2. Death penalty in Nigeria
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolution on the death penalty in Nigeria.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, the judicial system of Nigeria is fraught with inadequacies, neglect and corruption. To add to such a dreadful state of affairs, anachronistic Islamic Sharia courts have jurisdiction over criminal courts in one third of Nigeria's states. Such religious courts, run by sick-minded fanatics, continue to this day and age to terrorise the population by handing down sentences of death, flogging and amputation.
We in Europe, of course, condemn the operation of such anachronistic religious courts, but how about the Islamic world itself? Why do Islamic political figures and Islamic states, some of which are globally and regionally very powerful and influential, and some of which we have trading partnerships with, why do they not take responsibility and strongly fight against Sharia law, Islamic courts and other such evils? Why do Islamic religious leaders themselves in some of the more advanced Islamic countries not condemn such use of Islamic religion? In my opinion their silence or lukewarm reaction amounts to quietly supporting such activities and such a stance is, for me, just as criminal as those who actually administer Sharia law.
Let our message of disgust with this aspect of Islamic fundamentalism reach those in the Islamic world who should be doing something drastic to change things for the better, but unfortunately they are not.
Paulo Casaca
Mr President, I feel that the case of Nigeria, although obviously not comparable to what is happening in Somalia, runs a serious risk of developing into a similar situation. As has been said, Sharia law is effectively being applied in one-third of the country and there has been a clear deterioration in human rights.
At this point I must say that, before talking about or condemning any religious leaders, particularly any Islamic religious leaders, we must bear in mind that our fundamental role is to maintain dialogue with and encourage those Muslim leaders who do not share this fanatical view.
I can assure you that there are many such leaders, and I personally know a large number. The problem now is that, instead of the European institutions communicating with the country and with Islam, which has the same values and viewpoints as we do, they are doing the opposite. The European institutions seem to be preoccupied with appeasing the most fanatical and the worst offenders, those who are butchering the human rights of all Muslims, because Muslims are - and we need to realise this - the main victims of this situation. They are our main allies. They are the people with whom we need to work. They are the people with whom we Socialists will certainly be able to tackle these challenges.
Ryszard Czarnecki
author. - (PL) Mr President, this debate is of course in some senses a debate about the death penalty as such, but I do not want it to move in that direction, because in fact we should be discussing this specific situation.
Of course, we are familiar with reports which tell us that the recent reduction in the number of death sentences has not reduced the country's crime rate. This tempts supporters of the death penalty to continue calling for it. But the fact is that last year only 7 out of the 53 African Union countries carried out death sentences, while in 13 the death sentence has been suspended, and in another 22 the death sentence is simply not used.
I think that Nigeria should adopt this way forward, perhaps under pressure from the European Union. We could point to the fact that death sentences are carried out on the very young and the young. There are very many such people, at least 40 in Nigeria. This is a particularly shocking situation, when such young people are awaiting execution.
This is of course a much wider issue. This is a country where it is very easy to sentence someone to death, especially since one quarter of Nigeria's regions are governed by Sharia law, an Islamic, a Muslim law which indeed allows the amputation of hands and feet, and also uses flogging. This is an unacceptable situation. We need to speak out about it.
Michael Gahler
draftsman. - (DE) Mr President, Nigeria is one of the largest and one of the most important countries in political and economic terms in Africa. For this reason, it is also a major partner for us. Unfortunately, the situation relating to the rule of law there leaves a lot to be desired, in particular with regard to the justice system. During this debate we have focused on the death penalty. In Nigeria a large number of people are on death row. A quarter of them have been waiting for five years for their appeals to be concluded and 6% have been waiting for 20 years. This situation is not acceptable and therefore we call on the European Commission to help the Nigerian authorities to improve the rule of law and to make recommendations which may be helpful. The President has also established committees which have made recommendations on Nigeria that indicate the right direction to move in. However, I believe that more political pressure must be applied in this area.
Ewa Tomaszewska
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, being sentenced to death for being poor is a reality in Nigeria. I appeal to the Nigerian authorities to impose a moratorium on executions and to commute the death sentences.
Hundreds of those sentenced to death are people unable to afford a fair trial. Sentenced on the basis of testimony extracted under torture, without the means to employ qualified defence counsel, without a chance of finding files lost five or fifteen years ago, they await their execution in inhuman conditions. The windows of their cells frequently overlook the execution yards. Approximately 40 of those condemned to death are juveniles. Their alleged crimes were committed when they were 13-17 years old. Appeals take five years on average, but sometimes up to 20. Forty-one per cent of the condemned have not filed appeals. Their case files have been lost, or they do not know how to complete the application by themselves, and cannot afford a lawyer. Nigerian law does not allow torture. It does not recognise testimony obtained in this way as valid. Nevertheless, the police use torture. Trials are lengthy. The testimony of victims of torture is frequently the only evidence in a case. It is virtually impossible for the poor to get a fair hearing.
Erik Meijer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, the death penalty is a dreadful affair in itself. Rather than trying to help those who have hurt their fellow human beings or society as a whole to function as better people in future, revenge is taken by letting the condemned die. This is an irreparable decision which is at times even based on a miscarriage of justice. It becomes even more dreadful if it is not exceptional crimes that are penalised. In Nigeria, it is more a case of poor organisation of justice combined with administrative chaos.
In addition, it is also increasingly about persisting in primitive, fundamentalist opinions in the northern federal states, in which it is assumed that Man has been commissioned by God to eliminate their sinful fellow men. Unlike Somalia, the outgrowths of which were discussed in the previous item on the agenda, Nigeria is a functioning state. It is a state, though, full of federal states functioning independently from one another, coordinated by a central authority which, often by means of coups d'états, has ended up in military hands. Things appear to be better in Nigeria at the moment, without dictatorship and without the violent conflicts of the past. A number of regions in the north, like Iran, parts of Somalia and the north-west of Pakistan, form the trial region for a hark-back to the Middle Ages. It is also a form of class justice. The condemned are mainly poor people without any legal aid. We must pull out all the stops to rescue those people from chaos, arbitrariness and fanaticism.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
(LT) Today the principal message the European Parliament sends to the Nigerian Federal and State governments is to immediately halt executions, to declare a moratorium on the death penalty and to abolish the death penalty altogether.
After all, 137 of 192 United Nations Member States have abolished the death penalty. Even among the 53 African Union Member States, Nigeria is one of the few where the death penalty is still carried out.
Both the National Study Group and the Presidential Commission working in Nigeria itself recommended that the death penalty be abandoned, as it does not reduce crime.
I urge, ask the Council, Commission and Member States to take advantage of all available opportunities and contacts with the institutions of the Nigerian state authorities as we strive to halt the killing of people, above all minors, in the name of the law in Nigeria.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
(PL) Mr President, the death penalty has always given rise to reflection and to many questions. First, does one person have the right to decide about another person's life? Second, can this decision be made if a confession has been extracted under torture? Should young, underage criminals be executed or educated? Such questions can be multiplied, but the answer will always be the same: no one has been granted this right. Humans have granted it to themselves. But since this is the case, humans can abolish it, renounce it and commit these acts no more. I address these words to the Nigerian authorities, but also to all those who consider themselves to be lords of another person's life and death.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, since its independence, Nigeria has enjoyed only three periods of civilian rule and has endured 29 years of military rule.
Nine years ago, Nigeria took a step towards democracy and came back to civilian rule, even though all elections since then have been widely criticised for irregularities, fraud and violence. The April 2007 elections could have set a good example for other countries, but the opportunity was missed and the new government took up office amidst doubts of legitimacy. It is in this context, and bearing in mind the importance of a stable Nigeria for Africa, that a suitable strategy has to be found to engage the government there in a constructive dialogue over human rights.
The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by honourable Members on the issue of the death penalty, and agrees with the need, pending complete abolition of the death penalty, to declare an immediate moratorium on all executions.
At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the situation of human rights in Nigeria has generally improved since the return to civilian rule. Indeed, some steps have been taken to launch a debate in the country over the usefulness of the death penalty as a deterrent to heinous crimes. Several prisoners on death row have been pardoned this year and Nigeria has committed itself to an intensified high level political dialogue with the EU which covers, inter alia, human rights issues.
The Commission has contributed significantly to starting this process, which could lead to a global EU political strategy vis-à-vis Nigeria, and which has already led to an important ministerial troika and to a comprehensive joint communiqué.
In the context of this dialogue, it will be possible to discuss constructively human rights issues, and to undertake a range of cooperation activities in crucial sectors such as peace and security, and governance and human rights. Examples of cooperation initiatives under consideration include: support for improving the investigative capacity of the Nigerian police; access to justice and support for prison reform; support for anticorruption efforts; support for the democratic process; and support for federal institutions dealing with human trafficking, illicit drugs, human rights and counterfeited medicines.
To be effective, these actions will have to be made known to civil society and ordinary citizens. The Commission will develop a strategy, based on a combination of support for local mass media and cultural initiatives, to support sensitive cooperation initiatives and to disseminate to the public educational messages concerning respect for human rights and basic freedoms, the basic values of democracy, good governance, care for the environment and so forth.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Sebastian Valentin Bodu
in writing. - (RO) The issue of human rights still requires our attention, even when the world is facing economic crises. Poverty and the lack of political and economic prospects always result in a deterioration of people's living conditions. Respect for human rights features lower down the list among the urgent problems and it is easy for us to overlook, blinded by our own economic woes, the fact that there are places in the world where people are still punished by the death penalty. I am referring in this instance to Nigeria, a country with a population of 140 million, where 725 men and 11 women have been awaiting execution since February this year for committing acts such as armed robbery, manslaughter or treason, according to Amnesty International. Furthermore, alarming reports highlight that many of these did not go through a proper trial procedure, with evidence even being extracted under torture. These people will be hanged for actions which they may not have committed because in Nigeria the poor have absolutely no protection at all from the justice system, even though we are talking about a member state of the International Penal Tribunal. It is the duty of the international community to make every effort necessary so that the Nigerian government declares an immediate moratorium on all executions and commutes all death sentences to prison sentences.


The Evaluation of the PEACE Programme (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Bairbre de Brún, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the evaluation of the PEACE Programme and strategies for the future.
Bairbre de Brún
Rapporteur. - Mr President, the Peace and Reconciliation Programme helped the national peace and reconciliation process in Ireland to a great extent.
EUR 750 million was allocated from the first programme, PEACE I, between 1995 and 1999 and EUR 994 million from the second programme, PEACE II, between 2000 and 2007. EUR 333 will be allocated from the third programme, PEACE III, from now until 2013.
The money allocated was used to great benefit in giving support to those who wanted to renounce conflict and take part in the reconciliation process. Those sums of money were a good investment, as we can now see, as an enterprise economy emerges in Northern Ireland and the border counties.
The reconciliation and peace-building process is an ongoing one. A power-sharing executive in Belfast now deals with local matters for the local people. An important investment conference took place in Belfast ten days ago where investors enthusiastically studied investment opportunities. These steps highlight a new confidence in our political and economic future. PEACE's input and the input of International Fund for Ireland, which the European Union contributes the most to, played a large part in inspiring confidence.
As the participants begin the implementation of the third programme, PEACE III,
it is my pleasure to give the Parliament's opinion of the work and a number of reviews on the role of PEACE in the future. I would like to thank the members of the Regional Development Committee for their support and the shadow rapporteurs for all their input.
Participation, recognising interdependence, the promotion of diversity and the successful elimination of inequality are all important elements in making peace and in rebuilding a society, as well as the protection and the promotion of human rights.
In the PEACE programmes, the people most affected by the conflict were empowered with confidence to actively help with building-peace. The empowerment of local people is central to the PEACE programme and I would like to use this occasion to honour the voluntary organisations, businesses, community groups and local councillors and those working with former prisoners and with victims and survivors for their tremendous commitment to the community and to the reconciliation process.
The cooperation between participants in programmes funded by PEACE should not stop when these programmes come to an end. We ask the government departments to promote this work, which it initiated so effectively, and to ensure that this valuable work continues to be funded. Some way should be found to enable victim support groups and survivors to have access to financial support when funding from PEACE comes to an end.
Of course, something can be given back too and experiences can be shared about the elements of the initiatives funded by PEACE I and the International Fund for Ireland which succeeded. Experiences from these initiatives should be shared with those undertaking peace-building work internationally and those possibilities are being discussed right now.
This Report attempts to present to you the lessons which can be learned and I welcome this debate tonight.
Danuta Hübner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, honourable Members, Ms de Brún, let me start by thanking you very much for the excellent work on the evaluation of the PEACE programme and also strategies for the future. The Commission shares with you the opinion that the European Union's interventions in support of the peace process in Northern Ireland have contributed in bringing the two communities closer together and have helped the development of cross-community and cross-border linkages.
The Commission also recognises that peace-building is a long-term and multi-dimensional process and we also recognise that peace-building requires a flexible approach and the willingness to allow for experimentation and the adoption of innovative measures. But perhaps the most important lesson learned from the PEACE programme is the effectiveness of the bottom-up approach. This has enabled people and organisations working on the ground to tackle the problems and issues faced by the communities at local level. It has brought people from both communities together and given them, very importantly, a sense of ownership of, and the responsibility for, the peace process.
Targeting those most affected by the conflict is important, but the projects dealing with young people, our future, have been equally important in changing attitudes and perceptions. Last but not least we have learned that the projects in support of women are essential since the role of women in peace-building and promoting reconciliation is a key factor in bringing stability and durability to the process.
The Commission also considers that the experience of the EU interventions in Northern Ireland and the peace-building initiatives should indeed be recorded with the objective of passing on good practice to other areas of the world, emerging from conflict or facing similar problems of social integration. I know that Northern Ireland is actively working on the establishment of a centre for conflict resolution and they have my support in taking this forward.
Allow me also to mention the successful Northern Ireland workshop during the Open Days in October last year. Indeed, not only was the event fully booked but it generated a network which is currently being set up for sharing experience on peace and reconciliation. It will also be followed up by a workshop during this year's Open Days, in early October.
I shall stop here. I thank you for your excellent report and shall now listen to Parliament's debate.
Lambert van Nistelrooij
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) When there are very unusual circumstances in Europe, we have to apply very unusual measures, and in this case a really tailor-made and innovative solution has been found, thanks to resources from the Regional Development Fund.
We have really reached people's hearts with this, we have reached into their homes and we have been able to work in social organisations where trust is so important: people's trust in their surrounding areas, which, with the great tensions there were in Northern Ireland, was so desperately needed. In that connection, I agree entirely with Commissioner Hübner that this is a good example of a case where instruments like this, resources like this, need to be used, just as in similar situations, such as Cyprus.
Mr Nicholson, the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, has missed his plane, so I am speaking first. I should like to say that, as coordinator, I fully support the Peace III Programme, especially the role of the people and - as I have already said - the cross-border aspects. The fact that people in the rest of Ireland are affected, as well as the infrastructure, is very important.
Catherine Stihler
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, you cannot put a price on peace, but the series of PEACE programmes in Northern Ireland since 1995 have supported the peace process in Ireland with a goal of reinforcing a peaceful and stable society and promoting reconciliation in the region. I congratulate Bairbre de Brún on this own-initiative report, which describes the positive results and best practice gained from this EU programme. The peace-building aspect of the programme is crucial for the future of Northern Ireland and offers lessons for other EU Member States with a history of conflict.
The PEACE II programme allowed for valuable exchanges of experience between areas - including Albania, Belarus, Moldavia, Serbia, Ukraine and Bosnia. I welcome the current discussion on the possibilities of creating a Europe-wide network of regions and cities that are coming out of conflict, that have experience in coming out of conflict or that are living with conflict and exclusion. Reconciliation is a long-term process and I support the continuation of the PEACE programme. Within the process it is important to involve local communities, and Mrs de Brún's report highlights the wide range of projects including childcare, after-school projects, enterprise parks and small business enterprise, in both the rural and urban areas. Many of the projects funded under PEACE were set up to serve local requirements. They also attracted a wide range of diverse participants to seek a common aim or benefit and help in developing models for public engagement in policy development. Women's groups played a very positive role in peace-building. I thank Mrs de Brún and I hope that all will support this constructive report.
Marian Harkin
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all I want to congratulate the rapporteur, Bairbre de Brún, on her excellent report, which highlights the significant contribution of the PEACE programme to fostering peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties. It also outlines how lessons learned and best practice achieved should be shared with those who are engaged in other international peace-building work.
I am pleased that the rapporteur accepted my amendment, which states that it is vital that peace-building programmes, in particular those involving community and voluntary groups, continue to be financially supported when the PEACE funds come to an end. Indeed, the report makes it clear that government departments on both sides of the border should ensure mainstream funding continues for this very important work, once EU funding finishes. It is crucial that we do not pull the plug on community and voluntary groups that are engaged in this valuable work. That would break trust with communities and would diminish much of the good work under way. Community and voluntary organisations need to be able to work to a strategic plan and not on a short-term basis where they cannot plan for the future.
In this context, it is also important that those groups are not caught out in the funding gap between PEACE II and PEACE III. I have written to the Commission and received a response on this issue. Before I came down to the Chamber tonight, I once again had a look at the long list of community groups on both sides of the border who have received PEACE funds and who have been actively involved in peace-building, in reconciliation and in regeneration projects. The EU can be assured that PEACE money was well spent and that the added value of volunteer time and volunteer work has made the PEACE programme a model for value for money.
We often speak in this House of bringing Europe closer to the citizens. The PEACE programme was, and is, a tangible mechanism to connect Europe with the citizens. As Commissioner Hübner has said here this evening, it shows the value of the bottom-up approach and also highlights the important role of women in peace-building. This is an example of the EU reaching out to its citizens, acting as a catalyst for change and, in this case, citizens responding fully and wholeheartedly.
Seán Ó Neachtain
on behalf on the UEN Group. - Mr President, I would first like to say that I welcome this report. When Northern Ireland was divided by conflict and strife the leaders and the Institutions of the European Union gave special support and encouragement to the people of the North in helping them on the road to peace. As the rapporteur Bairbre de Brún stated, that support was worth EUR 1.65 billion and there is still another EUR 333 million to come.
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Bairbre de Brún. It is a strange, however, that amongst the people who received the most advantage and support from the campaign to help give financial support, it is Sinn Féin that is against the Lisbon Treaty and against the European process. The leader of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, seldom makes any reference to this EUR 1.65 billion. If we listened to them, Ireland would not be in the European Union. We would not be in the system to receive money for the peace process in Europe. And I must say that it is this fact which most disappoints me this afternoon in Parliament.
Jim Allister
Mr President, this is a report of verbiage, not substance, just as much of the PEACE funding itself was spent upon froth.
The irony, of course, of an IRA/Sinn Féin MEP being rapporteur on a report on peace will not be lost on thousands of people in Northern Ireland whom her wicked organisation made victims through its pernicious terrorist campaign.
It is no surprise to me that she can produce a report talking about peace without a single blushing reference, without a scintilla of regret as to how we came to need peace: because, make no mistake about it, of her IRA's decades of terror.
Nor am I surprised that she makes no mention of one of the gross failures of the PEACE programme, namely the inequality in distribution between the two communities in Northern Ireland, with the Protestant Unionist community not getting its fair share of funding. Not something, of course, likely to concern Miss de Brún.
Finally, let me place on record that the relative peace we have today in Northern Ireland is primarily due not to some EU peace programme but to the remarkable tenacity, courage and sacrifice of our marvellous security forces, who faced down the IRA which robbed us of peace for so long.
Ioannis Kasoulides
Mr President, the PEACE programme has contributed to the peace process in Northern Ireland not only in terms of financial assistance but also by helping to bring the two communities together. Its approach has been to work with civil society and NGOs to promote active citizenship. It has allowed the individuals involved to seek solutions to their own problems. This is an example of the Commission's contribution to peace-building and reconciliation, and it should be congratulated on this.
The report refers to sharing the experience gained by PEACE with other regions facing similar problems. As a Member from Cyprus, I think it would be extremely interesting to put this experience into effect in the case of Cyprus. I call on the Government of Cyprus and on the Commission to examine this possibility as a component in the provisions of any political settlement.
Stavros Arnaoutakis
(EL) Mr President, the PEACE Programme has shown the contribution it can make towards peaceful coexistence and conciliation between the different communities in Northern Ireland. Given our assured support for the continuation of this programme in Ireland, allow me to underline the following.
The programme is a shining example of the good practice that can and must be applied in other regions of the EU, such as Cyprus. The way in which the PEACE Programme is implemented and especially how it is managed by local partnerships and NGOs; the development of inter-community schemes; easier access to funding for schemes or groups unable be funded from other Community or national sources: all this provides valuable experience. It points to ways and means to be adopted more widely in programmes governed by the Structural Funds. Such an approach works upwards from the grass roots, particularly in programmes focusing on local development, and the fight against poverty and social exclusion.
Jean Marie Beaupuy
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must begin by highlighting the excellent results that have been achieved through PEACE I and PEACE II, most particularly for the beneficiaries of those programmes in Ireland - in Northern Ireland - to whom both dignity and hope have now been restored. That said, I should like to make two particular points, Commissioner, on which I hope you can obtain genuinely successful outcomes.
Firstly, as Ms de Brún has urged in her report, the British and Irish Governments really need to get behind the decisions taken by Parliament, the Commission and the Council, so that temporary and complementary arrangements can be put in place through their joint efforts.
Secondly, Commissioner, as you are in charge of the task force, you will not be surprised if I urge you to ensure that we take an integrated approach, in the interests of consistency among the various agencies involved, consistency among the different programmes and funds, and consistency between different geographical areas.
Last but not least, I hope that the Irish example will provide a valuable lesson for other countries throughout the world.
Daniel Hannan
Mr President, why are we passing this resolution? Is it a specific remedy to an identified problem? Or are we rather passing it to make ourselves feel better, to feel that we have done our little bit for the peace process?
I ask that question with some regret. I am as big a supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland as any Member of this Chamber and, indeed, possibly rather more than some. Being on one side Ulster Catholic, on the other, Scots Presbyterian, I have always felt that I have something of a personal stake in power sharing.
But the peace process is not guaranteed by external subventions. On the contrary, there is a danger that this flow of money turns what was an enterprising and thrifty part of the world in to a subsidy junkie, dependent on handouts from elsewhere.
Ask yourselves - I put this quite seriously - when you sign those cheques for those hundreds of millions of euros, whether you actually think you are buying stability and peace in that part of the world, or whether you are not just allowing yourselves to feel slightly better for a few minutes.
The idea that political violence is caused by deprivation is simply not borne out in reality. It is one of the many ideas that derive from Karl Marx and, like a lot of his ideas, it sounds plausible on the page, but it turns out not to be true in reality.
The most subsidised territory in the world, more than anywhere in Africa per capita, is Palestine, which is also one of the most violent.
The truth is that, if we want to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, we have to create a genuine democracy there, where there is a genuine opposition and the ability to change your government. If you do that, we will not need the money.
Colm Burke
Mr President, I welcome this report from Bairbre de Brún, and I would like to congratulate all the people who made a contribution to the report, in particular the shadow rapporteur, Jim Nicholson, Marian Harkin and all the people involved.
The Peace III Programme is up and running, with EUR 333 million going into an area, helping the whole infrastructure and Community development in Northern Ireland and in the border counties. I think the three PEACE programmes have made a huge contribution in bringing about peace in this area. I would like to congratulate all the people involved in getting it together, but also all of the political parties in Northern Ireland and the community groups who have worked together to make sure that the peace programme continues to work.
I also welcome the task force that has been set up in Northern Ireland, but I think that a task force is also needed in the six border counties in the Republic to deal with infrastructure development in that area. It is unfortunate that the Irish Government has not done likewise in relation to those six counties. It is something that should be looked at because those counties also suffered over a period of 30 to 35 years. We need that kind of initiative in those six county areas. I would welcome the Irish Government putting that in place.
Again, thank you to all those involved.
Rolf Berend
(DE) Mr President, surely there is scarcely anyone here in Parliament who harbours any real doubts about the success of the PEACE programme in terms of both its tangible contribution to economic and social cohesion and its contribution to enhanced local involvement through active citizenship and the participation of civil society in peace-building.
The report, drafted on the initiative of the Committee on Regional Development, rightly emphasises the valuable experience that has been amassed through this unique and highly innovative structural programme as well as highlighting the things that could be done better in future, the challenges that remain to be met and the conclusions that can be drawn.
As someone who is closely involved with the regional policy of the EU, I am keenly aware of the need to develop cross-border activities and strongly support cooperation between local chambers of commerce, public institutions and voluntary organisations on both sides of national borders. I need hardly tell you that my group and I unreservedly endorse this report.
Marian Harkin
Mr President, since nobody else is asking for the floor, I would just like to make a comment. I suppose I am not really surprised, but perhaps a little disappointed, to hear the comments by Mr Jim Allister here tonight. We are discussing the PEACE programme and not the conflict. Like all conflicts, this conflict's roots go deep and it did not start in recent times, and like all conflicts it is much more complicated than indicated by Mr Allister. But regardless of those who question the efficacy of the PEACE programme and indicate their disapproval of EU funding, there is no doubt that the PEACE funds acted as a catalyst and, as I said earlier, through voluntary effort and voluntary time achieved value for money. Perhaps the best thing to say is that there is an end to the conflict and that the PEACE funding played a role in helping to achieve this very positive outcome.
Jim Allister
Mr President, it is all very easy and very well for Miss Harkin to come to this House and to talk in the way she has talked.
How many constituents has she buried, murdered by terrorists? How many people have died in her constituency because the organisation that Miss de Brún represents decided they would die in pursuit of a political campaign?
The IRA murdered 2 000 of my constituents, so no one will lecture me in this House about the deep-seated feelings that I have, and no one will contradict me with justification for pointing out that the people that put so many of my constituents in their graves are the IRA, which Miss de Brún represents in this House.
To now see them in the government of my country is stomach-churning, and to find that they are there because they murdered and as a buy-off so that they will not murder again makes it even worse.
Danuta Hübner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to say that this debate has clearly confirmed the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland and that important lessons have been learned during this process. The Commission will continue its contribution to consolidating the reconciliation process and will also facilitate the sharing of the lessons learned from the experience of peace-building with all other areas facing similar problems. In these efforts, the support of the European Parliament will certainly matter very much.
I would like to make two further comments:
To Jean Marie Beaupuy, the task force for Northern Ireland has been established to enhance and facilitate the participation of the people of Northern Ireland in all European Union policies and also to better coordinate and to build more coherence between different processes contributing to the consolidation of the peace and reconciliation process.
The second comment is that in these efforts the Commission would also like to help people in Northern Ireland to reduce the existing dependency on the public sector, on state aid and on the reliance of support coming in the form of grants. The conference which was mentioned by Bairbre de Brún was also exactly aiming at contributing to this process of bringing more private investment - a more vibrant private sector - to life in this part of the island. Once again, thank you very much for all your comments.
Bairbre de Brún
Rapporteur. -Mr President, I would like to thank those who spoke in the debate tonight. I listened carefully to them and to the points they raised. I am disappointed, however, by what Mr Allister had to say and I cannot agree with his allegations. I would like to praise the work the European Parliament and the Commission have done over the years in terms of the PEACE programme.
I would like especially to thank Commissioner Hübner for the personal commitment she has shown from her first day in that post and for her regular visits to Northern Ireland. Commissioner Hübner and the previous Commissioners have been true friends to the peace process in Ireland and it is reassuring to see the continuing role the Commission will have through the task force that was set up by President Barroso.
PEACE enabled a border community divided from the time of the partition to come together as a community. It brought young nationalists and unionists together to learn about each other's cultures. We especially acknowledge the important role women have in building peace and the important and valuable cross-community and cross-border work that has been done.
My Report highlights the fact that it is the most marginalised people in society who benefited most from PEACE, which is just as it should be. Nevertheless, if there are groups which have not already used this opportunity to make an application under PEACE I and PEACE II they should be encouraged to participate. The next step is to ensure that the good work that PEACE has done doesn't stop and that future generations benefit from the valuable work that started with the PEACE programmes and from the wonderful support the European institutions have provided.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 20 May 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Ramona Nicole Mănescu  (ALDE
), in writing. - (RO) The PEACE Programme represents not only a means of maintaining peace, but also an instrument favouring economic development and territorial cohesion. Its implementation by the regional governments and non-governmental organizations leads to the involvement of a wide range of communities, local organizations and marginalized groups in the process of governance and development. Moreover, financing regional projects through PEACE contributes to facilitating dialogue, reconciliation and agreements whose objective is to satisfy common interest and, consequently, avoid any type of conflict.
Northern Ireland is an example of good practice for all the other Member States that have experienced conflicts or are dealing with problems threatening their peace.
This is why I support the creation of a network of European regions and cities with a potential conflict risk and I believe that the promotion of local partnerships, best practice sharing and efficient cooperation between the regions and the intermediary Financing Bodies are essential factors for determining local communities to cooperate and work for maintaining peace.
I also plead for implementing programmes similar to PEACE in Southeast Europe as well, especially in the Balkans, mainly since the events in recent years have been an alarm signal.


2. (

Christopher Beazley
Mr President, I rise under Rules 152 and 160 of the Rules of Procedure, concerning voting procedure and roll call votes. It is obvious that the Rules of Procedure have been abused and used in a way utterly contrary to their intention. Could I ask, through you, that specialists such as Mr Corbett and others look very carefully at what has happened today? My understanding is that the President has the discretion to rule that any request for a roll-call vote be declared invalid. That may become a necessity when we have heavier voting sessions in the future.
Reinhard Rack
(DE) Mr President, in this House we have very liberal and, in particular, minority-friendly Rules of Procedure, and rightly so. It is our wish and our duty to preserve them. This, however, presupposes that the various groups exercise their minority rights properly and do not abuse them. When that happens - as it has done today - we should rethink this practice.
Daniel Hannan
Mr President, I must take exception to the two points of order just made. The rules are absolutely clear on this. Every group has the right to request roll-call votes. No discretionary power is given to the Chair. We have always accepted that, ultimately, in any democratic chamber the majority has the right to get its way, but what we have just heard is the most intolerant position that does not allow any opposition, that does not allow any dissenting view and, if my colleagues want to understand why the European Union is so unpopular with the voters out there, you need only consider your own intolerant attitude towards anyone expressing any view other than your own.
(Applause)
President
Mr Hannan, to my knowledge, all votes which have taken place this morning have been by roll call. Therefore the Rules have been complied with meticulously.
Nigel Farage
Mr President, I wish to point out to Mr Beazley and Mr Rack, and perhaps to yourself, Mr President, that today is the first time since I have sat in the European Parliament that we can actually be confident that the results are right, because normally it is a farce! So do not moan at us, we are helping you to tidy up this place so that in the future more of this work is done in committee and we are not given hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of amendments. What we have done is entirely within the Rules and all of you - in particular those who believe in this place - should learn a lesson from it.
Martin Schulz
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I rise under Rule 171 of the Rules of Procedure and table the following motion on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament: in view of the urgent need to discuss the Rules of Procedure and their interpretation, I move that the sitting be suspended as of now and that all further debates, including the explanations of vote, be postponed until ten o'clock this evening.
(Applause)
President
Fourteen MEPs in the House have requested explanations of votes for each of the seven debates held yesterday and this morning. Fourteen MEPs, each of whom has requested an explanation on each of the seven debates: ten are members of the IND/DEM Group, two of the PPE-DE Group and two are Non-attached.
If these explanations of vote take place now they will probably take up about two hours of our time.
Therefore I submit the following point of order to the House: either we take the explanations of vote and stay here for two hours more or we suspend the session now as proposed by Mr Schulz and hold the explanations of vote tonight.
(The House agreed to this proposal.)
Ladies and gentlemen, notification of the timing explanations of vote will be given at 3 p.m.


Green Paper on the future of TEN-T policy (short presentation)
President
The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the Green Paper on the future TEN-T policy.
Eva Lichtenberger
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for remaining here for this topic, which is actually a lot more important than it would seem from the number of Members present in the House. It relates to the revision of transport policy in respect of the trans-European networks. Firstly, allow me to extend my thanks to my colleagues who have contributed to this, in particular the Commission and the secretariat, which provided excellent support.
The trans-European networks have a long history. For 15 years, projects were presented, lists discussed and decisions deferred. This was and is a reason to look more closely at the whole story, to revise it and to see to what extent the goals have been or can be achieved. The trans-European networks have not always been successful. That - as so often in the European Union - is partly down to funding, and in particular to the lack of funding in Member States which still have the unfortunate habit of demanding a lot of support from the European Union. However, when it comes to payments to the European Union budget, the sack is then firmly drawn shut and very little is given out.
Well, since nothing comes from nothing, many projects did not get off the ground, and we need to look at this more closely once again, particularly in light of the more recent challenges that we are facing with regard to European transport policy as a whole. On the one hand, we are facing new challenges brought about by climate change, and we must respond to these challenges. The question of sustainability with regard to transport and the question of damage to the climate caused by certain means of transport must be asked anew again and again and must also be reflected in the actions of the Member States and the European Union.
The second point that we, of course, need to deal with very decisively is the current financial crisis, which under certain circumstances will restrict still further the ability of some Member States to take action with regard to infrastructures and the associated investments that are needed. However, enlargement has brought us completely new tasks to do in Europe that did not exist when decisions were taken on the list of trans-European networks. Therefore, after long discussions in committee, the decision was taken in favour of an approach that is intended to address these issues in particular.
Firstly, the various modes of transport should be networked considerably better than they have been up to now. This has been ignored in the past. This affects ports and the hinterland in particular, which have been neglected in recent years and now form the main focus of this report. However, this also requires the development of a core network and the network connections on which the whole system is based and with which the whole system is connected, allowing sound development in the transport sector and the continual improvement of its management. We need not only a geographical network, but also a conceptual network between the modes of transport, better intermodal links and better technical work being carried out on the networks. This relates to software rather than hardware. This is the core of our report and I hope that we can agree on this resolution, which has broad support, and that we do not take a retrograde step, as currently indicated in an alternative resolution.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, since the trans-European transport network policy was established 15 years ago, it has contributed significantly to the functioning of the internal market and to economic, social and territorial cohesion. It now needs to be adjusted to new challenges.
The green paper on the TEN-T policy review addresses these challenges and proposes measures to tackle them at both the network planning and the project implementation stages.
The Commission appreciates very much that the European Parliament is following this revision process from the outset, as reflected in this resolution. This underlines the determination of both institutions to develop a future-oriented TEN-T policy.
There is a high degree of conformity between our proposals and the objectives and calls set out in Ms Lichtenberger's report as adopted by the Committee on Transport: that is, a more integrated and coherent network approach is necessary, in which intermodal connections such as rail connections to ports and airports and intermodal terminals, the link between long-distance and urban transport systems as well as interoperability must be strengthened so as to improve the basis for efficient, safe and high-quality services for passengers and for freight transport.
The Commission also shares the view set out in the report that - in particular in the freight sector - it is vital to facilitate co-modal chains in which waterborne and rail transport play an important role and intelligent transport systems help to optimise infrastructure use.
In the draft report, the Transport Committee has chosen option three, a dual layer consisting of a core and a comprehensive network. By supporting this option, Parliament confirms the need to combine traditional transport infrastructure policy with an appropriate consideration of new conditions and circumstances; the need for more flexibility and responsiveness to changing situations and more openness for the identification and support of infrastructure measures resulting for transport service requirements; and the economic and environmental challenge to promote a coordinated improvement of transport corridors through a series of small infrastructures and ITS projects.
We note that, after the vote on the draft report by the Transport Committee, an alternative resolution has been proposed which supports option two, a single-layer network with priority projects or a priority network only, and therefore without a comprehensive network. This is, as we see it, in contradiction with some other points of the draft resolution.
I would also like to recall on this occasion the advantages and disadvantages of the comprehensive network. While being too large to allow for clear priority-setting and the focus of Community instruments to stimulate its implementation, it contributes to ensuring the TEN-T access function and to facilitating cohesion. It has also proved to be vital as a reference framework for various transport policy actions and legislation: in particular, interoperability in the railway sector and road safety. Elimination of the comprehensive network would therefore have some perverse effects.
On the network implementation side, we fully agree with the view set out in the report that Member States have a crucial role in deciding, planning and financing transport infrastructure. Sufficient financial resources are needed under the TEN-T budget and coordination of territorial development objectives and TEN-T policy need to be enforced, whereas public/private partnerships have to be further promoted.
The Commission also underlines that TEN-T investment is key to sustainable economic development and thus is an essential way of helping to overcome the current crisis.
To conclude, we are very grateful for the motion for a resolution on the future of the trans-European transport networks policy. We would like to thank the Transport Committee for its constructive debate on it, and in particular Ms Lichtenberger for her comprehensive work. It will constitute a valuable contribution to the next steps of the process in the debates with the other institutions.
President
The item is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 22 April 2009.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Krzysztof Hołowczyc
As the current term of the European Parliament draws to a close, we have the opportunity to comment on the changes in approach to the Community's biggest infrastructure project, the trans-European Transport Network, which are being planned by the Commission for the near future.
Currently, sections of the network are being built in Member States. The logical continuation of this, which will also be the final stage, is the integration of individual components in different countries into a cohesive whole to create a trans-European system.
The geography of the European Union is changing. Therefore, the need to introduce changes to the alignment maps of the network appears justified. In connection with this the financial needs of the investment are changing. The final stage of integrating the network should place greater emphasis on the financing of its cross-border elements.
Raising the quality of existing transport connections in Europe and building new ones will help reduce road accidents, which is our constant priority in the fight for better mobility for EU citizens. In addition, introducing all forms of technological innovation, and the recent popularisation of intelligent transport systems, is justified by European infrastructure priorities for the 21st century.


Qualifications framework for lifelong learning (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mario Mantovani, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning - C6-0294/2006 -
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Mantovani and I would like to express the Commission's thanks to him and to the responsible committees for their proactive engagement and supportive stance throughout the negotiations on the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for lifelong learning.
This recommendation goes to the heart of what the EU is about: mobility, cooperation between countries, promoting prosperity and helping individual citizens. We propose the EQF because you, the European Parliament, and the Member States asked us to find ways of promoting mobility and lifelong learning, without which we cannot achieve the Lisbon goals. The EQF has been developed within the Education and Training 2010 work programme, the education dimension of the Lisbon Agenda.
The EQF seeks to overcome the barriers that remain to European workers and learners when they wish to change jobs or move to another country for work or for study. Too often, Europeans have difficulty in using their qualifications in another European country. Even in their own country they find their educational pathways blocked by poor integration of the different parts of their national education system.
The EQF will relate the countries' different national qualification systems to each other, acting as a translation device. It will thus make other countries' qualifications more readable and so enable individuals to move to another country if they wish to work or study.
At the national level it will - indeed it is already doing this - stimulate the development of national qualifications frameworks. Qualifications frameworks promote lifelong learning by, for example, making it easier for people to move between different types of education and training institutions, for example from vocational training to higher education.
I should acknowledge that the EQF is a technical, even complex instrument. It will be used mainly by experts and educational authorities, but it is for the benefit of the citizen.
What we are debating today is the product of a collective endeavour between the Commission, countries, social partners, education and training associations and other stakeholders. The EQF has very much been built on a consensus and we have sought to carry stakeholders with us throughout the process.
The EQF recommends that countries relate their qualification systems to the EQF by 2010 and ensure that individual national qualifications carry a reference to the appropriate EQF level by 2012. These dates were proposed by the Council and Parliament.
We have also been happy to agree to the insertion of a new recommendation on quality assurance proposed by Parliament, which we feel reinforces the importance of these principles.
We also agree to Parliament's proposal to include a reference to credit systems which recognises the rapid development and application of these components of qualifications frameworks.
We believe that Parliament and the Council have indeed improved the text. The approach adopted in the negotiations by the Parliament, Council and Commission reflects the consensus behind the EQF across Europe.
There is now a momentum behind the EQF; the great majority of countries recognise its potential for mobility and as a lifelong learning instrument.
A large majority are now developing a national qualifications framework related to the EQF, so this proposal is already having a major impact on Europe's education and training systems.
I hope you can agree to support this proposal at first reading so that it can formally be adopted by the Council in the coming weeks.
Mario Mantovani
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that tonight marks the beginning of a major project which Europe, the Member States and the regions and cities of the European Union have been waiting for for a long time, a goal that various stakeholders in the fields of education, employment, trade and the economy have been working towards for years, and something that society as a whole wants.
Tomorrow, with the approval of the European Qualifications Framework, we will lay the foundations for a better tomorrow, giving future generations a common point of reference for their cultural, educational and vocational engagement, training and of course employment.
In keeping with the Lisbon Strategy, the European Qualifications Framework represents a direct channel for improving links between schools, universities and the workplace, and between formal, informal and non-formal lifelong learning, ensuring transparency in the recognition of qualifications and certificates, both at national and sectoral level, and always within the European framework. Finally, it will strengthen cooperation between Member States in the sensitive area of comparing different systems.
This is the recurring theme which, in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy, has led us to assume the proper responsibility, with a choice that I am certain will promote growth, development and competitiveness in a Europe obliged to recognise social cohesion as one of its objectives.
It is a longstanding project, arising from the Bologna process as the system of accumulation and transfer of credits as an equivalent, before surfacing again at the Barcelona Summit system for vocational training. It was improved at Bergen in 2004, and again in the 2005 Council, which reiterated the need to adopt the current framework. An historic journey that clearly illustrates the ambition of European decision-makers to create a new instrument, considered by many as revolutionary, but necessary for the European integration process which we have been persuing for so many years.
I am convinced, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that this framework will not only encourage cross-border mobility, but will act as the driving force for the EU's internal mobility - if we think of students, workers, researchers and volunteers in general, and all those who need to move freely through Europe without causing panic or undue concern. You must remember the story of the Polish plumber, which terrified France: it was one of the main reasons why the French voted against the European Constitution in the referendum.
Well, the text we now have before us is the result of many months' work, of close collaboration with the Council representatives under the Portuguese Presidency, which immediately saw the importance of this ambitious project.
The Commission, in the person of Commissioner Figeľ, has kept a close eye on this process throughout, and it is thanks to this spirit of partnership that we were able to improve the text, inserting key concepts close to the heart of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. For this, I am extremely grateful to my colleagues, to the shadow rapporteurs - I see Mrs Castex, Mr Kusstatscher, the liberals - as well as Mr Mann and Mr Kasoulides, and all those who contributed to this. Thanks to their generous involvement and commitment, we were able to include the following concepts: social integration; the requirements of the labour market; personal development along different training paths; non-discrimination with the inclusion of disadvantaged persons; equal opportunities; respect for the principle of subsidiarity and the creation of coordination points within the Member States.
We also made sure that the recommendation was non-binding, even though it remains legislative in nature. Obviously this was not down to any weakness, but came more from a sense of responsibility and realism in order to encourage and promote the application of this instrument in those countries that need more time. In short, there is no doubt that it can be improved, but in this life everything can be improved. However, I am convinced that we have before us a text with a soul and a conscience.
It is my belief that the job of the European Parliament is to legislate in the real interests of citizens. Well, this is what we have done here. The approval of the text at first reading is evidence of this, partly thanks to Mr Gaľa on the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which all made a positive contribution.
Pilar del Castillo Vera
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, because he has really tackled a subject that goes much further than we might imagine.
Really, in a globalised world, Europe and the various EU countries will be defined by the qualifications of their human resources. If we had to summarise in one pillar what it is that is going to enable Europe, and all the countries that make up Europe, to be competitive in this global world, it is the qualifications of the human resources, the citizens of Europe.
With this in mind, it is absolutely essential that lifelong education and training should be adapted to the demands of the labour market and constantly respond to them. If this is not the case, it will be impossible to compete.
We will also come up against the following paradox: people are getting older, but these older people are getting younger and potentially more active, yet they have insufficient resources to continue being productive and giving to society and finding fulfilment in the world of employment.
With this in mind, the first aspect is that lifelong training, based essentially on a technological dimension, which is what gives added value, should be a fundamental concern. There is, however, a second aspect, which concerns the future of Europe, and this is integrating these human resources into a competitive internal market, for which qualifications are needed that are recognised by all Member States, which will enable citizens from different countries to compete with each other based on training that is recognised by all.
Therefore, because it is necessary for individual development in such a competitive world and because it is necessary for the development of the internal market, this is a subject that has much greater importance than it is perhaps being given by being debated so late in the day.
President
Thank you, Mrs del Castillo, the evening debates are always the most interesting though.
Milan Gaľa
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. - (SK) Firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Mantovani, for his work on the report on the European Qualifications Framework. We have been debating this subject in the European Parliament since spring 2006. As we know, a strong mandate for the European Qualifications Framework is an integral part of the Lisbon Strategy. It will serve as a translation device between different qualifications systems and their levels, and its implementation will result in greater transparency, comparability and portability of citizens' qualifications in individual Member States. In addition, the European Qualifications Framework will help international sectoral organisations to improve the links between their sectoral qualifications systems and national qualifications systems, thus helping to increase the mobility of workers and learners.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, I express my support for the non-binding nature of the European Qualifications Framework in the Member States and for the creation of national qualifications systems in accordance with national legislation and practice. However, the European Qualifications Framework will become an effective instrument for recognition and comparability of qualifications at a European scale only if it is consistently implemented as a part of the lifelong learning systems in the EU Member States. Since the EQF is directly linked to the way in which citizens assert themselves on the labour market and affects the quality of vocational education and training, it can also be considered a relevant tool for boosting competitiveness.
Thomas Mann
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, the European Qualifications Framework is the starting signal for the emancipation of vocational training at EU level, as it will enable vocational qualifications to be recognised throughout Europe, just as academic qualifications are. This takes time and requires a willingness to cooperate, coordinate and change mindsets. People who defend only what they know, and shy away from new experiences, should not be surprised to find that they lack mobility.
We need greater clarity. National training qualifications must be comparable, although this does not mean that they have to be standardised. I already called for this last year, in the EQF own-initiative report that I prepared for Parliament. A great deal has happened since then. Fears that Member States would lose powers have been allayed including in my country. Lifelong learning and the EQF were major milestones of the German Council Presidency, which was acknowledged as successful. Now it is full steam ahead with creating a national qualifications framework, which is not exactly easy, given Germany's federal structure and the autonomy of each Land.
I would like to thank Mario Mantovani on behalf of the PPE-DE Group for his tenacity in dealing with the Commission and the Council and for keeping everyone in the Groups who followed the EQF informed. I do hope that the report will be adopted in the first reading tomorrow.
From now on, there is a need for much discussion between trainers, teachers and training institutions, as we go into the details. I experienced this just yesterday in a meeting with vocational college teachers in Hesse. When ranking qualifications, for example, the German Master Craftsman or Tradesman Certificate belongs in at least the third or fourth of the eight levels. Others are not familiar with this qualification at all. The strength of the German dual system is not apparent to people unless they have experienced it for themselves.
In our European teaching and learning workshop, which is based on the principle of subsidiarity, the employment and vocational policy dimensions will be considerably strengthened in education and training. Together we must and will achieve an ambitious goal: to incorporate a quality standard, the EQF, in certificates and diplomas by 2010.
Françoise Castex
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Mr President, first I would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur for his excellent consultation on this recommendation on the European Qualifications Framework. I would also like to thank the Commission and the Council for listening and being available to everyone.
In the EQF we have a tool that serves the mobility of European citizens, whether as part of training pathways or as part of professional mobility. Free movement of persons, which is written into our Treaties, is still hindered by citizens' difficulties in having the qualifications obtained in their country of origin recognised throughout the EU. These qualifications, which are awarded by each Member States, according to its own procedures and systems, come under the sovereignty of each Member State and the EQF respects this.
However, qualifications increasingly need to be used outside the country in which they were awarded, something we wish to encourage out of respect for the value that the diploma or other qualification gives to its holder. We therefore need a tool for comparing and especially for converting qualifications from one Member State to another. This is a particularly necessary and sensitive issue for professional qualifications. That is why the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was keen to incorporate professional qualifications into the EQF. This has been done and we are glad.
Employees and companies are increasingly mobile in the European job market. However, employees and employers therefore need guarantees, in all Member States, concerning those things that measure the competence and value of a worker, namely their professional qualifications, regardless of how they were acquired.
Commissioner, I would, however, like to underline one other point. At the moment the EQF is a nice but empty shell. For it to exist properly, the diplomas, qualifications and certifications created in each Member State need to be calibrated and registered against references in the European Qualifications Framework. This will constitute a large amount of work for all the Member States, and will require a lot of energy and specialist expertise. The European Commission's support will be essential, as will that of the European agencies - I am thinking in particular of Cedefop. The participation of the social partners will also be essential, at all levels. They must be involved, as the recommendation states, by the Member States and the sectoral dialogue committees at Community level.
Finally, for the EQF to be complete and effective, it will also be necessary for the economic partners, the professional branches, to understand and appropriate it for themselves. This is not only because they award the qualifications that should be included in the EQF, but because companies need benchmarks for classifying their jobs and for recruiting. The EQF rapidly needs to become their common reference framework and I dream of an appropriate deadline by which the EQF will be the reference framework everywhere, even in collective agreements.
Ona Juknevičienė
First of all, I must commend Mr Mantovani on preparing this very significant document.
The principal aim of this document is to find a way of determining and comparing different qualifications within the labour market and education system.
Without doubt, the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) will have a beneficial impact on the efficiency and flexibility of the EU labour market. More importantly, the EQF would help to reduce discrimination against both immigrants and EU citizens in the workplace.
Unfortunately, both Lithuanians and citizens of other EU countries have difficulty in using their qualifications in other Member States. Very often their qualifications are not recognised by employers or institutions.
People feel discriminated against, because they do not have equal opportunities to compete in the labour market. They often have to accept jobs which pay less and for which they are overqualified. At a meeting with Lithuanian nationals living and working in London, I was made aware of quite a few complaints regarding discrimination in the workplace and difficulties in obtaining the work for which these people are qualified.
It makes them feel like 'second-class' citizens, yet their qualifications and skills are often much higher than those of the citizens of those countries doing the same kind of work. They cannot get the job they want or an adequate salary, simply because their qualifications are not recognised.
To sum up, this document is of great importance to most people. Regretfully, neither the Commission, nor we Members of Parliament, have been able to solve this problem in 22 years.
In 1985 the Council decided to introduce a system to match different countries' professional qualifications. It has not yet yielded any results. Unfortunately, once again, we are in no hurry and are proposing not to introduce it until 2012. Moreover, it is being left to the Member States' discretion.
It is a shame that we are so inefficient. We should learn from our experience.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
Mr President, establishing the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning is something that is of significance to the Europe of today and of the future. Whether a person will be fulfilled in their personal life and in society depends, after all, on that person's preparation for life and for work. Historical and contemporary determinants have given rise to a need to devote particular attention to people aged 50 and over and to young people from families experiencing economic difficulties, especially in the new Member States. Not all of them can, or should, go abroad in search of work. Conditions need to be created for people to develop in their own environment, in the place where they live. National qualification frameworks should mean an instrument serving to classify qualifications in line with criteria laid down for specific, attainable levels of study. The European Union should support the efforts of Member States both legally and economically. The Union should offer citizens not only the potential for free movement, but also recognition of their occupational qualifications.
Sepp Kusstatscher
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, first of all, thank you very much to Mario Mantovani, who followed the footsteps of his neighbour on the bench in this question.
We have before us the result, which will require educational authorities in the Member States to use this shared framework as a translation device and a reference point. There is plenty of room for more pressure to be applied for greater transparency, better comparability and thus equality and recognition of different qualifications within the EU.
I particularly welcome the fact that vocational training is specifically mentioned alongside general education, and given equal status, and that not only formal diplomas will be measured against the standard but also informal skills that people gain in the workplace or at home.
Tricks are often used to make access to the labour market more difficult. Not infrequently, educational authorities, vocational boards and professional associations attempt to resist competition from outside by being reluctant to recognise tertiary and vocational education qualifications gained elsewhere, for reasons of form. In 2010 that will be a thing of the past.
Derek Roland Clark
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, 'encouraging lifelong learning' sounds fine, does it not, with the EU working openly for the good of people and for employment?
Only this morning, Mr Barroso said that he did not like opt-outs, but was in favour of compromises to respect diversity. Those are fine words, but here we are with yet another attempt to bulldoze wonderful diversity into a common, harmonised, featureless landscape.
Now it is the turn of education, broadly speaking. However, education is not within EU competence! It is only covered by proposals under Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty. So this is also an attempt to smuggle in a competence by the back door. If the EU wishes to assume competence over education, let it do so honestly, go through the usual channels and employ the transparency we hear so much about.
Following the model of the Bergen Framework, setting up the EUROPASS diploma and certificate supplements with the European credit transfer system will require a harmonised EQF level. By issuing qualifications at sectoral and regional level, as well as at national level, this EU proposal will ensure an almost complete grip on qualifications. By issuing grades and awarding qualifications it will ensure that the EU bypasses universities and national governments.
The UK Government is in favour of harmonising qualifications. It is preparing for this by placing control of the universities under the Privy Council, ready to hand universities over to the EU. What universities think of this seems to be immaterial.
HMG's true position is revealed by its only objection to this scheme. It does not want the EU logo on the qualification documents. That is because they do not want people to know that education has been handed over to the EU.
Please tell me, why is it that my Government has taken that stance? Why is it in favour of an EU project but wants to keep it from the people? Are other national governments taking the same line? I would not be surprised if they were, because they, too, may wish to keep it from their people that their universities are being used in this way.
You may gather that I do not like this project, but it is not for reasons of national pride in Britain's universities and colleges. No. It is because, as a teacher, I value education and recognise that European countries have universities of which they are justly proud - great centres of learning whose alumni have contributed down the centuries to the arts, literature and science, enriching the lives of people everywhere.
I recognise also that this impetus to civilisation came about because those seats of learning evolved separately and independently, with each developing its own particular flavour and identity.
It is strange, is it not, in an age in which personal identity is being jealously guarded and identity theft is regarded as the crime it is, that some people thoughtlessly seek to destroy the unique identity of the institutions which made them what they are, denying others the education they acquired there?
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
(EL) Mr President, we should not have been able to debate the proposal to recommend a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) today had not our fellow Member, Mr Mantovani, made good use of the experience of former MEPs working on the subject or collaborated so well with the Commission and the Council. Today we can thus deal with setting up the eight qualification levels covering general education, adult education, vocational education and training, and the three levels of tertiary education qualifications.
In answer to my fellow Member who spoke previously, we stress that Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty are the right legal basis for the proposed recommendation simply because they allow for lifelong learning. Under no circumstances do we accept that education should be an EU area of responsibility: it remains the preserve of national responsibility. Comparing qualifications within the EQF, however, ignores teaching methods and types of educational establishment. As a result, such a comparison refers only to knowledge, the capacity to understand, and the practical application of knowledge and skills.
Greece and many other states are particularly keen on the optional nature of the EQF. The view has officially been expressed that promoting qualifications league tables has nothing to do with shaping the national educational system or recognising certification for studies. Besides, for non-formal and informal education, because of its diversity and the special circumstances under which it is acquired, automatic certification is not possible, but a mere reference.
We must also bear in mind that the same person can have several qualifications at various levels.
Joel Hasse Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning is a decisive document to enable the national and sectoral reference frameworks of qualifications to be compared at European level.
The certification of qualifications obtained is essential to enable progress achieved outside formal education, especially in working life, to be integrated with advances achieved in the formal systems. It thus contributes to greater democratisation throughout the EU as regards the management of personal professional careers.
This directive, as moreover one of the amendments proposed and approved in Parliament emphasises, promotes the validation of these qualifications in accordance with the Council conclusions on common European principles for the identification and validation of non-formal and informal learning.
Mr President, this will enable us to advance towards a single European legal framework that aims to be coherent without diminishing the guarantees that in some cases exist already. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a directive that we are discussing will be a decisive tool for greater flexibility on the labour markets, offering a better defence of workers' interests and a better chance of providing quality services. At this point I can only welcome the Portuguese Presidency's efforts in the field of education to move surely and relatively quickly towards approval by Parliament at first reading. It is clear that in these circumstances we should also highlight the work carried out by the rapporteur Mr Mantovani and the shadow rapporteurs, notably Mrs Castex.
In order to be more effective, to derive more benefits from professional and academic mobility in the European area we need to work even more effectively in implementing the European Qualifications Framework and in linking it to the European credit system, and this report promotes a significant advance in that direction. Thus, the proposal for a directive promotes equality of opportunity in the knowledge society we live in, with the aim of better integrating the labour markets of the various Member States, taking account of the rich diversity of the various national systems. It therefore deserves a positive response from us.
Ewa Tomaszewska
(PL) Mr President, transparency and comparability of qualifications acquired in differing circumstances, systems and countries make it easier to evaluate the level of knowledge both of employees and of employers, thus increasing mobility in the labour market. This concerns both regulated professions - doctors, nurses and other medical professions, where qualifications are mutually recognised by EU countries - and other professions. The introduction of the Qualifications Frameworks will give rise to greater social cohesion.
Different treatment should be accorded, however, to artistic educational institutions and professions, where talent and gifts should not be constrained by disciplines, or averaged out, and where the teacher is not objectivised, but continues to be master.
I congratulate the rapporteur.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think this has been an extremely good debate which marks the launch of a very important project, which I think is timely, necessary and, as others have pointed out, is a platform for this and future generations.
It is essential for the working of the single market, it is essential for Europe's social development, it is essential for the ability of Europe's citizens to cope with fast changing economic and labour market change. It is a passport to personal advancement as well as society's integration. It has been a very constructive and harmonious debate - apart, I suppose, from the intervention of one compatriot who allowed his mixture of gross exaggeration and overstatement, tinged with a fair amount of ideological prejudice, totally to misrepresent what is being envisaged and proposed.
This is a recommendation, and is exactly that - it is voluntary. The EQF will not award qualifications: that remains up to countries, universities and other institutions, which remain autonomous. There will be an EQF reference level on qualifications, for example on level 4, but national level will also be on qualification.
So I am glad to be able to welcome this consensus - notwithstanding one individual - in this Parliament and Council behind the EQF legislative proposal, that this is reflected at the national level, where we see a serious momentum in building national qualifications frameworks.
President
The debate is closed.
At the end of this debate, I would first of all like to thank the interpreters, who chose to stay even though they were not required to.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi
in writing. - (RO) The European reference framework will reduce the complexity of a system with 27 bilateral relations for the recognition of qualifications obtained from academic and professional education. The Bologna Process of creating, by 2010, a European Education Area is thus supplemented by an instrument of recognition of all qualifications that may be obtained in the Union's Member States.
Although 9 out of 10 European Union citizens believe lifelong education is an important instrument for career development, the lack of financial resources leads to big deficiencies in the training required for the current economy. A recent eurobarometer shows that only 58% of the respondents are able to use a computer, and only one half of them declare that they are Internet users. Moreover, over 60% of the citizens cannot use a foreign language in their work. National budgets designated to lifelong education vary from 40% of the total amount used for education in Northern countries to under 10% in the new Member States.
Thus, initiatives such as Grundtvig or Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs should be extended and doubled by funds that would supplement the insufficient national finances. Moreover, the European reference framework should be supplemented by programmes that would establish veritable European qualifications, recognized over the entire European Union territory.
Rumiana Jeleva
in writing. - (BG) It is necessary to point out that the informal educational sector is underdeveloped, rather unknown and often isolated from the formal one. The European Qualifications Framework is a key instrument in overcoming this discrepancy and also a tool to re-assess and re-organise the vocational orientation and information system.
The development of the EQF will facilitate the mobility of manpower within the 31 participating countries and promote the involvement of sectoral and industrial organisations from the new EU Member States in the absorption of resources from the European Social Fund allocated for the acquisition of new qualifications or upgrading of the existing ones. The more recent EU Member States like Bulgaria find it important to have the opportunity to exchange good practices and to implement Community pilot programmes.
The development and implementation of the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) intended to facilitate the accumulation, transfer and recognition of educational results, regardless of where and how they have been scored, is of great importance with a view to the transition periods applied to Bulgaria and Romania. The credit system will foster the free movement and the expansion of the access to the labour market for most of the human resources in the Community, while ensuring reliable basis for comparisons.
I believe that the EQF will give further impetus to the development of this process.
Katalin Lévai
in writing. - (HU) Recognition of citizens' knowledge, skills and competence is indispensable for the European Union's competitiveness and for social cohesion, as well as for individual citizens' mobility. Participation in lifelong learning and access to lifelong learning for all, including the disadvantaged, must be fostered and improved at both national and Community level. Young people, adults, immigrants and manual labourers throughout Europe who have informally acquired skills that have never been recognised must be encouraged to participate in lifelong learning programmes, thus avoiding social and labour-market exclusion of these groups.
To do all this, an important role can be played by a common reference framework that serves as a translation device between different qualification systems and their levels, whether for general and higher education or for vocational education and training. This will increase the transparency, comparability and mobility of citizens' qualifications in different Member States.
The task of the reference framework is to integrate and coordinate national qualifications systems, to ensure non-discrimination, to increase access and progression of qualifications in relation to civil society and the labour market.
In the interests of ending the segregation that exists in education, I support the initiation of measures to provide information and engage in social dialogue.
I also think it is important to recognise informal learning acquired by workers, in order to enable them to change jobs more easily.
The European Union must become a knowledge-based society well prepared to meet the challenges of globalisation. In such a society, citizens of each Member State must adjust to meet the needs of a competitiveness-driven labour market. For this reason, learning will be a fundamental prerequisite for all age groups.
James Nicholson
in writing. - The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for lifelong learning is a good example of the European Union doing what it should be doing in terms of promoting mobility across national borders. Over the years most of us will have made representations on behalf of nationals of our own Member States who find that when they take advantage of the freedom of movement available to them within the EU and actually move to another country they are discriminated against because their qualifications are not properly recognised in their new country of residence. The EQF, by acting as a translation tool for national authorities, will undoubtedly help our constituents to overcome this senseless discrimination. It should also work to the advantage of any Member State to which a person moves, as it will ensure that an accurate assessment may be made of that individual's qualifications.