2. Southern Neighbourhood, and Libya in particular, including humanitarian aspects (
Ana Gomes
(PT) Mr President, there is a new supervening element that is not reflected in the resolution, and I call upon Parliament to join me in expressing our indignation and concern. This concerns what happened to the team of BBC journalists who were illegally detained and tortured, and also subjected to mock executions, and who saw many other Libyans detained in prison in totally inhumane conditions.
This also shows that journalists are not being allowed to carry out their work freely in Libya. This is an important matter, and I call upon Parliament to join us in expressing our indignation and concern, which we must convey to the Council.
President
Mrs Gomes, do you have a specific amendment in mind? We can only give consideration to a specific amendment, not a general appeal.
Ana Gomes
(PT) Mr President, the information I have is that the Liberal Group should like to propose the oral amendment, which has been agreed, but if this is not the case, I will be more than happy to pass it on.
President
All right, I understand. It is a general comment. Thank you.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński
(PL) Mr President, with respect, we heard you say that the resolution has been adopted, but I did not see the result, at least not on my screen or on the one in the seat in front of me. I think we should also be given the results, by which I mean the particular result of this vote.
President
Here is the result: 316 people voted in favour, 264 voted against and 33 people abstained.
József Szájer
Mr President, I would like to remind the House of the double standards which we are applying. In the case of the Hungarian media law, an event which took place on Monday was not reflected in our resolution.
Now we are trying to include something which happened only yesterday. This is a clear double standard which this House is applying, which is deplorable and unacceptable.
Guy Verhofstadt
Mr President, I do this in the name of all the Group leaders and also of most of the coordinators because yesterday, after the debate, there was a general feeling that there is a need to strengthen paragraph 11. The oral amendment I am presenting is the following: 'Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to establish relations with the Interim Transitional National Council and to start the process of making them official, so as to encourage transition towards democracy, ensuring the involvement of a wide spectrum of representatives of the Libyan society and empower women and minorities in the transitional process, and to support it in the liberated area so as to relieve the population and to meet its basic humanitarian needs, including medical assistance'.
That is the oral amendment in the name of the seven Group leaders and also of all the coordinators, with whom it has been agreed.


Violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission by Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Leonidas Donskis, Cecilia Wikström, Alexander Alvaro, Sonia Alfano, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0669/2010),
the oral question to the Commission by Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, on violation of the freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0803/2010),
the oral question to the Commission by Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on violation of the freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0804/2010), and
the oral question to the Commission by Michael Cashman, Monika Flašíková Beňová and Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group, on violation of the freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania - B7-0005/2011).
Sophia in 't Veld
author. - Madam President, we are discussing today, and not for the first time, legislation that may be passed by the Lithuanian Parliament with a potentially very negative effect on the position of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Lithuania. I think it is unfortunate that we are discussing the subject again, as Parliament has already passed a resolution on it.
I think the resolution we have proposed for vote tomorrow is very clear. We would appeal to our Lithuanian colleagues to reflect further on this matter and to make sure that whatever legislation they pass will not discriminate against LGBT people.
I do not have much to say about the resolution, but I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the European Union needs to equip itself with stronger legal instruments for the enforcement of fundamental rights. We recently debated the controversial media law in Hungary and now we are facing very similar issues.
We have laid down the principles - the shared values of 500 million citizens - in the European treaties but, when it comes to putting them into practice, we run into trouble. Therefore, Commissioner, I would like to hear your views on our proposal for a European road map for LGBT rights. The European Union has done a lot for gender equality in the past and, indeed, we have regular road maps for gender equality. We have all sorts of strategies to combat racism and xenophobia, to combat social exclusion and to strengthen fundamental rights, but not for LGBT people. I think it is very urgent and very necessary that we have such a strategy: a strategy to fight prejudice, ignorance, discrimination and hatred and to strengthen the rights of LGBT people.
There are many examples of the problem. Today, we are discussing the amendments which have been put to the Lithuanian Parliament, but that should not distract us from the fact that homophobia exists in all Member States.
I would like to bring another fact to your attention, Commissioner, and to hear your views on it. This concerns the European asylum policy, and the fact is that people seeking asylum because they are prosecuted on grounds of their sexual orientation in a Member State which I will not name have to undergo something known as a phallometric test. This is particularly degrading. It has no place in the European Union and I would like to hear what the Commission intends to do about it.
Ulrike Lunacek
author. - Madam President, my colleague, Mrs in 't Veld, has already explained what the resolution is about and referred to it and I strongly agree with the question she put to you, Commissioner: what about a road map for LGBT rights in this common European Union?
But I would like to take a different angle to hopefully convince those in this Parliament who have not yet decided on voting in favour of this resolution. You know what? Last summer, four Members of the European Parliament, Mrs in 't Veld, myself, Mr Cashman and Mr Fjellner, representing four groups, the majority of this Parliament, were in Vilnius, in Lithuania, together with the first Baltic Pride to be held in Vilnius, empowering and supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this city and we were there under the European flag telling everybody, 'this flag protects us, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and that is true also for Lithuania'.
Now, what would happen to us and to Lithuanians who next year might go marching in favour of our equal rights in Vilnius if this law is adopted in the Seimas? Each one of us could be fined up to EUR 2 900 for publicly promoting sexual orientation - meaning homosexuality in this case, because I guess for heterosexuality that does not apply. Is that really what this Parliament would want? Is that what the Parliament of Lithuania would want, the parliament of a country which, 20 years ago, struggled for its own freedom, with lesbians and gays among the people struggling for that freedom?
So I am very happy that the President of Lithuania, Mrs Grybauskaitė, former Commissioner, and the government of Lithuania, have already said that this proposed law contravenes Lithuania's obligations under its own constitution. I hope it will be clear that different forms of sexuality, of sexual orientation, of forms of living, have been part of all cultures and of all societies and are so in Lithuania, as well, and that hiding facts like that from the public, from young people, is simply a basis for inciting hatred, hate speech and hate crimes. That is something that I think nobody in this Parliament or in the Lithuanian parliament would want.
Therefore, I hope that we will have the support of this Parliament and of the Commissioner for the resolution. We do not need your support, but I hope we have it.
Cornelis de Jong
Madam President, I would like to add my voice to what the previous speakers have said, but I would also highlight another aspect of this issue: finalising the proposed amendment may have serious consequences for people other than just the LGBT community in Lithuania. This is another example of a law which could be used to deny recognition to the partnerships and marriages of same-sex couples from other Member States. We have already debated this in this House, in September last year, and, because some questions remained unanswered then, we and other members of Parliament sent a letter requesting clarification. Your Commissioner sent us a reply, in which, amongst other things, he wrote that the residence rights of such couples is recognised by European law. I have this question to put to you: are you also going to challenge Lithuania in cases where one of the partners is not a national of a Member State? I would appreciate a very clear answer on this.
I have read in the Commission Work Programme that, in 2013, the Commission is going to draft a legislative proposal on the mutual recognition of the effects of certain acts of civil status. My question is: Does that proposal also include the mutual recognition of marriages and partnerships? If so, that is, in itself, good news, but why only in 2013?
The Commission has announced that it will take the necessary action once its officials have analysed the Lithuanian legislation, and my question is: has the analysis been carried out yet and have your officials, as part of that analysis, considered what the consequences could be for the recognition of same-sex couples from other Member States?
What action will the Commission take against Lithuania, then, and what will it do about Romania, for example, whose legislation specifically excludes recognition?
Finally, Commissioner, you promised during the September debate that you would respond rapidly to the report by the European Fundamental Rights Agency on homophobia. However, in your letter, you simply referred to the Commission's annual report. Do you not think that, in light of the developments in Lithuania, that matter should be given much more attention? Could you also make a promise that you will issue a separate report on homophobia in the European Union as soon as possible?
Monika Flašíková Beňová
Madam President, I have to say frankly that I do not understand what is happening in Lithuania, or rather, that we feel disenchanted and indignant about this.
Just when it seems that we are making progress in the European Union, at least insofar as we know what basic human rights are, we get a signal from one of the Member States that this simply is not true.
The idea that it is necessary to prohibit by law, for example, the promotion of relationships other than heterosexual ones seems to us to be unbelievably regressive, riding roughshod over what we have achieved together on human rights over recent years in the European Parliament and in cooperation with you, the Commission.
Protecting the spiritual health of children is just a shameful pretext exploited by insecure politicians. We must and we want to protect children. We must protect them particularly against violence and poverty, and we want to provide the conditions for their education, safety and personal development. Everyone, however, or a majority of us, know from our own experience that children are not harmed by displays of affections and love, nor by the promotion of relationships other than heterosexual ones.
I therefore firmly believe that it is no longer appropriate in this day and age for us to hold discussions with the proponents of such views, Commissioner, or to keep on trying to explain something to them. To try and explain to them why their views are so woefully misguided.
In my opinion, there is a need to take decisive action. There is a need to state unambiguously that attempts at homophobic legislation are unambiguously contrary to the fundamental principles of the European Union, and are quite clearly in conflict with the treaties, with the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and with the European Convention on Human Rights. They do not respect freedom of expression and information or freedom of assembly, or the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I would also like to ask, Commissioner, in the event that such a law is passed, whether the Commission will initiate proceedings against Lithuania concerning the violation?
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to start by stressing that the Commission unambiguously rejects homophobia because it is a blatant violation of human dignity.
That is also why, on 22 November 2010, I visited Lithuania and discussed with President Dalia Grybauskaitand the Minister of Justice the proposal to amend the Administrative Code, which establishes a new offence punishable by a fine for 'the promotion of homosexual relations or financing of such promotion in public places', as well as the related proposal to amend the Penal Code.
According to the latest information in my possession, the adoption by the Lithuanian Parliament of this draft amendment to the Administrative Code was postponed and is now expected to take place in spring this year. This means that it is still under discussion.
The Commission is examining the proposals to amend the Lithuanian Administrative and Penal Codes, as well as other Lithuanian legislation, from the perspective of compliance with relevant EU law.
In 2009, the Commission expressed serious concerns to the Lithuanian authorities in relation to the compatibility with Union law and fundamental rights of the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information. Following the Commission's intervention, this law was amended in December 2009.
The law qualifies as detrimental to minors information that 'expresses contempt for family values, encourages the concept of entry into a marriage and creation of a family other than stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania'. The practical application of this law may raise questions in terms of compliance with the e-Commerce and Audiovisual Media Services Directives and with the principle of non-discrimination. The Commission is continuing to look into this matter.
According to the information in my possession, an amendment to the Law on Provision of Information took effect on 18 October 2010. This amendment prescribes that 'advertising and audiovisual commercial communication [...] must not contain manifestation or promotion of sexual orientation'. If these provisions were to remain in the law, we would see the same problems in terms of compliance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and possible violation of Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In May 2010, the Commission wrote to the Lithuanian Government expressing worries about the last-minute suspension of the Baltic Gay Pride event. You will remember this. We recalled in that letter that freedom of peaceful assembly, as provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the Charter, is one of the principles on which the Union is founded. On that basis, Baltic Gay Pride was held on 8 May 2010: that was the event to which a previous speaker referred.
As regards the question of a possible European strategy on the fight against homophobia, the Commission's priority is to ensure that EU legislation complies fully with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Article 21 prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. How this is to be achieved was explained very clearly in the Commission's communication on the strategy for effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, adopted on 19 October 2010. We will come back to this matter in the annual report on application of the Charter, which also covers progress on the application of Article 21. That will happen in spring of this year.
According to this logic, the phallometric test as a procedure under asylum policy is, of course, subject to EU law and relates directly to Article 21 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This clearly means that if, in EU law or in its application at national level, there is discrimination, then the Union is empowered to intervene. It is very clear that the Union can intervene here.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate the Commission's strong commitment to combating homophobia and discrimination based on sexual orientation, to the full extent of the powers conferred by the treaties.
Regarding the recognition of civil status, we have no intention of proposing any legislation that would interfere with Member States' substantive family law or modify national definitions of marriage. This is subsidiarity. Our green paper on recognition of civil status is designed for cross-border situations, such as the recognition of birth certificates, and is not concerned with the recognition of same-sex marriage. We must not mix things up. It is for the Member States to define what marriage is. It is for the European Union to permit free movement and non-discrimination. These are two completely different things. Such is the position in European law and that is what we apply in real terms.
Simon Busuttil
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, the EPP is committed to upholding the values and principles upon which the Union is founded, in particular, the respect for human rights. Europe should fight against all forms of discrimination and that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At the same time, we have to respect the right of any democracy, as long as it respects human rights and the non-discrimination principle, to discuss, modify and adopt national laws, without interfering in the debates of national parliaments, without infringing the principle of subsidiarity and without acting or condemning a Member State prematurely.
We do not like the idea of condemning a Member State, especially since, in this particular case, the proposed modifications have not even been voted on by the plenary of the Lithuanian Parliament and are still under review by the Lithuanian authorities. Not only that, but the proposed modifications have already been deemed to be in conflict with European law by the Lithuanian authorities themselves, who have declared that they will be taking action to remedy the situation and to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. So this proposed legislation will probably not even make it onto the statute book of Lithuania and therefore there is no need to condemn this Member State.
To conclude, I do hope nonetheless that tomorrow, the EPP will be able to support the joint resolution as long as it does not condemn any individual Member State and as long as it is modified to make it more balanced.
Sarah Ludford
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I hope very much that Lithuania will learn from the experience in the UK, which went through its own agonies of having a law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools. David Cameron, then Conservative leader and now Prime Minister, said 18 months ago that his party was wrong in its support for that 1988 law, which was subsequently repealed. Indeed David Cameron predicted that the first openly gay Prime Minister in the UK would be a Tory. We will see, but that is what he predicted.
So you could see a huge change in attitudes in the space of two decades. This development in attitudes, which my colleague, Charles Tannock, knows a lot more about, and this move by the centre right are reflected in a quite modest and moderate EPP resolution and, indeed, in Simon Busuttil's opening remarks. I am hopeful that the EPP might be able to rally to the main resolution if most of their amendments are accepted in the vote tomorrow.
The situation in the UK has been transformed to the extent that the proprietors of a small guest house were today forced to pay compensation to a gay couple whom they refused to allow to stay, in breach of the law. As the judge remarked, these proprietors were perfectly at liberty to hold or discuss their personal views on homosexuality, but what they could not do was discriminate on the basis of those views. It is talk, discussion, debate, right of assembly that would be affected by the proposed Lithuanian laws.
Banning the promotion or propagation of homosexuality is likely to have a chilling effect on free speech and discussions, as the Fundamental Rights Agency has pointed out. I join Sophie in 't Veld in calling for an EU road map to combat homophobia and discrimination and I call on everyone across the political spectrum in this House to unite in support of the whole range of human rights.
Marije Cornelissen
Madam President, this is not the first time that Lithuania has violated the EU's basic values and the EU Treaty. Their Parliament seems to be becoming ever more shameless in the way in which it is curtailing gay rights.
We must take action to stop this. The values and laws of the EU cannot be treated like an à la carte menu - we will take this dish, but not that one. Anyone who wants to become and remain a member of the EU must comply with all our legislation. That applies to Lithuania, but it equally applies to France and the Netherlands. Suppose the Netherlands, for example, starts tampering with the rights of migrants at some point in the future. We must take action. If we do not do this, it will mean that no one in the Union will actually be able to feel that they are really well protected.
I am pleased that the Commissioner has immediately started a legal analysis and I hope it will be followed up on very soon. Because, surely, we cannot allow a situation where people first become a casualty of these laws and then have to go to neighbouring Member States to seek their rights as EU citizens through the European Court of Human Rights.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, the EU is founded on the principle that all its citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Every country that wants to become a Member State of the EU must commit to that principle and be signatory to the ECHR, not least with regard to sexual orientation.
When Lithuania joined the EU seven years ago, it pledged to uphold our common values of tolerance and equality. Since then, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights - and I believe its Articles 12 and 21 - have come into force, further guaranteeing in law citizens' freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation at EU institutional level.
As a spokesman for my party and group on human rights issues outside the Union, I can say categorically that the ECR upholds and endorses principles of equality, tolerance and diversity everywhere.
However, many Europeans do hold traditional views with regard to homosexuality, often based on religious conviction. Just as we seek to uphold the law to protect LGBT rights, so too should we seek to ensure that those who wish to express contrary, non-inflammatory views within the bounds of the law regarding free speech should be free to do so as well.
Undoubtedly, Lithuanian society remains, by and large, conservative and we should understand that. People are entitled to their own private views, but at an institutional and legal level, we cannot compromise on the principle that we are all equal. Equality is a hallmark of our progressive society in Europe, and I believe in fact that the legal safeguards and individual rights guaranteed by the EU acted as a kind of magnet to countries such as Lithuania as they emerged from communist totalitarian domination.
I would therefore urge the Lithuanian authorities to reflect on the fact that the EU is committed to preventing the marginalisation, vilification and persecution of minorities that was so commonplace throughout Europe for the first half of the 20th century. The Commission should indeed look at this proposed draft Lithuanian piece of legislation and pronounce whether or not, in its opinion, this piece of legislation is compatible with EU law - although, as Simon Busuttil put it, it is entirely possible that this bill will not become law, as Lithuania is a democracy and is only too well aware of all the issues we are going to raise in this debate tonight.
Joe Higgins
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Madam President, the proposed law to ban what is called the public promotion of gay relations in Lithuania is another excuse to crush the rights of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people in that state.
How cruelly ironic that a country which threw off the shackles of Stalinist dictatorship only 20 years ago should now revert to aping one of the many crimes of that system: the suppression of the right of people to live freely and in peace according to their own sexual identity.
I salute the courage of the hundreds of gay people and their supporters who braved the hate campaign against them to march in the Baltic Pride parade in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius, in May of last year. It is revolting to see right-wing politicians scapegoating gay people in Lithuania. The political establishment in that country has dismally failed its people, particularly the youth. Just as in Ireland, market capitalism and financial speculation have devastated the economies of the Baltic States, including Lithuania, where unemployment has rocketed to 18% and youth unemployment to a staggering 35%. In these circumstances, using minorities, including gay people, as scapegoats is a standard, cynical way to divert attention from the failures of the establishment.
Just as in the hate campaign against gays in Uganda, the homophobic campaign in Lithuania tries to insinuate that gay people pose a threat to children, implying sexual abuse of children. This is a poisonous slander, designed to confuse and mislead. It is a slander that would have parents look in the wrong direction to protect their children. Coming from Ireland, I can confirm tragically that threats to children come traditionally from within institutions where they are supposed to be safe, within certain families and within certain areas of the Catholic Church.
It is reprehensible that young people in Lithuania coping with their emerging sexuality - which is a difficult enough time - must now do so in a climate of intolerance and fear. So, we should stand in solidarity with the right of all people in Lithuania, in Russia, throughout the European Union, and elsewhere, to live in peace and in accordance with their own identities.
Dimitar Stoyanov
(BG) Madam President, the main message I get from the contributors is that they assume that the proposed changes will discriminate against homosexuals. However, they are not sure of this. It is just an assumption. That is why I was reminded a little of the film Minority Report, in which the local police used clairvoyants to convict people before they had committed the crime.
At the moment, Lithuania is precisely in this position: it is being condemned for something it has not yet done. Here also lies another fundamental problem which will haunt us for years to come, and that is the conflict between the different rights of different groups.
You know, for example, that the right to assembly which we are discussing here now is not unrestricted and absolute. An assembly must be peaceful; it has to be held under certain conditions which do not threaten public order.
I know this goes beyond the context of this particular case, but do not forget that in future, these conflicts of rights will become a huge problem for the European Union more and more often, and that, if we continue to expand the scope of so-called citizen's rights and freedoms, we will reach a point where we will have to decide whose rights and freedoms have priority over others.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
(PL) Madam President, in Lithuania at the present time, we have a situation where, on the one hand, we are talking about the right of every democratically-elected government to create its own laws in its own country and, on the other, about the obligation to abide by human rights protected by European Union law and international conventions. The role of the European Parliament is undoubtedly, inter alia, to consider every case where there may be a violation of human rights, which may also result from membership of particular social groups. Parliament has proposed resolutions in this regard on numerous occasions. It has always opposed the violation of these rights.
Today's debate is also a result of the concern that a proposed change to Lithuanian law could lead to the restriction, for example, of freedom of speech in Lithuania on the grounds of sexual orientation. This concern is well-founded in the sense that the European Parliament has repeatedly raised instances of selective treatment of human rights in Lithuania by the government of that country. I am thinking here of ethnic minority groups in particular, which are not treated equally in Lithuanian law regarding the rights due to them. This is why it is worth stressing that draft laws of a country should comply with defined standards and be in accordance with European Union law, which guarantees equal treatment for specified minorities, including ethnic minorities.
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
(LT) Madam President, today, as we debate what is a sensitive issue for my country Lithuania, I would, above all, like to stress that, as an EU Member State, Lithuania respects human rights and freedoms and EU values. Unfortunately, there have been cases where individual Members of the Lithuanian Parliament have initiated laws that violate human rights and discriminate against citizens. However, I would like to report that last Wednesday, the Lithuanian Government gave a negative conclusion on the proposal debated in the Lithuanian Parliament to introduce penalties for the public promotion of homosexual relations, because it is contrary to international and European Union legislation, as well as the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and is regarded as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In addition, having ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, Lithuania must respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which prohibits any form of discrimination, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. This bill was condemned by the President of the Republic of Lithuania, Ms Dalia Grybauskaitė. I would like to point out that the amendments proposed in the bill have not yet been adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania. Furthermore, the Lithuanian Parliament's Committee on Human Rights has yet to present its conclusion on these proposed amendments. I hope that Lithuania will take into account EU and international criticism, the negative conclusion of the government of the Republic of Lithuania and the European Parliament resolution, and that the Lithuanian Parliament will have the political will to reject the law proposed, which would violate human rights and freedoms, and that all discrimination will be stopped, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Madam President, I think it is pretty clear that the message we want to send to the Lithuanian Parliament - and not only to them but also to all those who still presume to debate what are basic facts - is more necessary than ever. I think there are two facts of which we need to remind some colleagues who may have forgotten them. The first is that homosexuality has been declassified as a mental illness; and the second, which is particularly relevant here, is that there is no credible research to show that educating children about homosexuality can affect their sexual orientation.
These are facts, and no legal text or proposed legislation can contradict them. So the message we want to send tomorrow is simply to remind our colleagues that these matters should not be up for discussion. That is why we need to pass this resolution and that is why we also need to support the attempts by the President of Lithuania to stop what is happening. But I insist: the message is directed not only at the Lithuanians but also at all those who still presume, on occasion, to put such matters up for discussion.
Konrad Szymański
(PL) Madam President, it seems to me that there is no more hypersensitive Parliament in the world as regards the protection of the rights of sexual minorities than the European Parliament. The Lithuanian law, which was badly translated in the resolution which we are to vote on, has not yet been passed. The European Parliament is already beginning to criticise one of its Member States. I believe that we should not interfere in the sovereign legislative process in Lithuania, a sovereign state.
We should certainly show more confidence in the legislative process in Lithuania and more understanding for those members of the Lithuanian Parliament who are actually pointing out that children and young people in particular should be better protected against frequently aggressive exposure to material with a sexual content. This is a completely natural debate. It seems that the rights of children in this debate have been completely disregarded. We will not find confidence, respect for sovereignty, restraint or consideration for children's rights in this resolution. This is why we cannot endorse this resolution.
Joanna Senyszyn
(PL) Madam President, the majority of European Union citizens believe that everyone is equal and everyone has the same rights. However, in some European countries, the level of tolerance for sexual minorities is still too low. There are cases of incitement of hatred towards homosexuals, prohibition of marches for equality, and even legal regulations which contravene European Union law, such as the discriminatory Lithuanian draft law. The creation of a uniform, minimal EU level of protection for people affected by discrimination due to age, sexual orientation, disability, religion or world-view would put a stop to these practices. When will this happen? The complete separation of church and state is important, as homophobia is spreading in those areas where religion plays too great a role. Even now, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries across the world, and 8 Islamic countries impose the death penalty for homosexual relations. In Europe, at most we only have provisions or draft laws which discredit the free world. This is why our resolution and the EU Anti-Discrimination Directive are so important.
Catherine Trautmann
(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment which is currently being examined by the Lithuanian Parliament and which would make it a punishable offence to publicly promote homosexuality, was drafted within the framework of a law for the protection of minors against the detrimental effects of public information.
How can we, supposedly for the sake of protecting minors, undermine both freedom of expression and of information, and, above all, sanction discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? We know very well that a text of this kind leads to concealing one's sexual orientation and runs counter to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights which we have defended and which this Parliament has defended. Furthermore, at a time when we are witnessing acts of violence and aggression towards homosexuals, this is an incitement to criminalising homosexuality and a call for violence. We cannot give to young people an image of Europe as a society that is closed, intolerant, inward-looking and that disregards respect for other people.
For us, therefore, this law is in complete contradiction with European values, as contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As has been said, it also goes against the whole antidiscriminatory corpus of Union law, which has greatly contributed to making our national laws more egalitarian in many aspects of everyday life from employment to information or education.
I thank you, Commissioner, for making a very clear statement, and I would like all groups to understand your argument as well as that of my fellow Members. I would like to call upon all fellow Members from all the political groups to join with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), the Greens/European Free Alliance (Verts/ALE) and the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), who have taken the initiative in drafting this resolution.
Anna Záborská
(SK) Madam President, why is this Parliament getting involved in a bill submitted by one member of a national parliament? I would like to ask when it was that we began to dictate to Member State lawmakers what they could discuss and what not?
Neither this debate nor the motion for a resolution, which we will vote on tomorrow, relate to a law currently in force. They relate to a non-binding text which is the subject of a debate in the parliament of an EU Member State. The law which potentially threatens media freedom in Hungary is a law currently in force.
Most of us, however, ultimately take the view that, before getting involved in it, we should give the Hungarian Government time to amend the law, if necessary. If nothing else, let us be consistent.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us also put this resolution on hold, at least until the end of the debate in the Lithuanian parliament.
RadvilMorkūnaitė-Mikulėnien
(LT) Madam President, I am from Lithuania, and the resolution being debated today is based on one amendment to the Code of Administrative Offences. I would stress that this is an unfinished legislative process in the national parliament with which the European Parliament is trying to interfere. This is the reading stage, not a final decision, and there have not even been any debates or discussions in the committee. For the sake of justice, I have to say that the institutions that had to evaluate our Parliamentary Group's amendment presented conclusions which are not favourable to the draft, meaning that the projected result being discussed today will probably not be the one we are speaking of here. I therefore cannot support the resolution, as it is an excessive reaction. Once again, I would like to address my friend Mr Higgins. Please do not refer to something you have not experienced. Comparing today's Lithuania with the Soviet Union is simply incomprehensible.
Alexandra Thein
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ban discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union oblige the bodies of the EU and all the Member States to fight discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Lithuania is a Member State of the EU and has thus undertaken to share these common values of the 500 million citizens of the Union. Firstly, I welcome the fact that following our first resolution in 2009, the planned act entered into force in Lithuania in a less severe form and that we have not yet become aware of any instance of this law having been applied, and that its application in respect of the ban on the Christopher Street Day Parade failed and the parade took place. I am all the more astonished, therefore, that new legislative measures are now being proposed under which speaking publicly about or providing information on homosexual relations could effectively result in fines of up to EUR 2 900 and there will no longer be equal opportunities for homosexual people - but at least for women.
I therefore welcome the Commission's strategy to combat homophobia and would particularly like to thank Commissioner Reding for emphasising the importance of protecting these fundamental rights through her attendance here in plenary when the time is nearly midnight.
Viviane Reding
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I have noted very broad agreement in this House by all the major political parties on the principle of non-discrimination. I believe that if there were a resolution that really underlined this principle and its application in national law - an obligation that the national states have signed up to vis-à-vis the rules of Europe - then this would be a very important moment.
Those parliamentarians who have clearly stated that we are speaking here about a law which is not a law but a proposal by some parliamentarians are right to highlight this fact, but I would also like to point out that both the President of Lithuania and the government of Lithuania have spoken out clearly against those proposals made by some parliamentarians.
I hope that a nearly unanimous decision in tomorrow's vote will underline these principles which have been freely agreed upon by 27 Member States, which are the principles behind our European directives, and which have been reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I can only subscribe to the strong position of this Parliament.
President
I have received two motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 19 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Kristiina Ojuland
in writing. - While we are critical of the violations of civil liberties in third countries, we must exercise similar scrutiny in the Member States. It is very disappointing that the Lithuanian Parliament has gone as far as criminalisation of the dissemination of information about sexual orientation on the pretext of protecting minors, religious feelings and political convictions. It is a clear violation of freedom of expression and it cannot be justified even by the will of the majority of the population. Inviolable rights of minorities are always an attribute of democracy, but the Lithuanian Parliament has mistaken populism for democracy. I would like to see the Lithuanian Parliament amending or repealing laws that are, in their essence, homophobic and in breach of the Lithuanian constitutional law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I applaud the courage of the Lithuanian President, Dalia Grybauskaitė, in standing up against discrimination in public and hope that others will follow her suit. However, should the Lithuanian Parliament fail to comply with its international obligations, an intervention on behalf of the European Union is needed.


EU Market access for European Companies (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Guardans Cambó, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the EU's strategy to deliver market access for European companies.
Ignasi Guardans Cambó
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, during discussions on the Lisbon Strategy and all it meant for growth and competitiveness in Europe, unfortunately the issue of external trade did not receive the attention it deserved as a substantial part of a strategy for competitiveness, growth and employment within the European Union. We have now moved on and the European Commission has corrected this situation, it has set things straight and it has clearly positioned external trade, access to foreign markets, as yet another pillar of the structure that must lead to growth and welfare in the European Union.
The export of goods and services is a basic component of competitiveness in our economies, and is thus a factor of employment and wealth in the European Union. The main export access difficulties arise from non-tariff barriers in particular, rather than from generally recognised tariffs. The Commission has already carried out a wide-ranging consultation, thereby demonstrating its intentions within the context of its broader strategy for a global Europe, intentions that we support. This report, in fact, covers a good many of the replies received during the consultation, or some of them at any rate, which the Commission decided not to include at the time.
Globalisation is not an external threat from which we need to be protected. In my view, it is a huge opportunity to achieve what we could not achieve before, and a larger market is one way of creating wealth, in other words, creating employment and improve the citizens' welfare. Clearly, and here I am speaking to a certain section of the House, that what this report is calling for is market access, market access that must be enhanced, a strategy that can and must respect the circumstances prevailing in each country. European leadership in this area respect the legitimate concerns of emerging economies, and must continue to do so.
One of the world's most open economies, however, such as the European model, cannot allow itself to be carried away by certain dogmatisms. The export of goods and services cannot be subject to unjustifiable barriers, nor can public contracts, and the Commission can and must do more in both these areas. It can and must improve its instruments in Brussels, in the framework of the EU, through better coordination with the trade promotion bodies in Member States and regions, and with the actual businesses involved. It is here, Commissioner, that the word subsidiarity ought to be understood in its broadest sense. It is here that the Commission has a role to play that cannot be played by any other entity, a role that elbows no one out of the way and enhances every one of us, coordinating the work that others already do, perhaps less effectively than the Commission might.
Thus the report sets out a number of specific points, some very specific indeed, which the Commission can improve within the context of its market access strategy. I do not intend to read them out here, but they are extremely clear and precise, and may be assessed with the same kind of precision. We are also making an extremely specific request for the Commission to define ad hoc courses of action to defend and improve the presence of SME products in third country markets, since it is these products that encounter most difficulties when they have no protection.
The Commission also can, and must, secure better coordination of resources on the ground without offending sensibilities or excluding anyone. Each state, each export support body, each trade delegation from a Member State: without offending anyone, the EU trade delegations can strengthen their role in third countries. There can be no justification for the lack of communication between certain foreign trade actors, whom anyone who has made a visit will know. Nor can we discard, whenever possible, a genuine multilateral approach with a view to improving standardisation, and the need to improve mechanisms within the WTO framework; all this will prove extremely useful.
I therefore feel that we can all welcome the adoption of this report, presumably by a large majority. I particularly wish to thank the secretariat of the Committee on International Trade, which helped with the drafting of the report, and the shadow rapporteurs in the various parliamentary groups who tabled amendments and improved the text.
This signals the start of a new political impetus. It is not just a piece of paper to be approved, framed and hung on the wall. This is the beginning of a strategy, as the name suggests, and a strategy requires a whole range of measures: these measures must be implemented and we must be able to ask the Commission at a later date to come back to Parliament and explain to us how they have been implemented.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Guardans Cambó, and the Committee on International Trade very much indeed for this very constructive report. It confirms that we share a common vision, both on the importance of a proactive market access strategy for European businesses and workers, and on the basic principles that should underlie this strategy.
The priorities that are set out here - SMEs, barriers to services and investment, public procurement and IPR - are very much my priorities. That is the same message that the European Council sent last June, and again in response to our progress report last month. We have built a strong new consensus on the importance of this work.
At the heart of the global Europe strategy that we launched in 2006 was the commitment both to keeping our own markets in Europe open, and also to refocusing our resources on creating new opportunities for European workers and companies in the markets of our main trading partners. We can do that above all through a successful WTO trade deal, but we can also do it through a new generation of free-trade agreements. It also means taking a more hard-headed approach to modern trade barriers, and especially non-tariff barriers which operate not at the border, but behind the border. Europe's workers and companies can compete almost anywhere if they are given a fair opportunity and a level playing field on which to compete. Our job is to support them and provide them with a platform to do that, which means focusing on the barriers, conditions and discriminatory regulatory practices that operate against them and deny them that fair opportunity to compete and to trade.
The challenge in 2007 has been to put this policy into practice. In particular, we have focused on strengthening our resources on the ground in our most important markets by creating market access teams that bring together a business, a Member State and Commission staff and experts. These are the people who really know the markets and who have a feel for the local politics and a clear sense of both what is necessary and what is possible. This has produced good results. In the last six months we have scored important successes in South America, Central Asia, South Asia, Japan and Russia. We have also stepped up our cooperation with the United States on market access issues, which has been instrumental in some of these successes.
We have also introduced an on-line complaint register for EU companies and launched real-time and monthly reporting on market access work. I therefore mildly disagree with the suggestion in the report that the Commission has not done enough to bring out the full potential of this partnership during the launch phase. That does not mean either that I consider the collaboration to be perfect or that I feel in the least bit complacent about what we could do differently, and even better, than we are at the moment.
I agree that this new strategy is a dynamic process which requires constant vigilance and constant commitment. Frankly, it also needs some more high-profile advocates of what we are doing and how we are setting about pursuing our objectives, both in this House and also among the Member States - people who believe in economic openness, but who are also not afraid to speak up for reciprocal market opening, especially amongst those emerging economies whose own growth is being driven by their access to our markets. That is right, that is fair and that is the principle of international trade that we believe in - that whilst we remain open to others they too should progressively open their markets to us if the principle of international trade is going to be well and properly served.
I agree with the rapporteur when he calls on all stakeholders to participate actively in this partnership. We are continuing to improve our coordination work on the ground with Member States and industry, but we need these experts to step up as well if we are to achieve our potential.
On the question of resources, I am grateful for the additional staff that the budgetary authorities have allocated to DG Trade. We will continue to push for more resources for the most important markets in Asia and, for example, in Brazil. In the mean time we have strengthened our staffing on market access activities in Brussels.
Finally, I also take note of your request to receive an annual report from the Commission. Along with the regular reporting, I would be pleased to discuss the annual activity report with Parliament.
So, my thanks again to the rapporteur and to Parliament for its engagement in this very important work. It is vital that we maintain our energy and engagement in 2008 and beyond. This priority means a lot to me and to my services; it means a lot to our businesses in Europe and for the employment they are able to create for our workers, flowing from increased market access and from the strengthening of world trade that is at the heart of our trade policy strategy for a global Europe.
(Applause)
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Rapporteur for approval Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (RO) Mr. President, Mr. Commissioner, the European Union's Market Access Strategy was initiated in 1996. The Commission developed a free service that provides the European exporters with an electronic, public, updated register regarding the market access conditions in approximately 100 countries.
In 2007, in the euro zone, trade recorded a surplus of 28.3 billion euros, as compared to a deficit of 9.3 billion euros in 2006. In 2007, the EU-27 recorded a deficit of 185.7 billion euros, as compared to a deficit of 192.1 billion euros in 2006. Therefore, at Community level, actions should be taken so that the Member States outside the euro zone would become more competitive.
We consider that the market access will be facilitated by promoting the European Union's values and principles to third countries by promoting open markets, by approaching social standards and environmental standards and by ensuring the protection of intellectual rights.
Investments in research, promotional campaigns to make the available services and information public, improving the Community computer system regarding market access, interconnecting the specific databases and training specialists who would support the European companies should be part of the Commission's partnership with the Member States and the European companies.
Corien Wortmann-Kool
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr President, the new market access strategy of the Commission should really help to remove barriers in third countries. It is, therefore, as the Commissioner says, an appropriate addition to the WTO and an important addition to free trade agreements. I am very pleased with the positive report from Parliament, and would like to thank our rapporteur, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, who also managed to set out such clear priorities: better cooperation with European businesses and more support for small and medium-sized enterprises; the help-desk at the Commission but also on the ground in the third countries. I think that the European Institute in China for small and medium-sized European companies is an excellent Commission initiative.
It is a matter of reciprocity. We open up our market to third countries and then the markets in those third countries should also be opened up to our European companies, especially in the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and Russia. We should therefore give this priority in the market access strategy, with market access teams that will assist European companies in those countries. This means that we have to put in sufficient personnel to do this, including in those European embassies, as you already said. European business is the biggest exporter in the world and we have to compete constantly against protectionist measures, even in those third countries. Set your priorities for the areas that are important: services, public procurement, investments, intellectual property and customs procedures.
I am pleased that you have announced that you will report to us annually and it would be good to discuss the priorities once a year. You have demonstrated ambition here and that is a precious thing to us. I really hope that you also show ambition when it comes to adapting the trade defence instruments, the same ambition as you have shown in this strategy.
Carlos Carnero González
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I wish to begin my speech by congratulating the rapporteur on his important work in terms of proposals and analysis.
This Parliament does not vote on explanatory statements, but if it did so on this report, I would vote in favour because it certainly justifies the main proposals for provisions. Thus I feel able to announce the support of the Socialist Group, with a request that the rapporteur take into account some of the main amendments we have tabled, in due accordance with the ideals of a left-wing group.
Europe certainly is the world's largest goods exporter and its leading service provider. Moreover, in a globalised context we have a legitimate right to market as many of our products and services as possible, in the markets of emerging countries in this case. Why not? It is logical and normal, and it is what our citizens would want. Thus the proposals put forward in the report and set out in the Commission communication are correct, starting with the prevention of non-tariff barriers, a 'Hydra', as the rapporteur so rightly calls them: a Hydra working behind the scenes, not only preventing European products and services from reaching markets, but also preventing balanced development in those countries and markets.
I am therefore of the opinion that this report is on the right path, for what we must do is secure our Lisbon agenda and strengthen our social model. We also need to ensure that this model can penetrate the emerging countries with which we wish to trade. I have no doubt this will be beneficial to both European workers and workers in the other countries.
We place a considerable emphasis on working conditions, security, protection of the environment and, above all, human rights. Those are our principal amendments.
I must repeat our request that the rapporteur take account of these. Indeed, how do we actually achieve these goals? We achieve them through much more intense cooperation - I do not know if it can be called 'enhanced' cooperation, since that creates confusion with institutional provisions in the new Treaty - between the EU, Member States and businesses, starting with support for SMEs. Congratulations, therefore, and good night.
Cristiana Muscardini
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware of the sensitivity of this matter and how much attention is paid to it in our respective countries.
The UEN Group is very satisfied with the proposal put forward by Mr Guardans Cambó and the additional work done by the Committee on International Trade. I would compliment the rapporteur on his analysis and European focus, and consequently his emphasis on the difficulties often caused by the unwarranted obstacles confronting European industry on international markets.
Improving competitiveness means doing whatever is necessary to ensure the success of the Lisbon strategy. If we are able to give European industry better access to international markets, we will enable companies to grow, invest in know-how and technology, and create more jobs. This is what many economic sectors in our countries are asking of us.
Various kinds of obstacles impede access to foreign markets by European industry. These barriers consist of a number of different measures ranging from confused regulations and disincentives to investment or market access, to unfair trading practices, scant regard for intellectual property rights and widespread counterfeiting, which is detrimental to European goods, and, more generally, serious and systematic violations of the WTO rules and other rules governing international trade.
The Commission's communication goes in the right direction and Parliament wishes to support the initiatives it sets out, aimed at improving access to foreign markets. These include the formation of a stronger strategic partnership between the Commission, maintaining its coordinating role, the Member States, and European Union businesses, with a view to supporting economic operators and especially SMEs wishing to make contact with or export to third countries.
The Commission delegations in certain key countries need a stronger presence. This should form part of a broader strategy carried out in conjunction with our main trading partners, such as the United States, Japan and Canada; they have the same concerns as ourselves internationally and could join the Union in promoting a multilateral agreement in this field, backing WTO mechanisms that ensure a faster response to any new non-tariff barriers.
Multilateral action, the most effective type of action owing to the number of countries involved but also the most difficult, therefore needs to be accompanied by agreements identifying and resolving the inconsistencies connected with the existence of unwarranted obstacles in third countries.
Carl Schlyter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, when one reads the Commission Communication and, in particular, Parliament's report, one might think that the poor little EU is being discriminated against by malign foreign forces. This emerges especially from paragraph 4 of the report, which says that we urge the Commission to ensure that the European Union's trade interests are defended against the abusive or unfair trade practices of third countries. And again: 'when third countries unjustifiably restrict access to their markets by European Union companies, the European Union should react rapidly and firmly'.
We should be careful when using that kind of language to former colonies. They remember when Europe last acted firmly to defend its interests. That kind of talk can damage us more than any trade restrictions.
Certainly the Commission has a point in that there are technical barriers to trade and unfair rules. Of course we must discuss them with our partners calmly and reasonably and solve any problems there may be. But invite, not only businesses, but also voluntary organisations, including those from third countries. Then perhaps we can understand how the rules came about and understand whether they are reasonable or not.
I am uneasy about the ten-point list. Restrictive export procedures for raw materials, a ceiling on foreign ownership in the services sector, restrictions on foreign direct investment, state procurement procedures and the application of state aid must be seen as barriers to trade which have their justification; they arise from legitimate legislation and are administrative measures from public authorities. They cannot be removed without public consultation and deliberation, if stability in those countries is not to be compromised.
Countries must have the right to protect health and the environment and have procurement procedures which ensure that their local businesses are not completely excluded from international competition, thereby creating mass unemployment. Also we cannot be so unreasonable as to expect countries to protect our intangible property rights when they hardly have the resources to protect human rights. We should promote freedom rather than set traps.
We must come down on those rules which seek to favour businesses in their countries which have foreign operations and which act against other foreign players. That is where we can remove rules. We should be able to turn a blind eye to rules which are directly or indirectly intended to protect the population or businesses active locally. We ourselves protected our industries until they were strong enough to compete internationally. Others must be allowed to do the same.
Christofer Fjellner
(SV) To create market access means abolishing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade around the world. It is an immensely important priority for the Union's trade policy. It creates not only business opportunities for European companies but also gives them access to better and cheaper products in other parts of the world. It creates prosperity across the world.
It is also a matter on which I feel there is unaccustomed agreement in the European Parliament. It is gratifying at a time when protectionism is on the march all around the world. I therefore also think that the Commission Communication and Mr Guardans Cambó's report are more welcome than at any other time. They are really very good.
In this discussion I would like to draw attention to another question which we must not ignore - the other side of openness. I think that they belong together. European firms also need openness within Europe in order to be competitive on a global basis and make use of the market access which we can create in other countries. In our globalised world, with ever more companies having global supply chains, our own tariffs can be just as damaging to our successful businesses as those tariffs we oppose in other countries.
I have a concrete proposal for the Commissioner, a proposal which may help a little in resolving this question. When firms have problems trading within the EU they report them to Solvit, which is an excellent tool for increasing mobility on the internal market. If a firm has a problem exporting to a country outside the EU, it refers it to the Market Access Database. That too is immensely important. Both of these systems provide a basis for negotiations on how trade can be facilitated. Let us hope that we can also develop either the Market Access Database or Solvit in order to deal with problems which importing firms in the EU may experience.
If we do that, both we ourselves and the rest of the world can continue to move in a direction which is more conducive to free trade. Then we can show that Europe is taking the lead in opening up markets, both abroad and at home.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
(PL) Mr President, the report by Mr Guardans Cambó deals with all the areas involved in strengthening partnership to allow European exporters easier access to third country markets.
Protectionist practices, unfair competition and the erection of bureaucratic barriers often restrict access to those markets. Small and medium-sized enterprises create the most jobs in Europe but experience particular problems exporting. Their opportunities are limited due to lack of resources needed for research, new technology, to gain a foothold in those markets and adjust their products and services to consumers.
The report rightly emphasises the need for European, governmental and diplomatic sources to offer meaningful assistance to SMEs. The European Union should increase its logistic action and offer proper support to make it easier for these entrepreneurs to be active on third country markets.
Georgios Papastamkos
(EL) Like you, Commissioner, we are particularly concerned about the lack of reciprocal terms of access to the market and the unequal treatment of European products encountered by many partners.
In the textile industry and clothing sector, for instance, the EU applies an average tariff of 9%, which is one of the lowest in the world. On the other hand, many competitors impose tariffs of up to and above 30% together with a host of non-tariff barriers.
Thus the emerging economies also need to accept, to a certain extent, the principle of reciprocity in concessions in line with their level of development and their competitiveness in a given sector. The protection of intellectual property rights and geographical indications at global level remains fairly inadequate; it neutralises the competitive advantage of the high added value of European industrial and agricultural products.
The harmonisation of international regulatory models and rules facilitates access to foreign markets and must not render the European regulatory framework of environmental, social, public health and consumer protection more flexible.
Quite the reverse: the object is convergence, but in an upward direction. Of special importance is the classification of imports according to the relevant specifications and requirements, as well as the search for successful methods for tackling environmental and social dumping.
Finally, I should like to stress that small and medium-sized enterprises must be at the heart of the new market access strategy.
I congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur as well the Commissioner. We welcome the Commission's initiative on the new market access strategy.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Commissioner, I, too, am convinced that the Commission delegations and the new market access teams operating in third countries require a considerably stronger mandate. The Commission should, in my view, reconsider its priorities in the allocation of human resources in the EU delegations and increase the number of delegation staff, especially those operating in China, India, Russia and Brazil. The Member States should play a more substantial part in contributing to the human and financial resources of these delegations, proportional to their trade interests. Moreover, the Commission and the Member States should improve cooperation with European chambers of commerce, trade associations and Member State agencies in third countries. This is fundamental for the exchange of information among delegations, diplomatic missions and European business associations. This would benefit SMEs in particular. The main objective of our strategy, however, has to be reciprocity of trade relations, especially for example in China, and more rigorous enforcement of international trade legislation, rather than labelling this enforcement as protectionism.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, I was interested that the Commissioner was the only one who mentioned the World Trade talks. Perhaps this is an opportunity to get some information referring to the new opportunities in the markets of our main trading partners that a successful WTO deal would give us. But you also said, Commissioner, that perhaps a new generation of free-trade agreements might do it. Are you conceding defeat at the WTO? Perhaps you could give us some up-to-date information on that, because I think that is a crucial part of this debate.
Could I ask you, also, to clarify some concerns in relation to the current situation on the agriculture part of the WTO? There are concerns about further concessions being made by the EU on import tariffs on sensitive products, and some large tariff-rate quota increases as being part of the agenda, because there is also the issue of what progress you are making at the WTO on access for non-agricultural goods and services. I think we need an update, if you can give us that, as part of this debate.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, as we take the floor in this debate we wish to draw attention to three issues. Firstly, it is essential for the European Union to adopt a firm and unambiguous stance in every situation in which the export interests of a Member State are threatened as a result of unfair practices by third countries. In this connection, we should recognise the stance adopted by the European Union in the case of the embargo preventing Polish meat and agricultural products from accessing the Russian market. Unfortunately, this stance towards Russia was only adopted after more than a year of restrictions by Russia on Polish exports, and after Poland used its veto to hold up preparations for the EU-Russia agreement.
Secondly, opening up the Union's markets to goods and services from third countries should be governed by the principle of reciprocity. The Union as a whole should therefore monitor whether exporters from third countries include in their manufacturing costs the contributions to be made to provide for compliance with environmental standards and social security for workers in their countries. European products will always be beaten by their competitors on the world's markets if the aforementioned costs are not taken into account.
Thirdly, great caution should be exercised when opening up the Union's market for access of agricultural products from third countries. If the market is opened up fully many sectors of European agriculture will simply disappear, which would threaten Europe's food security.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, open economies and markets are features of the contemporary market economy, the economy of the 21st century. This is a first for the global economy. Not all economic entities are in a position to deal with competition, however, especially when competition is not always fair, and is dominated by the great and powerful.
Both large and small firms can import, but large firms have more opportunities to develop export. This is because entering new markets requires substantial investment in promotion and in setting up the whole logistical system. It therefore seems appropriate for SMEs to organise joint action to develop exports, especially to promote the latter.
A certain degree of aid and State support for companies in the area of export promotion should be allowed, notably in the area of know-how. At WTO level, too, agreement should be reached on the development of trade between SMEs. Accessibility of information on entities active on the global market is particularly important. The quality of trade should be improved and priority given to creating equal opportunities for market access.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank you and the honourable Members for what has been a very constructive and useful debate on this excellent report. I am particularly grateful to the Member who intervened to urge a reassessment of the staffing allocations of Commission delegations in key economies. I thought this was an excellent proposal, and one that I will have no hesitation at all in communicating to my colleagues. I could rehearse for you the details of the small number of delegation staff working, for example, on trade matters in China compared to the considerably larger numbers of staff working on what is a very small amount of development aid and cooperation in that country, set alongside the billions that are at stake for Europe in trade. But I will not; I will simply pocket the suggestion and pass it on.
It is certainly not the case that I am advocating free-trade agreements at the expense of the world trade talks. Anyone who is familiar with the global Europe trade strategy that we presented in November 2006 will realise that my advocacy of deep, comprehensive free-trade agreements that really contribute to increasing the sum total of world trade, and not simply divert it, has been a feature of our approach alongside our commitment to the WTO talks - the Doha Round. I can assure the honourable Member that I am continuing to work for their success rather than their failure. Rumours about further unacceptable or inappropriate concessions on agriculture are unfounded. Indeed, the only rumours that I have picked up about such unwarranted concessions actually came from the Irish Foreign Minister in the General Affairs Council today. These rumours seem to be circulating within a relatively small community of interest.
The fact is that on agriculture - and other areas of the Doha talks - we will move as far as it is prudent for us to go in order to contribute to the success of the world trade talks, but ultimately this must be within the limits of the mandate we have been given on the basis of the 2003 CAP reform.
It is true that we have two new negotiating texts that have been presented by negotiating group chairs in recent weeks. On agriculture, we have a text in which not everything is to our liking, but there is nothing that we cannot handle in that agriculture text or that will push us beyond our mandate.
In the case of non-agricultural market access - industrial goods - the situation, in my view, is not so satisfactory. There, the new text presented by the chairman has created a greater fluidity in the negotiations, rather than more concrete foundations. I regret that, but again it is something that we have to work with and negotiate our way through.
These debates would not be so enjoyable if it were not for Mr Schlyter's contributions. Whenever he intervenes I always feel reinforced in my personal commitment and conviction concerning free trade. His interventions always reassure me that we are indeed on the right track. It is not a question of the poor little European Union struggling against the mighty titans amongst the emerging economies, nor is it about a sort of fit of aggressive bullying that has taken over the Commission in the area of trade, in which we seek without consultation or consideration to impose our interests on others.
The fact is that those of us who believe in international trade are seeking balance and we are seeking reciprocity, but we are also seeking mutual advantage. When we seek openings in the economies of others, we are not doing that in order simply to satisfy ourselves, or to serve our own interests and our own needs. We are also contributing to the welfare and growth of the economies whose greater opening we are trying to bring about.
Of course, the liberalisation of economies is something that has to be achieved progressively. It is an incremental process, rather than a big bang or a sudden shock. The fact is that emerging economies benefit from greater opening. This means useful competition to stimulate innovation and to spur productivity in those economies, it means lowering the costs of inputs to local industry, it means lower-priced goods for consumers in those emerging economies, and it means bringing capital, technologies, creativity and modern management skills to those emerging economies.
The fact is that this process of opening and integration to the global economy secures the growth and strengthening of those emerging economies to enable their businesses to grow, to create much-needed employment for their workers in these economies, and to generate products and services for export so that they can create and secure a growing share of international trade. In other words, opening begets opening; trade begets trade. Our prosperity and our opportunities beget opportunities for those who live and work in those emerging economies. It is, in other words, a virtuous process that we are talking about, and that is what the market access strategy which our rapporteur has presented such an excellent report on is all about.
In concluding, I would say that when it comes to local procurement it is indeed important to support and encourage the capacity of emerging economies and developing countries to supply their local procurement markets. However, if this means higher costs for public procurement in those economies, if it means inefficiencies, if it means a lack of transparency, and indeed in some cases corruption in the operation of public procurement, who shoulders the costs of that? The answer is the very local people, the very local workers and the very local taxpayers in emerging economies and developing countries who can ill afford to shoulder those costs.
That is why it is important to bring openness and transparency to public procurement policies and behaviour in emerging economies. It is not simply to please and to satisfy the 'poor little' European Union.
Ignasi Guardans Cambó
rapporteur. - Mr President, there is not much more to say. First of all, let me thank again all those who have enriched this debate, not just today but ever since the debate started, through their contributions, amendments and even the informal conversations we have had, which has resulted in a final text which is not the work of one rapporteur but of everyone involved.
We mostly shared the diagnosis, and I was very surprised at the tone of some of the comments from the Green corner of this House. It would be interesting to have the colleague in question go and see the results and consequences of free trade in situ and also to go and explain to a medium-sized enterprise, say near Barcelona where I live, that this was a 'colonial approach'. I could quote so many companies who are fighting to export, with a great part of their activities depending on exports. He might like to tell the employees of those factories that they are just acting as European colonisers in trying to enlarge the export market share of the product they are manufacturing, when if China introduces barriers which prevent them from exporting what they are manufacturing it is their jobs which are at stake.
This is not just about big words on big European companies being colonial, it is about something much more real. Although everyone has the right to portray things as they wish, I must say that the idea of this being a 'colonialist' report really surprised me and might be even be viewed as comic by a lot of exporters in my country.
It is clear, though, that we do, in general, agree on the diagnosis, and as the Commission has said it is something that was started by the Council, was followed up by the Commission and is today being supported by Parliament, which of course puts a lot of responsibility on your shoulders, Commissioner, because we do have a common approach. Again, let me underline that this is a dynamic process and a fresh strategy, and some elements are indeed new and need to be followed up. May I quote a point in the report which was underlined by our colleague and which you liked so much: 'We call on the Commission to reprioritise the deployment and eventually to increase the human resources available for European Union delegations, so that more staff are available to start up and ensure the successful functioning of market access teams'. The same is true, inter alia, of what the report says on SMEs. There are a lot of new things in this report, and we wish you all the best in implementing them.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 19 February 2008.
Written Statements (Article 142)
Tokia Saïfi
in writing. - (FR) The competitiveness of European industry needs to be placed at the heart of the Community agenda, for this alone will allow us to create skilled jobs, secure Europe's economic growth, guarantee the survival of the European welfare system and ensure that the EU can remain a major trading power in the 21st century.
To ensure that this competitiveness is maintained we need to establish market access conditions that are fair, equitable and reciprocal. In fact, the European market is one of the most open and competitive in the world, thanks mainly to the right of free competition, which guarantees open and fair trading within the EU.
Nevertheless, the European Union is still faced with numerous commercial obstacles when it comes to foreign trade, for the markets of Europe's main trading partners do not present the same degree of openness and transparency as the Community market. We therefore need to take urgent steps to re-establish reciprocal conditions for market access to third countries and, more particularly, to emerging countries, and to combat restrictive commercial practices. We need to act quickly and firmly to ensure that our SMEs have full and unrestricted access to all markets, especially in the public procurement sector.


Improving consumer education and awareness on credit and finance (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Iotova, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on protecting the consumer: improving consumer education and awareness on credit and finance.
Iliana Malinova Iotova
The report on financial education which will be put to the vote at tomorrow's plenary session is more important than ever. It is clear that the financial crisis we are now facing can be avoided if consumers are well informed of the risks that various types of credit entail. We can definitely say that if in the past we had concentrated more on the financial education of people, we would not be facing the present situation, or at least the crisis would not have assumed the proportions it has. For the sake of the future we must be sure that our children are given the opportunity to learn and to handle credit cards and loans properly everywhere in Europe. We have to concentrate on student mortgage loans and pension and investment funds. These financial products strongly affect the lives of consumers, which is why they must be taken into consideration. We must not forget that increasing numbers of young people are getting deep into debt without even suspecting what effect this will have on their lives.
We have spent many months working very closely on the texts of the report. We conducted a very interesting public discussion with representatives of European and US banks and financial institutions right on the eve of the crisis. Even then the problems had clearly come into focus, and the alarm was sounded. On the other hand, we were able to see the experience and good practice of financial education in countries which have traditions in this area and which are constantly working to improve it - the UK, France, Germany and elsewhere, and we heard the opinions of those who are taking their first steps in this field. I am pleased with the results of the vote on the report in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and by the Commission's decision on the budgets needed to provide assistance on the project.
We also received many encouraging responses from leading financial instructions on the initiative report. I believe we have reached a compromise solution which satisfies all political groups, which is why I hope tomorrow's vote on the report will be successful. We can only overcome the present financial crisis through joint efforts, which is why we need to unite and work together on this common initiative. It is time to act and to ensure that European consumers have the knowledge they need about consumer and other types of credits, so that a similar financial disaster is not repeated. To achieve this it is extremely important that the Member States implement the measures undertaken and cooperate closely. And finally I would like to thank the members of the European Commission greatly for the assistance they have given me.
Danuta Hübner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, this is a very timely report. It highlights many of the challenges which European consumers are facing in the context of the current financial crisis. That is why I give many thanks to Mrs Iotova for the outstanding work.
The Commission recognised the importance of financial education for the proper functioning of the internal market in our Communication which was adopted in December last year. Consumers definitely have to be empowered to take responsible decisions regarding their personal finance, and only in this way will they be able to reap the tangible benefits that come from financial integration in the European Union.
Education is the competence of the Member States. The Commission's role in this regard is mainly supportive, but nevertheless important.
The national level is the most appropriate for the delivery of consumer education programmes and it is also the most effective and efficient. Member States have a key role to play, for example by adopting national financial education strategies based on public/private partnership.
We believe that the Commission's role is to act as a promoter of financial education EU-wide, showing benefits, coordinating efforts, demonstrating best practice.
In this regard we have implemented several practical initiatives and created the expert group on financial education, which held its first meeting in October, devoted to discussions on the national strategies for financial education.
We have also been advancing the development of the Dolcetta online tools for teachers to make it easier for them to incorporate financial topics into the existing curricula. Soon we will be publishing the European database for financial education, an electronic library of schemes run by various types of providers. Finally, the Commission regularly offers its patronage to selected events giving visibility to financial education.
We fully agree with the general thrust of this parliamentary report and the majority of its proposals. The issue of crucial importance is the education of children and young people, and the Commission shares with Parliament the conviction that financial literacy should be taught at school.
We are ready and willing to assist Member States in developing their basic educational programmes in the field of personal finances, and a similar concern applies to the idea of tasking the Commission with running EU information and media campaigns on financial education. Such awareness-raising campaigns should be tailored to the specific needs of the audience and are most efficient when run at the national or even local level. Again we are ready to assist.
I would like to conclude by thanking Parliament for its good work on this file and look forward to continuing the dialogue between Parliament and the Commission on the important issues of consumer financial education.
President
That concludes this item.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Dragoş Florin David
in writing. - (RO) Ignorance of the law does not exempt us from its consequences, in much the same way as ignorance of financial mechanisms does not exempt us from the losses suffered.
Finance and banking institutions and insurance companies had and still have an obligation to provide consumers with 'user instructions' for financial instruments so that they can make enlightened decisions. This is why I believe that the need to educate Europe's citizens in financial, banking and insurance matters by governmental and non-governmental institutions is a good solution for those who really want this. However, providing information to the citizens who use these instruments must be a duty performed by the providers of services in this area. I think that it is the obligation of the EU Commission and Member States to warn and inform Europe's citizens about the harmful nature of particular products or services and to regulate the European market so that these harmful products or services cannot appear on the market.
I would like to conclude by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Iotova, and our colleagues from the Committee on International Trade and Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the efficient way in which they drafted this resolution.
Zita Pleštinská
in writing. - (SK) The crisis over risky mortgage loans has confirmed that the level of financial awareness among EU citizens is low. Consumers are not sufficiently familiar with the risks of bankruptcy and excessive debt. Information on financial products from financial institutions, mainly provided through advertisements, is hard to understand and sometimes confusing. They do not provide consumers with enough information prior to signing contracts.
The job of informing consumers about finance and loans should begin in school, where the consumers of tomorrow should be familiarised with the products of the banking sector. Particular emphasis must be placed on programmes for young people, pensioners and vulnerable groups.
I firmly believe that the Commission should create a budget item for financial education programmes at an EU level, which could bring together all of the relevant bodies, such as the state, non-governmental organisations, consumer organisations and financial institutions.
I would like particularly to emphasise the role of the consumer organisations at a Community level and also at an intra-state level, since they know best the special needs of the target groups in the area of educational programmes. Many Member States fail to assign adequate funding in their budgets to consumer protection policies and fail to give attention or financial support to the activities of consumer organisations.
There are few consumers who can afford the services of personal financial advisers and I therefore firmly believe that consumers should be provided with independent advice on proper training courses via EU educational programmes and within the framework of consumer organisations.
Marian Zlotea
I would like to congratulate Mrs Iotova for the subject matter dealt with by this report. I consider financial education to be a very important topic. At the moment in Romania, we are facing the problem of people who are no longer managing to pay their debts because they have taken out credit from different banks. Not only have they been badly advised about the implications of this credit, but they have not been given any kind of adequate financial education to allow them to decide which financial service might suit them better.
We must not confuse financial education with information supplied to consumers. Financial education programmes need to be developed according to the age groups and needs of the various sections of the population.
I hope that the Dolceta service will be translated into Romanian and Bulgarian as soon as possible so that all the citizens of the Member States can benefit from it.


Welcome
President
Ladies and gentlemen, I shall now read a message from Mr Buzek.
'I am pleased to inform you that today we have the honour of welcoming Bogdan Borusewicz, Speaker of the Polish Senate, Irena Degutienė, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and Volodimir Litvin, Speaker of the Verkovna Rada of Ukraine.
The three speakers met today in Parliament for an extraordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. This assembly is rooted in the tradition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which for more than two centuries has represented the boundary of Europe, understood as a political, cultural and civil project.
The meeting of this parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg today marks the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the 3 May Constitution, the first constitution in Europe.'