try to interfere in statistics but also because they try to use such events in making opposition to the governing coalition or the previous coalition, blaming them for not providing correct data. These are both things which we should absolutely avoid.
The only solution, in my view, is to have independent statistical offices and guarantees for independent, proper and high-quality statistical data, plus some of the elements that Mr Karas mentioned: the same basic definitions etc.
I have the impression, Commissioner, that a lot of work has already been done on this issue by your colleague Mr Almunia, and some of the things have already been put in motion. I refer, for instance, to the regulation that has been established on this issue and, in particular, to dossiers with proposals for legislation on the governance of statistics and the governance of the statistical institutions, which we are dealing with at the moment.
I must say to Mr Becsey and Mr Karas that I have been surprised that their political group has not been interested at all in these legislative dossiers that we are dealing with at the moment because, here, we can create guarantees for good governance on the data, and there is no mandate for the Commission or for Eurostat really to interfere or to centralise data provision. We have to work within the remit and the mandate that exists at the moment and, there, I think the Commissioner is doing a good job in trying to use this to the widest extent possible.
I hope we can have a constructive debate about this improvement of governance and about these better conditions to be created instead of blaming each other and blaming the other political opposition parties for not properly providing this data. I hope there will be a constructive approach in the future.
Andrea Losco
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Becsey, on his excellent work. His having helped to achieve adoption at first reading is significant, and demonstrates that this Parliament works well. As has already been observed by the Commissioner as well as by other speakers, the aim of Community statistics is thus to provide regular verification of the drafting, implementation and evaluation of Community policies. The Union puts forward and carries out its policies in the economic, environmental and social fields precisely on the basis of this information; hence the need that it should be as relevant as possible to the actual situation, providing a 'photograph' of ideal situations, as well as the specific needs of citizens.
As far as the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is concerned, I can confirm in this Chamber that, generally speaking, we are firmly in favour of the proposal put forward by the Commission, in the knowledge that it has dealt with significant problems and issues such as prosperity, competitiveness, growth, solidarity, economic and social cohesion, sustainable development, security and further enlargement of the European Union. I believe that we, as the European Parliament, have done well to add to the proposal by including innovation and human development, regional cohesion and the demographic challenges that European society must tackle.
Our contribution therefore takes this approach: adding to, and not distorting, the Commission's proposal. In fact, we are convinced that there is currently a problem, which we discovered while finalising the adoption of this report: dealing with the quality of data, which is also the guarantee of the quality of decision-making. We have therefore included in the final text, which was the subject of a compromise, the concept of the preparation of annual statistical work programmes and of the need to take into consideration the optimum use of resources. This is in relation to the principle of better regulation, which we have already adopted, and precisely in the light of the Commission's communication on reducing the burden of responding to the simplification of objectives in the field of Community statistics.
Finally, I believe that we have made some important additions: a requirement for the Commission to carry out ex ante analyses of the financial impacts of the new statistical activities planned that involve additional burdens for the Member States, as well as feasibility studies to achieve a quality label for European statistics and to reinforce the credibility of the European statistical system, including Eurostat, the national statistical authorities and other relevant bodies in each Member State that are responsible for compiling and distributing European statistics. The aim is certainly to have central independent statistics available, but we need to do more work to achieve this.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. Madam President, I would first like to say that we have an ambitious programme, but do we have the financial means? Well, I think so. The financial envelope for the 2008-2012 programme in fact represents an increase of 15% compared to the previous period. I think that is a higher increase than the average increase for the financial perspective 2007-2013. So I think that is settled.
With regard to coordination, let me say that this Parliament is currently analysing a proposal by the Commission to set up a high-level advisory board which will then improve the governance of the European statistics system and the coordination of the production of statistics. I think this will be important.
I also would like to say to Mr Karas that what you mentioned is absolutely right. We have a possibility as the Commission to examine the methodology that is used by the Member States. But, unfortunately, we do not have the possibility to go further and examine the data as such. And, unfortunately, I think the Commission has already tried, but the Member States until now at least have not wanted to go any further. So maybe this is also something that should be brought to their attention again.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 July 2007.


2. Madagascar
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Madagascar.
Mikel Irujo Amezaga
Madam President, as can be seen from the resolution itself, after two months of violent clashes, Andry Rajoelina, former mayor of the capital of Madagascar, staged a coup d'état on 17 March of this year; he was supported by the army and a self-proclaimed 'High Authority of Transition', over which he presides, and he suspended the national assembly and the senate. Furthermore, pressure from rebels forced the democratically elected president to leave Madagascar.
However, last February Mr Rajoelina, who had been elected mayor of Antananarivo in December 2007, had, in turn, been forcibly removed from power by the previous government. I should add that the malaise felt by the population was exacerbated by the former government's plan to rent one million hectares of land in the south of the country to a Korean firm.
Of course, we also condemn the coup d'état and any attempt to seize power by undemocratic means. We also believe that the United Nations Security Council and international organisations of which Madagascar is a member do not recognise this de facto regime and we want constitutional order to be restored. We ask, too, that legal and constitutional systems be immediately re-established in the country and we call on all Malagasy parties to fully comply with the provisions of the constitution of Madagascar in order to overcome this crisis.
However, we also consider that democracy does not simply consist in holding elections and we should report major irregularities in the - a priori - legitimate government of Madagascar.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that when constitutional order is restored it should be based on the objectives and principles that already appear in Recital K of this resolution, that is: a clear timetable for free, fair and transparent elections; the participation of all political groups and social stakeholders in the country, including the legitimate President Marc Ravalomanana and other key figures; thirdly, the promotion of a consensus between Malagasy parties; fourthly, respect for the constitution of Madagascar; and lastly, compliance with the relevant African Union instruments and Madagascar's international commitments.
What is clear is that we are once again facing a situation in which human rights are systematically breached. While the leading classes of Madagascar engage in a power struggle through coup d'états and fight over important, lucrative business contracts, 70% of the population is living on less than one dollar a day. That, and that alone, is what we need to resolve. Let us hope, then, that the European Union assumes its proper role in this matter.
Madam President, changing the subject completely and taking advantage of the fact that Commissioner Orban is present in the last session of this term, I would like to thank him personally for his management of his Directorate-General.
Bernd Posselt
Madam President, Bavaria and its municipalities have many contacts all over the world, as does the Catholic University of Eichstätt. I should therefore like to welcome a delegation of mayors from this region.
Madagascar is a country with which we work closely and intensively. There are many cultural, economic and scientific contacts and a strong and supportive ecclesiastical presence. That is why it is all the more regrettable that, in this scenically beautiful and culturally rich country, such appalling abuses are being committed. There is a real danger that Madagascar, in its strategically important location, will become a failed state, like others we know of in Africa, first and foremost of which is Somalia.
It is therefore important that orderly and democratic relations are restored there as quickly as possible. That is why I am pleased that we met the contact group a few days ago to discuss first concrete steps. We must create an appropriate structure to prepare for new elections under the leadership of the ousted democratically elected president, whom we continue to recognise as the only legitimate head of state.
A dialogue must be opened, which must include the prime minister, who is currently in prison and who must be released immediately. Not only humanitarian aid but also vital development aid, especially medical care, must continue to be given to the fullest extent.
For all these reasons, we in the European Union are called upon to be involved in the negotiations there, not only as a humanitarian factor and not only as an economic factor, but especially as a political factor bringing about peace in the region. To achieve this, we count on the cooperation of the African Union, which once again has the opportunity to establish itself little by little as a factor in democratic stabilisation - stabilisation can in fact also be anti-democratic - which we will intensively support with the means at our disposal.
(Applause)
Erik Meijer
Madam President, in Madagascar, the incumbent president was forced to step down by popular protest. He came to agreements with foreign companies that brought short-term revenue to his government but were detrimental to his people. That made his position untenable.
Afterwards, with the help of the army, the leader of the opposition, who had previously been the capital's mayor, was appointed interim president, despite the fact that, by law, he was too young to be appointed to that office. This process, in particular the intervention of the army, has led to criticism. The African Union has called this an illegal coup and rejects the new government.
However, I think that we could also draw a comparison between this and recent events in one particular European country, Iceland. In that country, too, the government had to step down in the face of popular protest. A minority government of a totally different political persuasion then took power, but nobody considered that a coup. Since then, a new election has been held and the new government has secured a large majority. Such an outcome is also possible in Madagascar, provided that an election is held within the foreseeable future.
Glyn Ford
author. - Madam President, I speak on behalf of the Socialist Group and as the Party of European Socialists' shadow rapporteur on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the group of southern African countries that included Madagascar. In April we overwhelmingly approved that Economic Partnership Agreement with reservations about the situation in Zimbabwe. If we were debating that EPA today, we would have to enter our reservations regarding Madagascar.
Yet only 15 years ago there seems to have been the potential for Madagascar to be so different. I can remember in 1993 the visit of the then newly elected President Albert Zafy. But, of course, by 1996 he had been impeached for corruption and the abuse of power. Since then, Madagascar has been troubled by unstable governments with threats of secession and impeachment punctuating a rough politics.
Now we have a situation - an army coup d'état - partly triggered by a plan by the former government to lease one million acres of land in the south of the country to a Korean firm for intensive farming, when a substantial majority of the population live on less than one euro a day. This unconstitutional change of government is a serious setback for democratisation.
We welcome the fact that the UN has appealed for nearly USD 36 million worth of humanitarian aid, anticipating the food shortages that will result later this year from the current political events in Madagascar, but we strongly condemn the coup d'état and all attempts to seize power by undemocratic means. We call for the immediate restoration of the legal and constitutional order in the country and ask all Malagasy parties to comply fully with the provisions of the constitution. We want to see the suspension of the National Assembly and Senate lifted and urge that the mandates and immunities of parliamentarians be respected.
But this is only going to happen if the international community can work together to step up its efforts and exercise pressure to end the political violence and the political impasse in that country.
Thierry Cornillet
Madam President, we cannot keep silent regarding the situation in Madagascar and we shall not be the only ones to condemn it. The African Union, the Southern African Development Community, the International Organisation of French-Speaking Countries, the Interparliamentary Union, the European Union, speaking via the Commission, the United States, and a large number of countries, including my own and Norway - to speak of countries from the European continent - have condemned the coup d'état - for that is what it is - which has taken place in Madagascar.
We cannot keep silent and we are calling for a return to constitutional order. We are simply asking for a 'back-to-basics' approach with, where necessary, arbitration by the Malagasy people through consultation in the form of a presidential election or a referendum. It is the responsibility of the assemblies and the politicians of Madagascar to decide on the most effective form of consultation.
Thus, what we are calling for with this joint motion for a resolution is to add our voice to that of the international community in order to make it clear to those who have seized power in a totally undemocratic fashion, in the form of a coup d'état - as disguised as it may be - that Madagascar's constitutional order must be restored, as one of the guarantees of the future development of this large island in the Indian Ocean.
Ewa Tomaszewska
Madam President, the political crisis in Madagascar has led to an unconstitutional change of government. This was accompanied by unrest, in which over 130 people lost their lives.
Madagascar was under French rule until 1960. It is a country in a difficult situation. It is in need of humanitarian aid, and especially food aid, and this help has been given to Madagascar. The authorities and successive elections which they organised were supported by the army. President Ravalomanana lost support, and he stood down on 17 March 2009. Power was seized by Rajoelina, who was designated by the army.
The European Union does not recognise the new government because of the undemocratic way in which this change was made. The African Union has suspended Madagascar from membership, and is critical of the removal of Ravalomanana by force. It has threatened to impose sanctions if constitutional order is not restored within six months.
We call for restoration of constitutional order in Madagascar. We appeal to the international community to support efforts to restore the legal basis of the function of this state. I think that the electoral process should be closely monitored and observed by representatives of international organisations, including in particular Members of our Parliament.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Madam President, in the first weeks of March we were witnesses of a dramatic coup d'état in Madagascar. The rivalry, which has existed for several years, between the deposed president and the leader of the opposition led the island to the brink of civil war. On 17 March 2009, the day following capture of the Presidential Palace by the army, Andry Rajoelina declared himself head of state. The Malagasy Supreme Court stated that the former Mayor of Antananarivo holds this office in accordance with the Constitution. Doubts have been raised about this, if only because there is a clause in the organic statute which says that to be president a person must be at least 40 years of age, and the new president is only 34.
The assumption of power and the decision of the Supreme Court have aroused universal controversy. The swearing-in ceremony was boycotted by most foreign diplomats, and the African Union has suspended Madagascar from membership. The political crisis has led to general chaos and destabilisation in the country, where most people have lived for years in terrible poverty on USD 1 a day, and have limited access to food and water, basic medical services and education. I lived in Madagascar for six years, and I became thoroughly acquainted with these problems, and therefore I very strongly support the UN appeal for urgent humanitarian aid for the people of Madagascar.
The European Parliament should strongly condemn the coup d'état and all attempts at taking power which break democratic principles. The European Union should call for a renewal of the work of both houses of parliament, which have been suspended by the new regime. We should also support the efforts of the special envoy of the African Union and representatives of the UN in their talks with representatives of local political parties and all interested groups in order to bring about an immediate restoration of constitutional order in the country, and the international community should decidedly increase its efforts at bringing humanitarian aid to the people of the island, who are living on the brink of poverty.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, Madagascar, which is a former French colony, seems to be undergoing the sad - but not unusual - post-colonial turmoil in its political life, with the consequent suffering for its people.
Many other colonies of European countries have suffered - or are still suffering - for the same reason. There are many examples. My own country, Cyprus, is one. Having partly gained independence from its colonial master, Britain, in 1960, British foreign diplomacy hawks managed in 1963 to manipulate an inter-community struggle which eventually resulted in the division of the island in 1974.
This is a division that persists today and a state of affairs which suits Britain. A divided Cyprus cannot successfully attempt to get rid of the remaining two British colonial areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which Britain uses for military purposes, and which the British Government has in fact managed to disgracefully keep outside the EU so that the acquis cannot be applied to the thousands of Cypriot civilians - now EU citizens - who live there.
Leonard Orban
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, firstly I would like to underline the Commission's great concern at the current volatile situation in Madagascar. I would also like to stress the Commission's continued commitment to the Malagasy people.
The situation in that country after the forced removal of President Ravalomanana on 17 March deserves and requires our full attention and, like the European Parliament, the Commission is following events very closely.
The Commission has fully endorsed the Czech Presidency statement issued on behalf of the European Union on 20 March condemning the transfer of power and calling on the Malagasy parties to comply fully with the provisions of the Constitution of Madagascar.
The Commission considers that there has been a flagrant violation of essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement and that this is a 'case of special urgency' within the meaning of Article 96 of that Agreement. The Commission has therefore launched the procedure to propose to the Council to open consultation with the authorities in power in order to examine possible solutions to the crisis, aimed at the re-establishment of constitutional order.
The Commission will continue to use all the dialogue means it has at its disposal to find an overall solution to the current crisis. To that end, it is enhancing the political dialogue, based on Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, with all the relevant stakeholders in Madagascar.
It is also participating in the main international efforts deployed, notably in the framework of the international contact group set up recently by the African Union. At this stage, the prevailing view is that the relevant Malagasy political stakeholders agree on a road map for a return to constitutional order and the holding of elections.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.


Financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Flautre and Mr McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights) C6-0206/2006.
Paula Lehtomäki
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, decision-making on the part of the Finnish Presidency with regard to the European Union's future financing instruments will soon be at an end. In an excellent show of solidarity, we have dealt with the matter successfully and adopted the majority of the Regulations on the new financing instruments. Although there have been a number of challenges, there has also been immense political will on the part of the European Parliament, the Member States and the Commission to reach agreement on the relevant issues.
One challenge still lies ahead, and that is the adoption of the Regulation establishing a European Instrument for the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). This is an important matter both for Parliament and the Member States, because it concerns the promotion of basic values as enshrined in the Treaty on European Union. Parliament and its Members have specialist knowledge of democracy and human rights issues, which has been a help in endeavours to attain a good outcome.
The Regulation on a new human rights instrument to apply worldwide has been drafted to a very tight schedule. As well as Parliament, the Member States too have had numerous proposals for its content. It is a very positive sign that agreement has already been reached on almost all the issues in these negotiations. The Council, for its part, has unanimously approved the compromise text to serve as a mandate for the Presidency to conduct talks with Parliament with a view to finding a solution.
It is the Presidency's aim to adopt the instrument at first reading. The reason for this will be clear to everyone. The current EIDHR expires in a few weeks' time, at the end of the year. We do not want any major disruption in the European Union's support for democracy and human rights. We are duty-bound to take a swift decision, not only because of the importance to us Europeans of human rights and democracy as values, but also because of the hopes and expectations made known to us by defenders of human rights and democracy in other countries.
The instruments have been drafted in such a way that they form a whole that is as viable as possible. Democracy and human rights are also implemented by means of other instruments, and the EIDHR will act as an addition to this whole in special areas. It is for this reason too that the adoption of the instrument is very much in order before the new financing period starts.
The Presidency of the Council strongly requests Parliament to reach a decision before the end of the year. The package adopted by the Council contains a very large number of amendments to the text of the Regulation tabled by Parliament with regard both to priority areas for support and to Parliament's own position regarding the implementation of the Regulation. A significant feature of the new Regulation is the recognition of the importance of work for democracy and, as part of that, the stronger emphasis on the work of parliaments and parliamentarians. The essential basis of our work in third countries is our reliance on international human rights conventions and the rights and obligations written into them.
With the proposal for the Regulation, the conditions for players to be eligible for aid from the Union are being widened. It is good that we are able to acknowledge the diversity of human rights and democracy and to make flexible use of various resources in different situations. It would also seem that the instrument's financial resources will also be up slightly on the financing period now ending, so the inclusion of new players will not necessarily detract from the positions of the other players.
The main idea behind establishing the instrument has been that it will make possible support for the work of civil society players in particular, and permit support in situations where that takes place without the specific consent of the government of the country concerned. It is important that this approach remains throughout, and that not too many forms of support for other players are added within the framework of the Regulation.
The conditions for eligibility for aid in the Council's compromise proposal have been widened in accordance with the European Parliament's suggestions to include parliamentary and political foundations. Moreover, the draft Regulation will also allow for the eligibility of other players in special circumstances. In my view, that is a well considered, workable solution which takes account of the hopes and objections of various EU players.
Parliament has been keen to highlight the special feature that aid which is granted within the framework of the instrument, mainly meant for civil society players as it is, can be given without the consent of the government of a third country. There has been general consensus on this principle between the Council and Parliament right from the start. I believe that we have also now succeeded in finding a way of citing this principle in a more precise and clear manner, given our obligations under the Treaty on European Union and international agreements and conventions. The Presidency is prepared to propose the inclusion of the principle in the first introductory wording, if there is agreement on the content of the Regulation as a whole at first reading.
Parliament has also drawn attention to the importance of mentioning the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in a given country in the text of the Regulation. The text will be based on international human rights conventions. One might therefore consider incorporating this proposed area already. The Presidency is nevertheless prepared to consider this addition too, if the Regulation can be adopted in its entirety at first reading.
The Council, for its own part, therefore, is ready to demonstrate even greater flexibility in order to find a solution before the year is out. Flexibility on the part of all sides is a requirement for this.
In the European Parliament's committee report, it is proposed that political groups should be added to the list of those receiving support. This probably means, inter alia, political parties; that is to say, there would be financial support for the work of parties also operating in third countries. Democratic parties undeniably have an important role in the strengthening of democracy and human rights all over the world. It is very important that the criteria for support given within the framework of this human rights instrument are clear and that they are grounded in human rights principles agreed internationally. There will be nowhere near enough resources available under this instrument for general party support for all based on the same criteria, such as there is in many countries in Europe. Selecting individual parties as beneficiaries would be a very hard task from the point of view of establishing clear criteria. The choice would have to be made in such a way that no one would have the impression that party political views were taking the place of the democracy and human rights criteria when allocating aid. It is also clear that an increase in the number of beneficiaries in this area might mean less support for others. We have mainly tried to steer support in the direction of NGOs working on behalf of democracy and human rights in particular.
The Presidency's compromise proposal takes account of Parliament's suggestions to add independent party foundations and national, regional and international parliaments to the group of beneficiaries. Article 9(2) of the Regulation also makes it possible to provide support in special cases to other groups not mentioned under this Article. The wording is very close to what Parliament wants to see, and it is flexible, because it allows problems to be solved during the financing period. For all these reasons, adding political groups to the text of the Regulation does not have the Council's approval.
This issue may jeopardise the chances of having the entire Regulation adopted at first reading, and that again would give rise to a situation where there would not be any legal basis for EU action on democracy and human rights for the time being. Freezing all EU human rights and democracy aid to resolve this case would be a very harsh weapon. The Council has gone a long way in order to comply with Parliament's wishes. In order to achieve a solution, it is very important to incorporate and maintain the support of the Member States in this Regulation package.
I hope that Parliament will show flexibility, so that together we can achieve our main goal. Our main goal is for the European Union to be able to continue next year to aid action on democracy and human rights by means of the new instrument. To ensure that this support can continue, it is vital to get a decision on the proposal for a regulation, and the sooner the better.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to keep it brief so as to allow this debate to come to an end. This financing instrument truly is a massive keystone in this comprehensive reform of the Community's system of overseas aid, and it gives me great satisfaction to see that you have succeeded in coming up, within a relatively short period, with a common draft regulation on human rights and democracy. I see this instrument as expressing, in an exemplary way, the European Union's unconditional commitment to democracy and human rights as fundamental factors in external relations.
It is because we in the Commission regard your House as the most important of partners that we unreservedly stand by our statement on democratic scrutiny and coherence of external actions and will maintain regular dialogue with your House. In situations in which human rights and democracy are particularly at risk, and which call for rapid action on the part of the Community, I propose that talks should be called at short notice with a small group of MEPs representing the relevant committees of your House.
Following the Council Presidency's explanation just now of how it has conducted lengthy negotiations in this field, I would like to say that we regard the compromise proposal it has put together in the course of these as overall doing justice to the expectations made of this new financing instrument, and I would also like to emphasise that it certainly reflects many proposals from your House that the Commission unreservedly endorses, dealing as it does not only with the process of democratic reform, but also with the overall protection of human rights, and putting a greater emphasis on support and protection for human rights advocates, without, however, neglecting the victims of torture and abuse. Moreover, it creates a specific basis for successful monitoring of elections - and for that I am very grateful - without making disproportionate demands on the funds available for this purpose.
I can do no other than welcome this instrument and the greater flexibility, newly rapid orientation and speedy responses that it makes possible. We will, in this regard, give particular attention to making it possible for it to be drawn on not only by private individuals but also by incorporated and unincorporated associations, and will, in the cause of flexibility, use all means available on the basis of the Budget Regulation and the implementing regulations enacted by reference to it.
I can agree to your House's proposals for a more detailed discussion in the recitals of the support's particular character as independent of the consent of state offices, and also for the inclusion of a reference indicating that the instrument is to be regarded as covering the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and persons forcibly removed from one part of a state to another.
Unfortunately, though, I am unable, like the Council, to see any scope for the inclusion of political parties and political movements as the immediate beneficiaries of the financing granted. As I see it, the Council Presidency and Parliament - supported by us in the Commission - have, following quite lengthy debate, come to a very good compromise in agreeing that national parliaments should be permitted to be recipients of foreign aid. I regard that as objectively justified by the inclusion, among the objectives of the instrument, of the creation, promotion and reinforcement of participatory, representative and parliamentary democracy and the associated processes of democratisation. I could well imagine the funding of foundations being one way of overcoming our difficulties as well.
So far, we have seen the most important thing as being that we, the Commission, should be able to be neutral and non-partisan where Community aid is concerned; that has put us at a great advantage, and one that we must maintain in future, for it is this that has secured the widespread acceptance and potential of our aid in third states, so that is something else from which we should not deviate.
Hélène Flautre
co-rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since the month of September my co-rapporteur and I have been negotiating with the Council and the Commission with a view to gaining acceptance for Parliament's position on the European financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide. These negotiations have now been concluded, and, as has just been said, the Council adopted a common position last week based on a compromise text. This draft, much of which we had previously introduced in the form of amendments, satisfies most of Parliament's requirements. It stipulates that the use of the instrument does not depend on the consent of host governments. It permits the funding of non-registered organisations. It includes a flexible mechanism for the provision of direct support to human-rights activists who face imminent danger. This new mechanism should greatly enhance the effectiveness of our measures for the protection of those who campaign for fundamental freedoms.
The compromise also contains an entire section devoted to the promotion of democratic principles, electoral processes and parliamentary democracy. Political foundations, as well as national parliaments - an element introduced by our Parliament - are explicitly enumerated among the bodies that are eligible for support. The section dealing with the protection of human rights also satisfies almost all of Parliament's wishes, the only exceptions being the desire for explicit reference to combating impunity and to conflict prevention. On the other hand, the rights of people with disabilities, corporate social responsibility, combating violence against women and many other objectives have been included.
Parliament has also secured the establishment of an enhanced structured dialogue that will involve it in the formulation of strategic priorities. We should have wanted it to feature in the body of the text, but the compromise arrangement is that parliamentary involvement is to be ensured through an exchange of letters.
As far as explicit reference to democratic political groups is concerned, the Council, as we have just heard, regards that as a no-go area. It therefore proved impossible to include a reference to support for these groups. Nevertheless, an element of flexibility was introduced to allow the funding of other players in duly substantiated cases. In this way, political groups, though not explicitly mentioned, will be able to receive support in certain circumstances.
In conclusion, Mr President, let me emphasise the uniqueness of this instrument. It is the only one that funds the projects of non-governmental players without the need for prior authorisation from their government. It is also the only instrument that finances electoral observer missions. This is why it would be neither useful nor responsible to delay its adoption, and hence the funding of these projects, in the vain hope of introducing an explicit reference to political groups. Indeed, an obstinate attachment to that aim has already cost us dear at this stage, since it scuppered the deal struck with the Council on inclusion of the rights of immigrants and asylum-seekers.
For these reasons, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to support the compromise as negotiated with the Council.
Edward McMillan-Scott
co-rapporteur. - Mr President, first of all I should like to thank Mrs Flautre for her very hard work and that of her staff in recent months in trying to bring this instrument to the point where we can adopt it by the end of this year. I would also like to thank the Commission and its staff, and the Council, for their work.
Both the Council and the Commission have worked very hard to try and achieve some sort of compromise on this instrument. I must say that, in general terms, the ambitions of the Chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee, my co-rapporteur, have largely been met. I think on the question of human rights promotion, which represents universal values accepted worldwide, we now have an instrument which has the capacity and the flexibility to work effectively, primarily through civil society, and to achieve the goals of the European Union in its Treaty obligations towards human rights worldwide.
There is, however, a deficiency. As colleagues know, I was the original promoter and founding rapporteur of the European initiative back in 1992. It was aimed at the transformation of the ex-Soviet bloc and it looked primarily at the democratic process. In the world today we now face different challenges. I have spent some time this year going to countries which are 'complex environments', to use the terminology of the United Nations: China, Cuba and Russia. These are the challenges of today.
My question to Council and Commission - and since the Council has chosen to negotiate in public - is, why cannot we as a European Union avail ourselves of the same instruments that our Member State governments have given to the United Nations? I regard this as a great puzzle. During my recent visit to New York I spent some talk talking to the UNDP, which, in its handbook on dealing with political parties, says, 'yet we have seen that the absence of strong, accountable and competent political parties that can represent positions and negotiate change, weakens the democratic process'. This is a parliament of political parties. Democracy cannot exist without competing political forces. So I just wonder whether the Council has lost its nerve. Faced with the challenges that we see to our east and to our south, is it really satisfactory that the European Union should not have the same capacity to involve itself in the political process, to reform countries where there is no democracy, that we have given to the United Nations?
I believe that the European Union should put its democracy money where its mouth is and include in the instrument a reference to supporting democratic political groups. That, in some countries, is the only way to effect change.
Alessandro Battilocchio
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for their cooperation, which meant that the document presented to the Committee on Foreign Affairs already encompassed the Committee on Development's requests. These requests are also found in the document drawn up by the Council, which I would like to thank for its work and for the flexibility demonstrated during the months of negotiation. In particular, I welcome the instrument's local dimension, so that it can respond to the specific needs of areas in difficulty; the feature of the instrument whereby action can also be taken independently of the consent of governments and public authorities; the transparency of the procedures and their consistency with other European external policies; its scope, in other words prioritising civil society; the access even for non-registered actors; the protection of women and children, migrants and minorities; the access to information; and the actions supporting democratic processes, even if the final draft of the document is not entirely satisfactory.
I would like to comment briefly on the most controversial points: regarding the ceiling for electoral observation missions, I would have hoped for a stronger commitment from the Commission and the Council than an attached statement, but I hope that, after the comments made in this Chamber, this ceiling will be strictly respected. On structured dialogue, I note that the Council and the Commission have shown little willingness to improve the procedures in this respect. It is significant, however, that the Commission's letter is at least addressed not only to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but also to the Chairman of the Committee on Development, in accordance with the legal basis for the instrument (Article 179(1) of the Treaty) and with the Rules of Procedure of Parliament (Annex VI).
In relation to political actors, I appreciate Mr McMillan-Scott's concerns and, although my committee has not given an explicit opinion on the subject, I have no problem in supporting his request, where openings exist. If this is not the case, I will consider with my colleagues, in the light of recent developments, whether it is appropriate to block the process after successful compromises have been reached, with great effort, on the key points, in order to succeed in concluding an agreement at first reading and to allow the instrument to be launched in January 2007.
Albert Jan Maat
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to extend warm thanks to both rapporteurs, Mr McMillan-Scott and Mrs Flautre, for the way in which they have adopted the recommendations of the Committee on Budgets.
There are two things that the Committee on Budgets regards as important: accountability and the financial framework 2007-2013. EUR 1.103 million has been set aside for this instrument, and it is our committee's wish that this House should be able to monitor the way it is spent.
Secondly, Parliament's rights in this area must be protected, both in terms of consultation with it, and the implementation of policy which must, in accordance with the Commission's statement, be subject to sound democratic control. We are therefore delighted that this proposal was adopted not only by the rapporteurs, but also by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
It is also very important to the Committee on Budgets that funds be made available from other significant instruments, for development, but also for partnerships with neighbouring countries and pre-accession.
If this happens, if this instrument is used in this way, I am convinced that we, when we discuss this programme in the Committee on Budgetary Control in five years' time, will be granting discharge in this area.
Teresa Riera Madurell
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (ES) Mr President, we in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality welcome all of Parliament's efforts to ensure that this specific instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights could be debated today in this House.
Within the important work of simplifying the instruments and procedures in the field of external action, we believe that it is very important that we have a tool with the main objective of supporting civil society, of supporting those who are working to achieve democracy and a better life for everybody.
Within this context, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stress the role of women as key players in the defence of fundamental freedoms.
We in our committee have worked to ensure that this instrument supports objectives and measures to promote the rights of women and children, gender equality at international level and the fight against the discrimination suffered by billions of women on a daily basis.
We would see the approval of this Regulation at first reading, so that it can enter into operation in 2007, as good news, particularly in view of the fact that 2007 has officially been designated European Year of Equal Opportunities for All.
Michael Gahler
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, it is good that we should be given this instrument. It is only right and proper that we should defy the wills of autocrats and dictators and defend the cause of human rights and democracy, and hence also that of democratic political groupings in the countries concerned. Just imagine us, as democrats, living in Eastern Europe before the Wall came down, and our clandestinely organised groups being denied aid from the West on the basis of this very argument!
After all, all we are trying to do is to give the Commission the greatest possible flexibility in practice, and those officials who are wary of granting aid to political groups that are not specifically named should be encouraged to do so if the actual circumstances make it necessary. This is not primarily about party funding, so I would ask the Council not to restrict discussion to that.
We cannot, though, be non-partisan in countries such as Belarus, for we would, in fact, by standing aloof from all political parties, end up giving support to Lukashenko and his like.
Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, for millions of people who put themselves at risk in order to defend freedoms and human rights, what we are debating today is absolutely vital. The European Instrument for the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights has above all been an achievement of this Parliament. It has not been an easy achievement.
We have always argued that, if our foreign policy is genuinely going to incorporate the European Union's values, it must work expressly to promote the human rights that we all claim to defend.
Now we have it; we have a valuable tool for defenders of human rights and all actors working to promote democracy, fundamental freedoms and justice to use. We now have our instrument. It contains a sufficiently full definition of the actors that can benefit from it, as Mrs Flautre has explained. So much so that there should be no justification for a battle that delays the implementation of this instrument, frustrating many expectations and hopes.
We Socialists would also have preferred a clear inclusion of the concept of 'conflict prevention', because that is a prior condition for peace and democratic development. Nevertheless, for the sake of agreement and because it is necessary for the proposal to be approved, we accept the consensus reached with the Commission and the Council. My group will not therefore present any amendments. I hope that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats shows the same degree of responsibility. We must not let the main protagonists in this instrument down.
Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, this instrument will be the means whereby the European Union will contribute to democracy and human rights worldwide. I find the compromise we have reached satisfactory on the whole, because it has taken essential points into account, and our rapporteurs, as well as the President-in-Office and the President of the Commission, deserve all credit for this.
I am, for example, pleased that help can be given without the approval of third-country governments, and that parliamentary democracy is expressly mentioned, as, for that matter, are political pluralism and democratic political representation. Finally, I am pleased to see reference being made to independent political organisations.
Without, of course, wishing to diminish the importance of human rights per se - quite the reverse, in fact - I would at the same time like to stress the crucial importance of political parties in every democratisation process. In a democracy, elections are indispensable, but not enough. If a democracy is to be sustainable, what is needed is effective, democratic political parties to ensure that a debate can be held not only among the parties, but also with the public.
All too often, parties only function as a vehicle in order that a certain person, clan or group can be put into power, or indeed be kept there. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why they are generally distrusted.
NGOs and civil society are not sufficient, however, to guarantee a political debate and control over governance.
This is why I should like to ask the Council and Commission to continue to make an effort so that support to democratic political groupings - in exceptional circumstances, of course - can be possible in future.
Richard Howitt
Mr President, let me begin by saying that it was this Parliament that insisted there should be a separate legal instrument for human rights and democracy. It took a while to convince our friends and colleagues of that, but tonight's debate shows that it is a victory for Parliament, and the right decision was made.
On the key issues within the debate, I very much welcome what our Finnish Presidency colleague has said about this being a programme that delivers help without the consent of host governments.
To the Commissioner, I say I am very proud of the work that we do on electoral observation. I think it is one of the most effective things we are involved with. Our attempt to limit it is simply to say that it should not take money away from grassroots human rights projects. Both are important.
My own amendments tabled included support for parliamentary democracy where it is being suppressed, making sure that spending under this instrument is additional and not at the expense of human rights work within the mainstream programmes, and to give specific reference in the scope to core labour standards and corporate social responsibility, to the human rights of people with disabilities, and to access to justice. I should like to thank the co-rapporteurs for their support for these amendments, and the Council and the Commission for the flexibility they have shown as regards Parliament's amendments as a whole.
Tonight we have been debating the detail of legal texts. In this House we understand how important that is to ensure the European Union is effective. However, the main political message we should give is that just as this Parliament has established its own subcommittee on human rights, this Union is establishing an independent human rights and democracy instrument, because at the same time as the United Nations is elevating the status and role of human rights, so are we in the European Union, to help the victims of oppression, injustice and persecution, and those who defend them right around this world.
Kader Arif
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it must make us proud to be part of the European Union when we see the action it has taken to promote democracy and human rights. These common values make the Union one of the foremost players on the world stage in this domain. In the context of this unending struggle, it was imperative to reform the old instrument in order to enhance its effectiveness. Thanks to the pugnacity of the rapporteurs, Mrs Flautre and Mr McMillan-Scott, both of whom I congratulate, we have a draft here that truly moves things forward.
It befits the importance of this instrument that it should be ambitious, and there is no shortage of ambition in its references to immigrants' rights and in the scope it offers to bypass the need for host-government approval of measures in support of democracy and human rights. I do regret, however, that the negotiations did not result in the extension of the instrument to cover conflict prevention. Moreover, in spite of greater parliamentary involvement in the monitoring process, the Council's refusal to formalise relations between our two institutions in this field is a deficiency.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of this instrument will depend on its being regularly evaluated and on its revision, a process in which Parliament must play its full part, because I believe that Europe, armed with its values, is fighting here for a world free from fear.
Paula Lehtomäki
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the comments that have been made in this debate. It has become very clear that it is in our mutual interest to reach decisions on this instrument so that the European Union's aid for democracy and human rights development can continue and grow as from next year.
Let me stress one last time that the compromise proposal in this discussion is an enabling one. It will enable aid to be granted even to the political groups which Parliament considers so very important.
One last time, let me say seriously that I hope we reach a decision, and preferably quite soon. As has been mentioned in the debate, this instrument is very much the result of the European Parliament's massive influence. Its powerful role is in evidence in the text of this Regulation. Ultimately, however, we also need to be prepared to make compromises on matters where the Member States and Parliament share the decision process. Otherwise, no decisions will be reached.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my gratitude not only for the debate but also for the many sessions of negotiation in which we have eventually arrived at a good compromise. We have come a long way, and there was from the very outset a high degree of unanimity concerning both objectives and scope. The scope was then, at your House's suggestion, considerably extended, and even more detailed stipulations made, particularly as regards consultation with national parliaments and new measures for human rights advocates, but what are termed ad hoc measures are still possible.
Turning to the political parties, I would like to say that it is quite explicitly envisaged in the scope of the regulation that support shall be given to political pluralism, to democratic political representation and to democratic reform processes at local, regional and national level, and, as has already been emphasised, explicit provision has also been made for the involvement of independent political foundations and parliamentary bodies as partners in the implementation of measures supporting the development of democracy. It follows that it will be possible to implement the instrument for promoting democracy in a primarily political way, which, I think, is what we all want it to do.
That being so, let me say that this draft of a new regulation, which has been the subject of really intensive negotiations, deserves - or so I believe - your House's support.
By way of conclusion, let me once more point out that this is the last of the financial instruments with which we will have to deal today, and, as I think we have all managed to come up with good and sustainable solutions to the others, we should take care to ensure that the democracy and human rights instrument can be put into effect beginning on the due date of 1 January 2007, for we have tried to be as flexible as circumstances require.
President
Thank you, Commissioner. That concludes the debate.
The vote will be in December.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Marianne Mikko
(ET) The development of civil society and democratic mechanisms throughout the world, and especially in the vicinity of the European Union, is of vital importance to the stability of Europe itself. We must help to solve problems on the spot, instead of being overcome by the flood of political and economic refugees. The opponents of civil society have taken advantage of the inflexibility of our bureaucracy, and have criticised the adherence to programme documents as if they were scripture.
Recently, the Russian authorities have robbed several international organisations of their legal basis. In accordance with the present rules, we can no longer fund these organisations. We face the same problem in separatist Trans-Dnistria, which is governed by a puppet regime which is a keen student of the Kremlin's methods.
The report draws the only possible conclusion - we must become more flexible. We must be able to react quickly and appropriately and finance unforeseen measures and organisations which lack the approval of governments, if necessary even covering our tracks.
Such flexibility also presupposes good monitoring. It is for that reason that I strongly support Parliament's greater involvement in monitoring.
(The sitting was suspended at 8.20 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)