Peace process in Spain (debate)
President
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the peace process in Spain.
Paula Lehtomäki
President-in-Office of the Council. (FI) Mr President, the European Community was born out of a quest for peace and stability. Peace and stability are still a resource for the development of the Union and it is very important that these matters are also discussed. It is especially natural for the European Parliament to discuss the principles of peace and stability.
On 23 and 24 March this year, the Spanish Prime Minister gave the European Council an account of the announcement of a permanent ceasefire by the terrorist organisation, ETA. At the time the Council said that it was satisfied with the account given by the Spanish Prime Minister. Since then, the Council has not discussed the issue and abides by its statement of the time.
The issue of security is a particularly topical one, and one that affects all Europeans. The Finnish Presidency is satisfied with all the actions that have been put in place to ensure that ETA ceases its terrorist activity and to bring about a peaceful solution within the framework of Spain's democratic organs of government.
As we in this Chamber all know, the Union is active in weeding out terrorism and its causes. The Council once again expresses its support for the action which the Member States have implemented and are implementing to combat terrorism in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, terrorism represents one of the worst imaginable threats to democratic societies. Terrorist attacks not only endanger security but constitute an assault on the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
The Commission is strongly committed to the fight against terrorism and intends to continue working for the prevention of terrorism and the protection of our citizens and infrastructures by bringing terrorists to justice and by responding adequately to terrorist attacks in order to save as many innocent lives as possible. The specific measures that will be taken at European level are clearly outlined in the European counter-terrorist strategy and in the action plan on combating terrorism.
The Commission is obviously deeply concerned at the dramatic scale of ETA's terrorism in Spain; four decades of terrorist activity have seen more than 800 assassinations and other attacks, with economic extortion and blackmail becoming common practice. Law-abiding citizens have learned to live in fear; many have been permanently threatened in their daily lives. The serious crime committed yesterday in the south of France - probably by ETA, according to the French prosecutor - is a source of concern. The attitude of Spanish society during all these years has been exemplary; indeed, its tenacity and conviction in combating terrorism through respect for democracy and the rule of law has paid off, leading to the increasing weakness of ETA.
The Commission, once again, pays tribute to all the victims of ETA's terrorist attacks and recalls the importance of helping them and helping to make good damages suffered. In these circumstances, the Commission recalls the statement made in its presence by the European Council in March 2006, welcoming the report of the Spanish Prime Minister on the announcement of a permanent ceasefire by terrorist group ETA. The Commission also recalls the statement made by the President of the European Commission on the announcement by the Spanish Prime Minister on the launch of a dialogue with ETA, sharing the hopes of all those who look to a future in which Spain is free from the scourge of terrorism. The Commission is most hopeful that those announcements will result in the total disarmament and dissolution of the terrorist group.
At the same time, the Commission is aware of the complexity of the initiative, as well as the extreme sensitivity of the matter, but is convinced that Spain, through all its democratic institutions, will find the right path that will bring an end to ETA's terrorism and restore peace, with full respect for the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
We shall not be divided today, since we shall not forget that the target of this debate is a common enemy of Spain and of Europe: terrorism.
(Applause)
Hans-Gert Poettering
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is one of the most noble tasks of a politician to work for peace. We all want peace on Earth, in Europe and in Spain. There are, however, often differences of opinion about how to achieve this objective. This is the case again today.
This debate is not about party-political tactics and gains, but principles and fundamental convictions. For this reason I ask that everyone here show great respect in this debate today and that we do not deny each other the mutual good will that sustains our conviction. We in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats would like to know how it is that we can trust that ETA and Batasuna want peace when they have not expressed a single word of regret or apology or made any kind of appeal for forgiveness to the families of the over 800 people that they have murdered. Until this occurs, we must expect that they will begin to kill again if they do not achieve their goals through negotiation.
Today, our sympathy, our respect and our solidarity are with the victims of the acts of terrorism and violence carried out by ETA and Batasuna. I can see from here our highly esteemed fellow MEP Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, whose husband, the then Chairman of the Socialist Party in the Basque Country, was murdered in 1984. Several attempts have been made on the life of Mr Iturgaiz Angulo, and seven of his political associates from the Partido Popular in the Basque Country have been murdered. We owe it to the victims to ensure that the murderers are punished. This is in accordance with the guiding and basic principles of our system of states under the rule of law. If it is to be credible, the process of reconciliation must begin with reconciliation between perpetrators and victims, including the victims' descendants.
We call upon ETA and Batasuna to give your victims - who are surely on your consciences - a sign of conciliation and of apology. We would remind people that ETA and Batasuna are on the EU's list of terrorist organisations. They have not surrendered their weapons. These weapons remain a threat to the constitutional order of Spain, as well as of France and thereby of the whole of Europe. The Commissioner has reminded us of the events of the day before yesterday in Nimes. A woman and two children were taken hostage and the French authorities have stated officially that this took place as part of an ETA weapons robbery. In other words, weapons remain an instrument of political argument. We have to ask ourselves what goal ETA and Batasuna are trying to achieve. A statement was issued on Euronews on 24 October from a high-ranking representative of ETA and Batasuna. The statement said that weapons would not be surrendered until the Basque Country was - in their words - independent.
MEPs have received a letter from Batasuna, which states in English, 'Regarding the negotiation between ETA and the Spanish and French states it will be them who decide all about the demilitarisation of the conflict.' This form of words is a bad sign, since, if the negotiations fail, the blame is already being laid at the doors of the Spanish and French states.
What we in the PPE-DE Group, have to say to this is that we want dialogue. Spain and France are free and democratic states. They are not dictatorships, they are not tyrannies, against which one may express resistance through violent means. No, they are free states, and in free and democratic states it is democratic dialogue and not violence that must be used. As we share this conviction at the deepest level, our group, the PPE-DE Group, has tabled a resolution. It is not merely a resolution on the part of our Spanish allies in the Partido Popular, it is a common resolution on the part of the whole of our group, and we will defend it with solidarity and now, today, and in this debate, commemorate the victims.
(Applause from the right)
Martin Schulz
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the problem of terrorism in Spain is not a Spanish internal problem; it is a European problem. Terrorism is an attack on our values. Terrorism is always an attack on everything that we in this Parliament defend on the basis of our common European convictions. No terrorism, absolutely none, is justified. It is for all of us to find ways out of this terrorism because we are all - when it is our values that we are defending - victims of this terrorism too, every time a terrorist attack takes place.
Mr Poettering, commendably, made reference to my colleague Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, who is herself a victim. We have many people with us in the public gallery today from the Basque Country who themselves were and are victims in that they have lost loved ones or in that they have personally suffered injury to life and limb. They are here listening to us today because they want to say 'yes' to the route of dialogue because it is only through dialogue that the spiral of violence can be ended.
I admire men and women who must have experienced the deep sorrow that these victims have been through and who nevertheless come out and demand an end to the death, to the violence and to the downward spiral. This moral force must be the impetus to reach a solution to the problems of violence, not only in the Basque Country, but everywhere else too. It is thus a European problem that we are discussing today.
I admire the courage of the Spanish Government in choosing this path, a path that is controversial and fraught with risks. It is, however, a path that is best described by a quotation that I would like to read to you.
(ES) For the sake of peace and your rights, we shall not close ourselves off but, rather, we shall open ourselves up to peace, hope, forgiveness and generosity and we shall do the best we can to ensure that peace is lasting with the help and hope of everybody.
(Applause)
(DE) What I have just read out to you is a wonderful sentence that describes what this is all about. It is a sentence uttered by the Spanish Prime Minister who sent his Secretary of State off to negotiate with ETA. It is a sentence spoken by the Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar in 1998. That is the spirit that can form the basis for us all to reach a common solution to this problem of violence, since what the Spanish Government is doing today is in the tradition of all the governments before it.
(Applause)
It would therefore be a good thing if we were able to attain a joint resolution. I do not always agree with Mr Aznar, which will not surprise you to hear, but on this issue he was right, dear members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and dear members of the Partido Popular, he was your party leader, after all. In this spirit we can agree, as one, that we are prepared, for the sake of such a fundamental right and through dialogue, to find a solution. Mr President, when Members of this House had to deal with terrorism in the past, they were always aware of the risks. When John Hume und David Trimble, Members of this House, set off together on the road to peace they were also aware that it is a road fraught with risk and that there is no guarantee of success. The gun heist in France yesterday - which we condemn in the strongest possible terms - shows that if you want to get out of the cycle of violence there is always the risk that someone will attempt to use violent means to block your road out of the deadlock. You cannot afford to be forced off this road, because what is the alternative? Remaining deadlocked means perpetuating the violence. The dialogue that has been entered into is thus a great opportunity, and I implore all of you, let us adopt this dialogue together on a common platform supported by all the groups.
(Applause from the left)
Graham Watson
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the European Union has been referred to as the greatest example of conflict resolution in history. We must be concerned with the remaining conflicts at home, just as we are concerned with conflicts beyond our Union.
It is not for us in the European Parliament to intervene directly between the Spanish Government, political parties and the long-running conflict in the Basque country, but nor can we turn a blind eye. We should encourage what may be the best prospect for peace in a generation.
I extend my solidarity and sympathy to all those families who have been bereaved of loved ones over the years as a result of the violence. But surely the most appropriate response that we, as democratic politicians, can bring to those countless victims is to ensure that there will be no more victims. It is for that reason that Liberals and Democrats lend their backing to the resolution before the House today. It is neither a time nor a subject for political point-scoring. It is my firm belief that all democratic forces who wish to see a peaceful end to violence and terror in the Basque country and elsewhere in Spain where atrocities have been committed should back the endeavours of whichever Spanish government is prepared to work to that end.
Earlier this year, this House welcomed the announcement of an ETA ceasefire. It is right that we now build on that and engage a process that entrenches it, without prejudging or commenting on the outcome of any political dialogue or settlement.
As with the Northern Ireland peace process, which is not identical but offers some important lessons for conflict resolution, it is occasionally necessary for politicians to take a risk for peace. I recall that our former colleague John Hume and his Unionist counterpart David Trimble were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998, following the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. They took a risk for peace. This is not to hand a victory to the terrorists, as some would suggest, but rather to hand them a defeat. For there can be no dialogue among democrats if one of the parties still maintains the intent to kill.
We should not imagine that building the house of peace will be easy. There will be setbacks, such as the discovery of a cache of weapons in south-west France. But it is our duty to build the house of peace with the bricks of effort and the mortar of persistence.
That is why my group appeals to all sides of this House today to set aside party politics and unite for the prospects of peace, as much as we stand together in revulsion at acts of terrorism.
(Applause from the left)
Monica Frassoni
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance supports the process opened up in Spain to finally put an end to the terrorism of ETA and find a solution to the Basque conflict. At the same time we reiterate our profound solidarity and respect for all of the victims of terrorism.
We support this process because it rejects violence, it leaves all options for a final solution open, it is not exclusive and it also gives the Basque political parties and Basque society in general responsibility in terms of putting an end to the so-called Basque conflict.
Debating this issue in the European Parliament does not mean interfering in the policy of a Member State. It simply means promoting a process already underway and restating that terrorism and violence affects all Europeans.
However difficult this process may be and however unsure its result, we support and we will continue to support those people who have decided to run the risk of taking a different direction to that of the Aznar Government, which quite clearly did not achieve any real results. As Gandhi stated, 'There is no path to peace. Peace is the path'.
We believe that it is appropriate to debate this process here and we have always been in favour of doing so, even when the People's Party was determined to bring this conflict to the European Parliament in order to gain support for its policy, a policy that we always believed to be mistaken, because it was based on the idea that, in order to defeat terrorism, it was necessary to divide Basque society rather than unite it.
The Basques and the majority of Spaniards are tired of this policy of confrontation. In our view, the key factors for the success of this process are dialogue, non-violence and respect for the citizens of the Basque country's right to decide. With these objectives in mind, we are going to support this process, as firm friends and allies in the fight against terrorism, against all forms of terrorism.
(Applause from the left)
Francis Wurtz
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FR) Mr President, my group has always condemned terrorist acts, whoever the perpetrators and whatever the scale of the acts and the reasons given to justify them. We are in favour of political struggle, with the exclusion of all forms of violence. We see violence as reprehensible in all circumstances except where, as provided for by the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a population, in the absence of the rule of law is 'compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression'. Even in this case, attacks on civilians are, in our opinion, to be prohibited. All the more reason for our having unreservedly and systematically condemned the attacks by ETA, which have killed hundreds of innocent people. We continue to remember these victims and express once again our solidarity with their loved ones.
For a long time, we have been hoping that this chapter could be closed, once and for all. We were therefore extremely pleased to welcome the announcement of the permanent ceasefire by ETA. We therefore also greatly appreciate the open and responsible attitude with which the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Zapatero, has taken this opportunity to endeavour to achieve peace, in particular in his speech on 28 June 2005, by choosing the path of dialogue while taking care to respect the laws and legal procedures in force in his country. The European Parliament would be honoured to lend its support to this move.
It is in this spirit that the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left has united with the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe through a joint resolution. I would add that we believe it would be a good thing for MEPs from other groups to also lend their support to a move that is nothing short of a reflection of the wishes of the majority of Spanish people, namely that a peace process be opened, based on legal grounds.
(Applause from the left)
Brian Crowley
on behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I would like to join with my colleagues in saying that today is a very sensitive occasion for us in Parliament. In all our deliberations we have to remember the victims of terrorist violence and, today in particular, the victims of ETA violence in Spain over the last few years. But we must also look to the future and ensure that there are no more victims, because political solutions will be found to the differences in Spain, France, and the European Union as a whole.
I believe it is wrong to draw parallels or to say all processes are exactly the same. However, previous peace processes can act as a guide to what might happen, the kind of difficulties to be overcome and the challenges to be faced. If dialogue is to succeed, both sides must be open. You cannot talk about a future process with one hand tied behind your back. You have to ensure that those with whom you have a dialogue are committed to reaching a compromise and finding a solution. And the most important thing to remember is that when you go into a peace process you have to make peace with your enemies, not with your friends, and that can create a lot of internal difficulties.
(Applause)
The opportunities now presented to us by this process should be grasped, but it should not be predetermined that everybody gets what they want. It is most important that we do not point the finger of blame at someone else from the Popular Party or from the Socialist Party, but encourage the main forces of democracy in Spain to unite in finding a solution for all of the people of Spain and not to be driven down the road of division and dissension. That is not in any way to undermine or to ignore the suffering people have gone through.
Can any of us imagine what it would be like to lose a loved one because of a so-called political cause? We in Ireland know what that is like - there have been 3 000 victims of terrorist violence in Ireland over the last 30 years - and yet we could find a way forward and bring extreme opinions together. An opportunity does present itself if people genuinely want to act.
Opportunity comes to pass but not to pause. Let us seize the opportunity and give our support.
(Applause from the left and the centre)
Jens-Peter Bonde
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Mr President, my group does not wish to involve itself in Spanish domestic politics, but there are principles of international law to which all countries are obliged to adhere. Sometimes, they do not provide a clear answer. The right of peoples to self-determination is an inviolable principle. Every people has the right to chose its own fate. Every nation has the right to its own country.
There are, however, only around 10 to 12 countries in the world where people, nation and geographical unit combine to form a higher unit. Everywhere else it is a question of negotiating solutions that are respected by the different peoples and nations that share the same territorial unit. The EU does not interfere in the forms of government of the Member States. This is an area in which they themselves have competence, whether they wish to have a unitary state, a federal community or devolved arrangements or to be divided into multiple states. The states must protect minorities and respect human rights. National discrimination is not permitted. So what can the EU do in the Basque Country to end terrorism and ensure a durable solution with peace and tolerance? We can encourage our fellow MEPs from Spain to find a negotiated solution and we can provide an economic carrot - financial support for economic development, jobs, training and education instead of terrorism.
I come from the border region between Denmark and Germany, where we have had wars and hatred for centuries. My grandfather was a German soldier with Danish sympathies. My father was conceived in Germany, but born in Denmark after Northern Schleswig rejoined Denmark following a referendum. Our national leader, Hans Peter Hansen, was a moderate who did not want areas that had German sympathies to rejoin Denmark, as Germany was on its knees after the First World War. What a stroke of luck! The reconciliation between Danes and Germans began, and now everyone recognises the border. Denmark grants the German minority more rights than it grants to Danes, and the same applies to the Danish minority in Germany, an example being exemption from the 5% electoral hurdle to qualification for parliamentary representation. Recognition, respected rights, special rights - these are the keys to understanding and lasting peace.
As a boy, a German-owned shop was not somewhere that I could buy things. Today, that seems incredible, and I now work with both the German minority in Denmark and the Danish minority in Germany. We drew up together the proposal for the protection of minorities in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I hope that the Basques and the other peoples of Spain will be able to reconcile their differences. The means of achieving reconciliation between Denmark and Germany proved to be a referendum on special rights. Referendums do not hurt as much as bullets and gunpowder. It is indeed possible to put the past behind you.
(Applause)
James Hugh Allister
Mr President, coming from Northern Ireland, which has experienced what at times was euphemistically called a peace process, I see uncanny parallels and lessons to be learned. ETA-Batasuna and IRA-Sinn Féin are both revolutionary Marxist-based organisations intent on foisting their will and ideology on a civilian population through vicious violence as and when required. It is not surprising that deep terrorist links have existed between them. Both, moreover, are expert in hijacking the language of peace, while glorying in past and even continuing exploits of terror as they adeptly dodge from one phase of struggle to another.
Learn from our mistakes. In 1994 the IRA announced a ceasefire, which proved merely tactical as 18 months later they launched the infamous Canary Wharf bombing attack and dipped in and out of terror as it suited. In 1998 they promised to decommission within two years, and yet it was not until 2005 that they made any notable delivery. They were foolishly and prematurely admitted to government in Northern Ireland, only to launch their 'Stormontgate' spy ring within that government. In late 2004 they purported to engage in genuine political negotiations while, at the same time, planning the biggest heist in UK history - the Northern Bank robbery - and weeks later IRA men murdered Robert McCartney. Now they want back into government, but think they should keep their Army Council.
Therefore, do not be taken in by mere proclamations of commitments to peace by those whose stock in trade is duplicity and mayhem! Test them long and test them hard, or you too will have your goodwill exploited.
President
To conclude this debate, two motions for resolutions have been presented pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12.30 p.m. after the formal sitting with the President of the Republic of Hungary.


Equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Riera Madurell, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on transposition and application of Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
Teresa Riera Madurell
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, the directive referred to in the report is an amended version of a 1978 directive on the same subject, prepared in the light of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the case-law developed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the new social realities. It is a version that incorporates key elements of the improvement in women's rights, which are those assessed in this report.
The legal text presents the definition of direct and indirect discrimination, assault and sexual assault; it requires Member States to encourage employers to adopt measures that prevent all forms of gender discrimination; and it safeguards workers' rights following maternity or paternity leave.
By implementing this Directive, the Member States not only commit themselves to establishing equality bodies that promote, assess, implement and support equal treatment, but also undertake to instigate social dialogue, with the aim of promoting equal treatment in the workplace through collective agreements, in a planned manner. They also commit to strengthening the role of NGOs in promoting equality, to establishing effective measures to penalise those who do not abide by the provisions of the directive, and to implementing protective measures for those who provide support to victims.
If the Commission had been able to draw up the report which, according to the directive itself, is mandatory every four years, our evaluation work would have been relatively simple. For that to have been so, all the Member States should have transposed the directive within the given time period, done so properly and submitted all the information to the Commission. That, however, was not the situation we found ourselves in when we began.
When the deadline for transposing the Directive had passed, nine Member States had not provided information on the measures they had adopted in order to transpose it. The Commission had then initiated infringement proceedings and, in May of last year, proceedings were still underway against two Member States. Furthermore, due to the directive's complexity and the new elements it contained, the Commission had detected problems with its transposition in 22 Member States, although it was expecting to resolve many of those through dialogue.
In order to make a report that was thorough, useful and as complete as possible, we needed to have more data available and therefore also decided to request information from Member States. With the information provided by the Commission, that received from Member States - through their equality bodies and national parliaments - and the contributions from my colleagues in the various groups, we were able to write this report, which now provides a clear idea of how the transposition process is progressing in each of the Member States.
After this experience, I would like to stress that collaboration between the national parliaments and the European Parliament was fundamental in enabling us to do our job properly. Without the information provided by the parliaments and equality bodies, we would not have been able to write this report, at least not as thoroughly as we have done; nor would it have been possible without the mutual collaboration that we have been able to establish with the Commission, or without the invaluable help provided by the services of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, my office and the services of my parliamentary group. I would like to extend my thanks to all of these women. I also wish to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their contributions and their willingness.
From the very beginning, our aim was for our work to be not merely thorough and useful, but the result of the broadest possible consensus, since we needed to gain an accurate picture of how the transposition was progressing. This directive is highly important, since it equips the European Union with very effective tools that enable Member States to strengthen their legislation on equal treatment in the workplace - something that is fundamental if we are to achieve the goals we have set ourselves as Europeans.
We should not forget that even today in the European Union there is a 28.4% difference in employment rates between men and women, that we are a long way off the Lisbon target of achieving 60% female employment by 2010 and that, in addition, women earn on average 15% less than men.
If this report also serves to further awaken people's consciences on this matter in Member States, then we can be doubly satisfied.
Androulla Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's report on this important Directive, and we thank Mrs Madurell for her hard work on this.
Directive 2002/73/EC is an important tool for fighting gender discrimination in access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions. It has significantly improved Community law in this field, with clearer definitions of types of discrimination and a number of innovative legal solutions. They include provisions for the protection of pregnant women and women on maternity leave, the involvement of social partners and NGOs in ensuring gender equality in the workplace, and the establishment of equality bodies.
This report is of special importance given the many inequalities still affecting men and women in the area of employment. It draws the attention of the Member States, the Commission, the social partners and civil society to the Directive's key provisions and stresses the need for full implementation. It can therefore contribute to greater compliance with the Directive and to greater awareness of the Community legislation on equal treatment of men and women.
As the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission continues to monitor closely implementation of the Directive in the Member States. It is keeping up the dialogue with the Member States in connection with infringement procedures, with a view to ensuring the Directive is properly implemented.
In fulfilment of its reporting obligation under the Directive, the Commission will adopt a report in the first half of this year on the Directive's application in all Member States and will communicate this to Parliament and the Council.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Proinsias De Rossa
in writing. - The Irish Equality Authority is considered to be a model of good practice. Yet, the Irish Government has recently cut its budget by some 43% and fast-tracked the decentralisation of the Authority, at a time when the Government's overall programme of decentralisation of public bodies is being halted.
Indeed, Mr Niall Crowley, Chief Executive Officer of Ireland's Equality Authority, has resigned as CEO stating 'the Equality Authority has been rendered unviable by the decision [...] to cut its funding by 43% and to continue the decentralisation of its staff' and that '[T]he work of the Equality Authority has been fatally compromised'. Moreover, a further six members of the Equality Authority's board have now also resigned.
This report urges Member States to develop capacities and ensure adequate resources for the bodies promoting equal treatment and equal gender opportunities provided for in Directive 2002/73/EC. It also restates the Directive's requirement of ensuring the independence of those bodies.
The Irish Government is clearly in breach of the directive because it evidently has no intention to either adequately resource or ensure the independence of an authority whose funding it has almost halved forcing the resignation of half its board.
Louis Grech
in writing. - In light of the persisting gap between men and women in terms of employment rates, wages and access to management positions, I call on Member States to speed up the implementation of Directive 2002/73/EC, while ensuring that its provisions are fully and effectively transposed in the national legislation. With a financial crisis unfolding, I am concerned that a slow or low quality implementation of this directive is likely to exacerbate the gender inequalities, endanger the fulfilment of the Lisbon strategy goals and prevent the EU from developing the full potential of its economic capacity.
Regrettable is also the choice of certain Member States to limit the scope of the prohibited types of discrimination, thus only partially complying with the Directive 2002/73/EC. It is disappointing that despite numerous studies on the subject, some national lawmakers are still neglecting the destructive effects of discrimination and sexual harassment on employee morale and productivity.
To better implement anti-discrimination and harassment practices it is necessary to engage stakeholders at grass-roots level, through information campaigns, use of NGOs, and also by more formal instruments such as including special provisions in collective agreements and national legislation relative to gender equality.
Zita Pleštinská
in writing. - (SK) The adoption of a piece of European legislation initiates the process of transposing and applying the directive in each Member State. The European Parliament carefully monitors the transposition of every directive, one example of which is the report from my fellow Member Teresa Riera Madurell examining the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women.
The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality works intensively to draw attention to the fact that gender-based discrimination still persists in many areas of social and political life . Slow and low-quality implementation of Directive 2002/73/EC puts at risk the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy and the development of the full potential of the EU's social and economic capacity.
I call on the Commission and Member States to introduce clear, detailed and measurable equal treatment indicators and standards for evaluating gender relations. I believe that the gender institute which is coming into operation will greatly contribute through its activities to the field of gender equality.
I firmly believe that a successful transposition of this directive can be achieved by sharing best practices and adopting positive measures in areas where discrimination has been identified.
Rovana Plumb
I was pleased to read on the European Parliament's website that the topic of equal treatment for women and men is in a distinguished third place among the most read news items in 2008. The huge interest in this topic shows us however that there is still a great deal to do, especially in the area of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion. In this respect, Teresa Riera Madurell's report is a success thanks to clarifying the role of employers and civil society in promoting gender equality.
I think that the Commission has an extremely important role to play in the battle to establish equal treatment for women and men in the workplace. It needs to verify primarily the way in which EU Member States have taken positive action in relation to the disadvantages women have encountered during their professional career. I am also referring in particular to the integration and observance of the principle of gender equality in the Member States' administrative and political decisions.
At the same time as submitting the reports to the Commission every four years, each Member State needs to offer a coherent presentation of the actual sanctions to be imposed for infringements of this directive, which would very much help to establish the exchange of experience and good practice.


2. Bangladesh
President
The next item is the debate on the six motions for resolutions on Bangladesh.
Jaromír Kohlíček
author. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, Bangladesh is one of the world's most overcrowded and poorest countries. In the 1940s Bangladesh was divided into two sections on the basis of religion, which failed to ease an already complicated situation. The subsequent war of independence with Pakistan only served to exacerbate the extreme poverty, and not only in the provinces.
In the country's constitution, there is a special mechanism for placing power into the hands of the incumbent government during the preparation of elections. It is known the world over that microloans have been a great success. Less well known is that this success has, in this strongly Islamic country, been due especially to the commitment of women. As in any vastly overcrowded and very poor country, there are huge problems with inadequate infrastructure and with religious and ethic intolerance. I believe that these problems can be reduced and that the secular tradition can prevail.
A difficult problem in any election, and not only in developing countries, is the question of who is eligible to vote. In Bangladesh the problem is exacerbated by the fact that a section of the population is illiterate. The next most important thing after factually correct electoral registers is for candidates to have the opportunity to present their manifestos. It is no wonder that the proposed text of the resolution also highlights this. I should like to emphasise at this point that I do not believe that the recognition or otherwise of journalists by any country in the world can serve as a yardstick of democratisation. In any event, freedom of the press is closely associated with the democratic competition of ideas and manifestos. This is something that must not under any circumstances be compromised in the run-up to elections. Similarly, it is the permanent responsibility of all governments to eliminate terrorist groups.
A more complex issue is how to define the word terrorist, and how to fight terrorism in a democratic society. At the last meeting of the group for cooperation with Southeast Asian countries, which I had the honour of chairing, those in attendance expressed the view that it is possible for genuinely democratic elections to take place in Bangladesh.
The observations contained in the motion for a resolution made their mark in the meeting I chaired, and I believe that sending a European Parliament observation mission will help towards the democratic running of the elections.
The Confederal Group of the European United Left / Nordic Green Left supports the motion for a resolution before us, and I believe that we must support the process of democratisation in Bangladesh, including helping to make these elections as democratic as possible.
Frédérique Ries
author. - (FR) Mr President, Bangladesh, land of democratic tradition, of respect for human rights, of independence of the judiciary and of freedom of the press that it is, is today plagued by the rise of violent Islamic fundamentalism. The last 'Reporters without Borders' report reveals hundreds of attacks on freedom of the press. This year alone, three journalists have been killed, at least 95 others have been attacked and dozens, if not hundreds, of correspondents have been forced to flee after being intimidated for writing articles that are deemed to be 'un-Islamic'.
If it was my wish for Parliament urgently to voice its opinion on this situation today, it is because, right now, in Dhaka, Salah Choudhury is standing trial for sedition. This journalist, the editor of the Weekly Blitz, is a fervent supporter of moderate Islam, who advocates openness and dialogue between religions and recognition by his country of the State of Israel. For these reasons and for these reasons alone, he is in danger today of being sentenced to death.
We urge the Commission to follow the developments in this trial so as to ensure that the rights of the defendant, together with the international conventions on freedom of the press, are respected.
Since I have a few seconds left, I should like to declare my support for the interim government's efforts to ensure that the pre-election process also complies with international democratic standards: the establishment of an appropriate electoral register, a truly independent electoral commission and, I shall come back to it once again, the balance and freedom of the media during the election campaign, of course. It is quite clear that the country's four private television channels have difficulty in putting forward a different point of view to that of the government if they want to keep their licences.
Two terrorist leaders have been arrested in Bangladesh; continued efforts must be made to disarm the Islamic militias that are trying to put pressure on the voters on the eve of the election. We expect the government to confirm its commitment in this regard, too.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
author. - (PL) Mr President, Bangladesh is an important partner for the European Union. It is a country which has made significant economic progress during the last few years. At the moment, its most famous citizen is Mohammad Junus, who received the Nobel Peace Prize this year for his contribution to the fight against poverty by means of a system of microcredits.
However, Bangladesh is not struggling just with poverty, but also with corruption and an increasingly antagonistic attitude displayed by followers of Islam. The creation of the caretaker government headed by President Iajuddin Ahmed was met with protests from Bangladeshi society. According to reports by external observers and the Awami League, the authorities illegally increased the voting lists for the upcoming elections by 13 million surnames. The caretaker government must guarantee free elections which comply with international standards. The independence of the electoral committee also needs to be guaranteed and the electoral roll simply needs to be credible.
An agreement between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the Awami League and the other parties on the creation of a common economic programme, which is vital in order to improve the living conditions and civil liberties of the people of Bangladesh would undoubtedly be a basis for political stability in the country. Under the terms of key international human rights conventions, the interim government has to combat lawlessness, extra-judicial executions and torture, which are usually the work of the police or the security forces.
Meanwhile, the situation is as follows: last year three journalists were killed and nearly 100 people were victims of intimidation or sustained physical injuries. Attacks on staff of non-governmental organisations are increasing from day to day. Religious minorities, namely Hindus and Christians, are living in danger. Rape and human trafficking involving women and children are commonplace. The impression is that everything that has been achieved in terms of democracy in the country is disappearing as a result of the growing violence on the part of Islamic fundamentalists.
The Council and the European Commission should systematically monitor the human rights situation in Bangladesh. They should also monitor the situation as regards freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We hope that the planned European Union observation mission to Bangladesh, to supervise the forthcoming elections in January, will help to ensure that the election process is democratic.
Thomas Mann
author. - (DE) Mr President, it was a fortnight ago that it all started, when the outgoing prime minister of Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia, made a controversial address on the television, whereupon violent clashes broke out in the capital, Dhaka, in which three people were killed and hundreds injured.
The opposition charged Zia with filling the key posts in her interim government with sympathisers, accused the head of the electoral commission of being biased and asserted that there were 13 million invalid names in the electoral register. More violence broke out at the beginning of this week, with all transit routes to Dhaka by land or water being blockaded, journalists attacked and seriously wounded, 20 000 members of the security forces firing tear gas and rubber bullets in street battles, all of which left seventeen people dead and thousands injured.
There are increasing attacks by Islamists on adherents of other religions, and I condemn, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the acts of bloody violence and the constant assaults by Islamic extremists on religious minorities such as Christians, Ahmadis and Hindus, and the suppression of press freedom, which other Members have already denounced.
Those in power - who belong to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party - and the Awami League opposition, must bury their personal animosities once and for all and embark upon purposeful dialogue. A date has been set for elections, and it must be kept to; the electoral commission must start preparing for them now, and that means, above all else, making sure that the electoral register is correct.
The conditions currently prevailing - which are tantamount to civil war - must be normalised as soon as possible, with the Islamists being disarmed. The citizens must be enabled to avail themselves of their right to vote without fear of reprisals in order that democracy may be given a chance.
I welcome the Commission's willingness to send election observers to Bangladesh, and this House should resolve to do likewise.
Gérard Onesta
author. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, a few weeks ago, the European Parliament, in the context of its interparliamentary delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia, invited over a great many representatives of Bangladeshi civil society, and it was very interesting.
It was very interesting, firstly, to see the reaction of the Bangladeshi ambassador, who had been nominated, the poor man, that very day and who was getting to grips with what Parliament was all about on that occasion: he saw the devastation that democracy and transparency can cause when they are applied! We did, indeed, learn many things that day, which was very useful because the representatives of your Commission who were present were not really keen, at the start of the morning, to go and ascertain what was taking place on the ground. Having heard what we all heard, they were well and truly obliged, at the end of the meeting, to acknowledge that intervention was needed, so serious is the situation on the ground.
I shall not go back over what was said by my fellow Members regarding the poverty, corruption, violence and torture - torture inflicted not only by the squadrons of the various militias, but also by the police. The figures in this regard are terrible: in 2005, 2 297 cases of torture were recorded as having been carried out by the police. I shall mention the case of the journalist, Mr Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who is in danger of being sentenced to death on the sole grounds that he expressed his opinion freely: this is totally unbearable! I could also quote a figure that comes from your Commission, Commissioner: your own services estimate that more than 13 million invalid names have been added to the electoral register. How can elections be contemplated when it is already clear that there will be such a huge amount of fraud, so much organised fraud?
That is why, over and above the vote in favour that the vast majority of us are, I hope, going to cast today, the Commission really must provide itself with all of the resources needed to send out signals on the ground aimed at making the government quickly move the goalposts, so as to bring it into line with the democratic standards that existed in this country a few years ago, and to thus put a stop to the institutional violence that is sadly degenerating into social violence.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, it must be a top EU priority to ensure free and fair elections next year in Bangladesh, a traditionally secular and democratic country of 140 million people.
For many years since its foundation in 1971, Bangladesh was the exception in the Islamic world as it pursued its independent course as a Bengali nation in a peaceful and democratic fashion. Regrettably, since 2001 there has been increasing Islamicisation of Bangladesh as Islamists have attempted to fill the vacuum left by corrupt warring secular parties. The NGO Task Force against Torture has documented over 500 cases of torture and intimidation by radical Islamists who have also murdered supporters of the Communist Party. Indeed, Hindus, Ahmadis, Christians, Chittagong Hill Tract tribal people and Buddhists have also been targeted.
Recent civil unrest took to the streets with violent outbreaks as the Awami League opposition doubted the impartiality of the electoral commission, the integrity of the voters' list or even the impartiality of the original caretaker prime ministerial nominee.
The EU-Bangladesh Cooperation Agreement of 2000 is based on respect for democratic principles pursuant to Article 1, and its breach can lead to the suspension of the agreement and with it the significant EU Generalised System of Tariff Preferences and EU foreign aid, which amounts to 70% of Bangladesh's total foreign aid.
The EU and all the major donors must now coordinate to keep up the pressure for reform and full respect for democracy, a free press and human rights for all of Bangladesh's citizens prior to the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place next January. We must send short-term political observers from the European Parliament in substantial numbers. These elections are crucial and it is essential that the EU maintains a visible major presence throughout the Caretaker Government period, as otherwise some frustrated, power-hungry general might consider launching a military coup.
Marek Aleksander Czarnecki
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, as I am sure we are aware, the people of the Ganges and Brahmaputra deltas do not conceal their admiration for the Afghan Taliban and also want, in their country, to emulate Mullah Omar's Emirate of Afghanistan. In order to achieve their ends, these holy warriors resort unscrupulously to violence.
It was unfortunate that the government of Bangladesh did not take initial warnings about the rapid rise of these terrorist groups seriously enough. Events have quickly proved that they are not a figment of the fevered imaginations of jealous opposition leaders or sensation-hungry journalists. Many of them have paid the highest price for revealing the truth, and many others have been forced to flee the country.
In this situation, it is reassuring to know that two people have been arrested on suspicion of leading terrorist groups. However, we must not be satisfied with that. If we thoroughly examine the situation in this country, which for many years has failed to comply with recognised European standards in the field of human rights, in spite of drastic measures taken by the government to prevent extremist violence against religious minorities, we are still witnessing chilling and nightmarish events.
The country is also beset by many other problems, which is why I wholeheartedly support the Commission's decision to send an Election Observation Mission and to ask the European Parliament to do the same.
Kathy Sinnott
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, as Members of the European Parliament we claim to be committed to human rights. I therefore hope we take a strong stance in relation to Mr Choudhury's plight.
Mr Choudhury is a journalist facing charges of sedition in connection with a series of articles he published that Bangladeshi authorities deemed favourable to Israel and critical of Muslim extremism. His points in favour of moderation and dialogue will surely be supported by every Member of this House. Nothing he said is without grounding and in any modern-day democratic country such articles would considered objective and informative to the public.
This is not the case, however, in Bangladesh, where Mr Choudhury has been put on trial and could be executed for his articles. He has received death threats and been assaulted, imprisoned, beaten and tortured. Mr Choudhury is now facing an unfair trial and has little chance of seeing justice. The presiding judge has commented in open court that Mr Choudhury has hurt the sentiments of Muslims. It is clear that the judge is hoping for a death sentence.
As Members of the European Parliament, we cannot stand idly by while an innocent journalist is facing an unfair trial and probable death. I am glad to see his situation specifically mentioned in this resolution, as well as support for free and fair elections in Bangladesh.
(Applause)
Olli Rehn
Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission shares Parliament's concerns and welcomes the opportunity to discuss Bangladesh today.
The country is at a critical juncture of its fragile democracy. Much is at stake with the forthcoming elections in this densely populated country. Regrettably, however, the institutional framework and the acrimonious relations between the two main political parties do not bode well for a peaceful and democratic electoral process.
Over the last weeks and months, the Commission and the seven Member States with representations in Dhaka, as well as the wider international community, have been intensely engaged with the main party leaders and election stakeholders, urging all of them to agree on an electoral framework that achieves the trust of all parties. The EU regional Troika in February, local EU Presidency representatives and several high-level visits from the Commission and Member States have consistently emphasised the need for impartial guidance of the country by the Caretaker Government in the pre-electoral period, a neutral Election Commission, and a credible voter list.
As you might be aware, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner has taken the political decision to deploy an EU Election Observation mission for these elections. Preparation for the deployment of EU observers, including internal procedures between the institutions for financing the mission, are currently under way. In her letter to the President, or Chief Adviser, she underlines the above issues as the key concerns of the European Union.
The mission would be deployed around six weeks before election day, and it would remain in the country for some two to three weeks after that day, in order to follow the post-election period, particularly in the light of the unfortunate possibility of post-election violence, especially against minorities.
The Commission shares Parliament's concerns over the widespread violence against journalists. The fact that the latest report by Reporters sans Frontières categorises Bangladesh as an extremely dangerous place for journalists unfortunately speaks for itself. The Commission has consistently condemned the intimidation and high level of impunity that apply to violent acts against journalists in that country.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debate.


23. Establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin (
Before the vote:
Avril Doyle
rapporteur. - Mr President, this legislation is very necessary as the current legislation on residue control has led to a serious decrease in the availability of authorised veterinary medicines, creating adverse effects for public and animal health and welfare.
I would like to urge the presidency, particularly the incoming French Minister, to make this dossier a priority to help to resolve the crisis in availability, especially for what we call minor uses and so-called minor species, which include sheep, horses, bees, fish and many other animals that are not so minor in many of our countries.
However, there is an urgent need to review the Veterinary Medicines Directive according to the outcome of the task force on the availability of veterinary medicines.
This legislation is just a Band-Aid in terms of the necessity out there. While I welcome it, I urge the incoming French Presidency to give it the priority it needs.


General revision of the Rules of Procedure (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Corbett, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the general revision of _Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
Richard Corbett
rapporteur. - Mr President, I intend to use somewhat less than my four minutes now in introducing it and maybe a little longer when I reply at the end, if there are questions that need clarification.
This report is the fruit of a lot of work. The sources of the reforms that we would hope to introduce to our Rules of Procedure come in part from the work of the Reform Working Group established by the Conference of Presidents, ably chaired by my colleague, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, who made a number of proposals that were approved by the Conference of Presidents and have been forwarded to us to translate as best we can into the Rules of Procedure.
The second source is a lot of smaller changes that, in many ways, have been in the pipeline for a long time but, rather than have a string of reports changing the rules on minor points, we have grouped them together. Some of these are technical; some are clarifying and make our rules more readable, such as the one that puts together Rules 141, 142 and 143 into a single codified text governing how we actually organise our debates in plenary. Related to that is the innovative amendment to say that we should have this blue card procedure to be able to interrupt each other. Mr Duff for instance, right now, may want to put a question to me about what I said, and I would let him do so for 30 seconds under this rule, if it is adopted. I am sure, Mr President, you would already let him do so now if he wanted, but, fortunately, he does not want to.
So there are some innovative features that should make our debates a little more lively. I remember when I first proposed the catch-the-eye period at the end of ordinary debates, everyone said: oh, no, we cannot do that, it will mess up the speaking time of the groups, and so on. Yet we now do it, and it is an accepted part of our procedures and very much welcomed, I think, by most Members. I would suggest that maybe the blue card procedure will be the same: there are some hesitations now, but let us try it out, let us see how it works, and I am confident we can make it work.
There have also been some amendments which arose as we discussed this, either at committee stage or now in plenary. For instance, there was a suggestion that all final votes on legislation should automatically be by roll-call vote - I think that came from Ms Dahl. I welcome that amendment, and we have put it in my report. There have been suggestions from many Members that we put something in the rule about intergroups, if only actually to delimit very clearly what they are and what they are not, to show that they are informal and that they may not take over the responsibilities of parliamentary bodies.
So there are a lot of interesting things in here. There is also the amendment to deal with the odd system we have that our opening session is chaired by the oldest Member instead of, for instance, the outgoing President, which happens in some parliaments - or an outgoing Vice-President, even, if the President were not re-elected, perhaps. That is a rather sensible improvement to our procedures.
I will wind up there. I have not used all my time, but, if I need to, I am happy to come back at the end and answer questions or queries.
József Szájer
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I would like to welcome this proposal and also to thank Richard Corbett for his hard, and not always rewarding, work.
Very often when we change the Rules of Procedure our colleagues get worried about what is happening. Most of them only realise what has happened and what changes we have made once it has come into effect, by which time it can no longer be changed. I firmly support most of the proposals which have been tabled, especially because they reflect not just your hard work, but also - as you mentioned - that of the parliamentary reform group chaired by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, which prepared this proposal very well.
However, during the parliamentary reform process, I also made it clear for our group when we had our discussions that this report on parliamentary reform has to be approved by changes to the Rules of Procedure. This is a democratic procedure ending in a vote. Nothing could be changed just by discussions in that group and we worked very much along these lines.
I would also like to mention that I was somewhat critical about what has just been mentioned, namely that some of the informal procedures which we have in the Parliament are institutionalised. I am somewhat afraid because if we have a custom, then it is better to keep it as a custom and not necessarily change the rules.
For our group, the most important point is, however, proportionality. In our Parliament, the committees have very strong roles. In preparing the votes here in Parliament they take a lot of the burden from this House by voting in committee. It is not just a simple question of procedure, but a question of democracy, that the committees reflect the proportions which exist in plenary when important issues are decided. I think this is a basic question of democracy and, on behalf of the PPE-DE, support the report.
Costas Botopoulos
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I am one of those curious constitutional animals who think that the Rules of Procedure mirror our own work here in our own Parliament. So I think this is an important piece of work by Richard Corbett, who is the eminent specialist in this field. To his credit I must say that this is the second modification of the Rules of Procedure. There are things that have changed very recently and that we are changing again, because we have seen that the practice of our Parliament demands that those changes be made.
I have one general remark and three specific ones to put before you tonight. The general remark is that I think it is also very important to talk about the second aspect of Mr Corbett's report: the impact of the Lisbon Treaty upon our Rules of Procedure. It is very important to talk about that too, because a change to the Rules of Procedure without that second part would be imperfect.
My three specific remarks: the first one concerns a modification in which I played a small part myself. It is the fact that we are trying to put into the Rules of Procedure this idea of an agora, of the possibility for citizens, too, to address the European Parliament and to participate in discussions before the European Parliament. I think this is a symbolically important initiative that we took together with my friend and colleague Gérard Onesta, and I think it would be a good thing if that were to be enshrined in the Rules of Procedure.
The second thing that is, I think, of importance is the change we have made to the own-initiative reports: the fact that, having seen how the own-initiative reports have been in practice, we are reintroducing the possibility for amendments, albeit by one 10th of parliamentarians. The third aspect is this blue card procedure. I am in favour of everything that will enliven our parliamentary discussions here, so this possibility for parliamentarians to interrupt one another in a civilised way and to speak like that is a good idea.
Andrew Duff
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first I would like to thank Mr Corbett for his work. The ALDE Group will support the package. It is a modernising reform of the House, which we appreciate: it will make us more efficient and more pluralistic, and I hope in the end it will make us more attractive to public opinion and, indeed, the press.
I have two or three quibbles, however. The first is on the point that Mr Szájer spoke about: the attempt to force committees to be rigidly proportionate to the disposition of parties in Parliament. I think it is actually perfectly proper for a political group to express a preference to put more of its members on a committee that it regards as especially important. I think that, if we pass Amendment 42, then the groups and Members will find it frustrating, and it will require, in the end, greater flexibility.
I would also like to defend strongly the changes agreed in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to Rule 45(2) that Costas Botopoulos has just spoken about. I think we need to have a fall-back position to improve the own-initiative reports if they require it, and our experience since July, when that previous change was brought in, has exposed the fact that they frequently require improvement in the plenary.
I would also like to commend Amendment 68 concerning the recasting procedure. I think Parliament has constrained itself too tightly, and we should more properly reflect the interinstitutional agreement of 2001 in our procedures to permit committees to talk about substantive changes to parts of directives or regulations that the Commission is seeking to recast, but in a very restricted form.
Finally, I am seeking to take out the addition of split and separate votes to the procedure that will permit the President to refer back to a committee a report which has attracted more than 50 substantive amendments.
Monica Frassoni
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance have never had much time for the great parliamentary reforms carried out by Mr Corbett - he is a friend of mine and we have worked together for many years, he is aware of this and he will not hold it against me - because they tend to turn our Parliament into a bureaucratic machine where the role of individual MEPs and minority groups and even the committees must be subject to the growing, partly arbitrary, decisionmaking power of the Conference of Presidents and the administration. In addition, they make the relationship between the primary committee and committees asked for an opinion in the legislative procedure confused and basically conflictual.
I must say I am staggered that this evening, in this debate, we are not talking about the things that we consider to be the fundamental problems in this procedural reform. The first thing is the confusion that will inevitably be created between the primary committee and the committee asked for an opinion, because when the primary committee rejects the amendments of the committee asked for an opinion, these amendments might end up directly in the Chamber, obviously creating an extremely risky potential for legal confusion - as we also incidentally saw in the case of REACH.
No committee asked for an opinion is, furthermore, actually free to carry out its work, due to the confused and absolutely unacceptable mechanism represented by the possibility of making joint votes and having joint rapporteurs on topics particularly important to our legislative power.
Lastly, Mr President, there is another element that concerns us very much. One of the outcomes to emerge from the working group on internal reform, of which I was a part, and that we originally considered positive, was the proposal to strengthen the powers and the role of the Committee on Petitions in a truly significant manner. In this reform, however, the role of the Committee on Petitions has been killed off, in the sense that it will no longer be possible for the Committee on Petitions to find its way directly to the Chamber except after unspeakable complications and possible conflicts with the competent committee.
For all these reasons, our group considers that this reform is not ready and we believe that it would be an error by a majority of our Parliament to adopt it.
President
Thank you, Mrs Frassoni. Mr Corbett will naturally have the right of reply, but I cannot fail to note that Mrs Frassoni used a red card while waiting to try out the blue card.
Hanne Dahl
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (DA) Mr President, rules of procedure form the basis of all work in a democratically elected House. Clear rules ensure that everyone participating in the political process is treated equally. You cannot change the requirements in order to keep certain groups, persons or attitudes from having influence. You cannot bend the rules just because it suits you to do so.
In the past week, for example, the Conference of Presidents discussed an application to circumvent the vote on the Staes report. Fortunately, the Legal Service rejected this. The result of a vote must stand. Consequently, my group, too, has tabled amendments that would make all voting electronic. This would enable us to avoid mistakes and at the same time ensure that we have a quorum. I call upon the Members to vote in favour of these amendments.
Jo Leinen
(DE) Mr President, to reform the European Union is difficult, but to reform the European Parliament is even more difficult, as we have seen in the debate on the revision of the Rules of Procedure and the work of our fellow Member Richard Corbett. I would like to thank Mr Corbett for the truly enormous commitment he has shown, to bring the many different interests under one umbrella and to carry this revision of our Rules of Procedure through to the plenum. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament will support this report.
We are waiting for the Treaty of Lisbon; then Parliament will have more legislative powers and we must get ready to place legislating at the heart of our work. Initiative reports will have to take second place; legislation needs to come first.
We must also be more robust in our work around the world. Journeys by parliamentary delegations to different countries, to different parts of the world must be linked to Parliament's technical committees. If a delegation is dealing with a subject like climate change or social protection, experts from the relevant technical committee should be on board as well.
I welcome the fact that we are making our debates more attractive: in future it is not the red card, but the blue card that will bring more dynamism. This is excellent. Cooperation between committees, these joint committees, that is a test run, because the previous practice was unsatisfactory. Let us be honest, the advising committee had almost no chance. In this respect, the trial with joint sittings by two committees is a new attempt to devise something better.
This reform is essential. It is also good that we are doing it before the elections and not postponing it until the next legislative period. I would once more like to thank Mr Corbett and all those who participated.
Andrzej Wielowieyski
(FR) Mr President, although excellent, Mr Corbett's report unfortunately includes a serious error. Our aim is to provide high-quality parliamentary services. We must therefore avoid mistakes and be able to improve the texts.
Only Amendment 8, which concerns Rule 45, will enable us, with the support of 75 Members - which will not be easy to obtain - to table amendments in the Chamber. The rapporteur and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs have decided to reject this procedure, for fear of being swamped with amendments.
The changes we proposed, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, sought to grant this right to two or three political groups. We have coordinators and shadow rapporteurs who are competent and follow the legislative process.
Rejecting the change proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs amounts to denying the power to improve a text within the framework of a normal procedure, which is a serious error.
Nils Lundgren
. - (SV) Thank you, Mr President. Schadenfreude is the only true joy, says the cynic. However, even those of us who are not cynical naturally admit that Schadenfreude is a form of joy, and it is this sort of joy that I am feeling now. Why? Well, last year we in the June List and the Independence and Democracy Group started to request roll-call votes in all final votes. I remember how President Pöttering scolded us, derided us and claimed that it cost the earth. Now the committee is proposing that all final votes on legislative proposals be conducted as roll-call votes. And quite rightly, too! In order to be able to demand political responsibility from their MEPs, voters must be able to check how they voted. How did Mr Hannan, Mrs Wallis or Mrs Svensson vote, to name just a few of my favourite Members? This proposal constitutes an important step towards a democratic process and it strengthens voters' control of the 'yes-men' in this House. I would like to thank Mr Corbett for this and to thank the President for allowing me to speak.
Bruno Gollnisch
(FR) Mr President, in reality, if a quorum were to apply to our deliberations, imagine what would happen. There are only 11 of us present today taking part in debates on extremely important issues, which concern the next Parliament. This is why I believe that the very principle underlying these changes is highly questionable.
What is even more questionable - irrespective of the work carried out by Mr Corbett - is an amendment which has been rejected by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs being referred back to us by the two main groups in this House in order to modify - in circumstances we know full well concern a specific individual - the traditional provision common to all parliaments of the world according to which the inaugural session is chaired by the oldest Member.
This provision is particularly valid, and wanting to change it simply because the next oldest Member might not be agreeable to the majority groups is clearly an especially underhand measure. For that matter, this sums up Parliament's problem. I will have been a Member for 20 years soon. I have noticed that each time the minority exercises a right, the Rules of Procedure are changed. It would be better to repeal the Rules of Procedure and then just accept the will of the majority groups.
Richard Corbett
rapporteur. - Mr President, may I first begin by thanking my shadow rapporteurs, who have got to grips with the detail of this issue: Mr Szájer, Mr Duff, Mrs Frassoni and Mrs Dahl. Without their help and work we would not have been able to bring this work to fruition.
May I secondly confirm what has been mentioned already. This report was actually split into two. There is another report which we have not brought to plenary yet - which we will have to revisit in the next Parliament - concerning how we adapt our procedures to the Lisbon Treaty if it comes into force. We were, of course, looking at this as preparation, without prejudice to the ratification that will, hopefully, take place tomorrow in the Czech Senate and later in the year in Ireland, but we will return to that with the preparatory work having been done if the Treaty is ratified.
Secondly, may I confirm that, indeed, there are rules here which revisit, as Mr Szájer pointed out, recent reforms that flowed from the first report of Dagmar Roth-Behrendt's reform working group. It concerns this question of initiative reports, where we have a procedure which many Members feel is a little bit too inflexible now. We have made it slightly more flexible. For a start, the debate will not just be a short presentation by the rapporteur, a reply from the Commission and that is it. There will be up to 10 minutes of catch-the-eye possible for such occasions.
Secondly, when it comes to amendments, these are now prohibited for own-initiative reports. Instead, groups can table an alternative motion for resolution. That right would continue, but in addition we would allow amendments if they are tabled by a 10th of the Members of the House. Mr Wielowieyski, who has just left us, has criticised that point, but at the moment there is no right to amend initiative reports whatsoever. This enables a restricted right.
We do not want to open the floodgates and have hundreds of amendments rewriting lengthy resolutions by a committee of 700-and-something Members, but on the other hand a limited right of amendment where there is a strong wish for it, we felt, was a reasonable compromise and a right balance.
Another way in which a previous reform from a number of years ago is being revisited is the amendment by the ALDE Group concerning recasting. I think that is also a welcome adjustment to the procedures that we have at the moment.
May I also confirm that lots of new ideas have come from other Members. I mentioned some earlier. I forgot to mention the article on the agora, which Mr Botopoulos and Mr Onesta can claim the paternity for. There are other ideas on the roll-call voting for legislative reports - not for all final votes but final votes on legislative reports, which I think I did mention earlier.
Finally, the points where I disagree with some Members. Mr Duff, the rule on when there are a large number of amendments in plenary and the President can ask a committee to look at it: it is not a referral back to committee of the report. The committee simply acts as a filter for the amendments in plenary so that we do not have to spend several hours voting, but only on those amendments which have a certain degree of support. It is not a referral back.
Second, the point raised by Ms Frassoni about opinion-giving committees having the right to table amendments in plenary. I myself have grave doubts about whether that is a good idea or not, but it came from the reform working group on which you sat. It was endorsed by the Conference of Presidents. That was something that had a degree of consensus behind it, and therefore we are submitting it to the House for approval or, indeed, rejection. We will see how the House votes tomorrow.
Finally, I will not address the Committee on Petitions issues, because we are about to have a specific debate on that and I will come back to that point then. I will just finally say, in response to Mr Gollnisch, that he is wrong on two counts. This is not the same amendment that was rejected in committee. It is a different one, a different approach to the subject. I had grave reservations about the amendment that was submitted in the committee. I am happy to support the one that has been submitted to plenary.
Secondly, the oldest member is not common to all parliaments of the world, as he suggested. It is to many, but it is by no means the only system that exists, and it is quite legitimate for us, as a European Parliament, to look at the various systems that exist and choose one which is suitable for our circumstances. It will be up to the House to decide.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 6 May 2009.