Democracy, Human Rights and the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement EU/Vietnam (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Council by Marco Cappato, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on Democracy, human rights and the new EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement - B6-0473/2008), and
the oral question to the Commission by Marco Pannella, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on Democracy, human rights and the new EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement - B6-0474/2008).
Marco Cappato
author. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations are taking place on the new cooperation agreement with Vietnam and I believe it is important for Parliament to be informed about the substance of the negotiations, particularly with regard to respect for human rights and democracy.
We do not claim that by means of cooperation agreements we can, with a click of the fingers, miraculously achieve respect for democracy and human rights in Vietnam or elsewhere. What our European law requires us to do, however, is to refuse to accept serious, systematic infringements of human rights and democracy. We know that we do not have huge resources with which to impose this respect; we know, however, that the renegotiation of cooperation agreements can provide a good opportunity to make at least some progress on the most serious and most systematic infringements.
I hope that in the resolution that will be adopted tomorrow this Parliament can put to the Commission and the Council some especially serious points, which were also brought up at the hearing held by Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, with figures such as Kok Ksor, Vo Van Ai and members of the non-violent radical party, among others.
Firstly, the situation of the Degar minority, who are Christians in Vietnam's central highlands: they are still being arrested in their hundreds and there is still no free access to the central highlands of Vietnam for international observers, particularly for the United Nations. Now that Vietnam is in the United Nations Security Council, this should not be happening any more: the hundreds of political prisoners currently being held must be freed.
There is a huge problem regarding religious freedom, and Vietnam must give a response on this before a new agreement is signed, particularly the failure to recognise the Unified Buddhist Church. Thich Quang Do, the leader of the church, is still being held under arrest, and the land belonging to the Catholics is still confiscated. It is time for Vietnam to repeal the laws criminalising dissent and religious activities.
Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, our request is therefore a specific one: can we ensure that these problems, at least these serious infringements of human rights, are resolved before a new cooperation agreement is entered into?
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
President-in-Office of the Council. -(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cappato, I am pleased to be back here among you today.
We are following the human rights situation in Vietnam very closely, and the Presidency has just recently had the opportunity to express concern once again following the sentences handed down in particular to two journalists who had written reports on corruption cases. The Council and the Commission maintain regular dialogue with Vietnam on the subject of human rights, in talks held twice a year. The last meeting, held in Hanoi on 10 June 2008, allowed us to address, on the one hand, the general human rights situation in Vietnam, and, in particular, freedom of expression, the situation of minorities and the application of the death penalty, as well as a number of individual cases.
In addition to this dialogue, a number of more selective measures are taken with regard to individual cases, where arrests or sentences appear to us to undermine respect for civil liberties and international commitments and, in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by Vietnam.
Moreover, on the occasion of the European Day against the death penalty, on 10 October, we once again explained our very clear position on this subject to the Vietnamese authorities. They seemed receptive to our message, and brought up the reform of the penal code currently under way, a reform that is expected to reduce the number of crimes subject to the death penalty. That is the very least they could do.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you can clearly see, the human rights issue is an important element of our relations with Vietnam. It is a sensitive issue. Mr Cappato, you mentioned the situation of Christians in Central Vietnam, a matter to which we are particularly attentive, and I thank you for having mentioned it. I would like to point out that the European Union is the only power to pursue such a global and purposeful policy on this matter, and this at times makes us a target for criticism by our partner. I wish to be clear about this, however: we will pursue this policy with determination.
I wish to turn now to the future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the debate on which is under way. A new session of talks is currently under way in Hanoi, and will continue until 22 October. Like any agreement concluded by the European Union with a third country, this agreement must contain a very important clause on human rights. This clause will constitute an essential element of the future agreement, which may be suspended or even revoked if one of the parties fails to respect it - I want to insist on this point. At this stage in the negotiations, Vietnam has not challenged the principle of such a clause. Once again, that is the least it can do. This is a positive sign by Vietnam and a practical commitment on its part to respect human rights. The European Union will thus have at its disposal a powerful legal instrument to guarantee respect for human rights as soon as the agreement has been ratified.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cappato, we agree with you that the human rights situation in Vietnam needs to be improved. We consider that the actions we have been taking for several years now are helping to improve it, but, beyond that, it is in our view the signing of a future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement that will enable us, in this case as in others, to use the human rights clause to provide the best possible framework for addressing this issue with Vietnam. Naturally, this House will be kept fully informed of the development of the negotiations which, I would remind you, are under way.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Mr President, please forgive me for having disrupted proceedings by listening for a moment to some of your Members.
President
Commissioner, you are not to blame if Members come and distract you with something irrelevant, in a clear lack of solidarity with the Member who is speaking at the time. You are therefore forgiven and it is the Members who must take into account that, when one of us is speaking, they should not distract the President-in-Office of the Council or whoever is speaking on behalf of the Commission. Please continue.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, and, of course, ladies and gentlemen of this House, Mr Cappato, the Commission is very pleased with the attention paid by Parliament to the negotiation of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam, as well as to the human rights situation in that country.
Our debate is most timely, since, on this very day, as our President has mentioned, talks are being held in Hanoi to negotiate this agreement. I can tell you that the human rights situation is an absolutely crucial concern of the European Union in its relations with Vietnam. It is true that that country is, in spite of everything, making a certain amount of progress in this area. I am thinking in particular of the recent efforts to reduce the scope of the death penalty, to establish, for example, a legislative framework setting out the conditions for the exercise of religious freedom, and to better manage the issue of ethnic minorities who had fled to Cambodia and who are now returning to Vietnam.
Nevertheless - and you are right in this regard - it is clear that, in recent months, some worrying trends have unfortunately developed with regard, in particular, to religious freedom and to freedom of expression. These trends are illustrated more specifically by the harassment of the Catholic community in Hanoi and by the sentencing, last week, of journalists for their investigation into corruption.
As I said to the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Khiêm, when he was in Brussels very recently, on 17 September, it would be disastrous for the long-term stability of Vietnam and for its international credibility if the current economic and social difficulties in that country led to its instinctively regressing to authoritarianism and repression.
Now more than ever, Vietnam must, on the contrary, establish mechanisms intended to allow peaceful expression of the tensions and social frustrations being felt in that country. This is a message that President Barroso will also repeat this week when he meets Prime Minister Dung on the fringe of the ASEM Summit in Beijing. This will be the European Union's message during the next session of the EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, which will also take place in Hanoi, in December. The draft Partnership and Cooperation Agreement proposed by the EU to Vietnam confirms and increases the importance that we attach to human rights in our relations with this country.
Indeed, the current draft agreement, as our President said, includes a vital, suspensive clause on human rights; consolidates the regular EU-Vietnam dialogue on human rights by conferring a legal status on it; and makes provision to help Vietnam equip itself with a national action plan on human rights. It includes a whole series of detailed provisions on compliance with labour law, good governance and the promotion of the rule of law. It also contains a clause on the International Criminal Court. This agreement is thus a legal instrument and a lever for political action that I believe we need in order to increase our involvement in the areas of human rights and democratisation.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I have to say - and rather sadly - that I remain sceptical as to whether the human rights clause within the EU-Vietnam cooperation agreement is really worth the paper it is written on.
The noble intentions contained within it are a reflection, understandably, of our common European values, but I believe it is little more than window-dressing and an understandable concession to the powerful human rights lobby within the Union. After all, China is now the EU's second-largest trading partner, yet the Communist dictatorship in Beijing pays no attention to our concern about human rights. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether it is even worth raising the issue any more.
The political repression and human rights violations in China tend to distract us from what is going on in neighbouring Vietnam, where things are every bit as brutal. Pro-democracy dissidents and religious minorities are imprisoned, journalists are intimidated into silence, and the liberties we take for granted here in Europe, such as an uncensored internet, simply do not exist.
That is why I proposed last year, with Mr Cappato and others, that Thich Quang Do should be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. This brave Buddhist monk has suffered years of harassment and jail in his quest for religious freedom and human rights.
Vietnam encapsulates the dilemma facing the European Union. How much should human rights matter in our commercial relationships with third countries when they are formally written into trade agreements and partnership agreements? And can stronger economic ties alone be a positive force for political and human rights and democracy reforms?
These are tough questions which the new Commissioner from Britain for trade, Baroness Ashton, will have to grapple with. I believe our common values to be non-negotiable. Therefore, I urge the Commission and Council either to be honest and scrap this pretence by abolishing these human rights and democracy clauses, or genuinely and sincerely to hold third countries to account for their wanton abuse of values that we all hold sacrosanct. I pay a very special tribute to Mr Cappato and all the fine work he has done in this respect.
Barbara Weiler
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we in Europe have a deep understanding of, a lively interest in and a great affinity for the people of Vietnam. My group still remembers all too well the terrible suffering and devastation caused by the wars and occupations in Vietnam, not only by the United States but also by European countries.
Vietnam is now developing in a particularly dynamic and exciting region in South-East Asia. The 10 Member States of ASEAN are not all democracies as we in Europe understand the term, but things are changing. The new ASEAN Charter shows specifically that violations of human rights cannot be ignored, Mr Tannock, and the negotiations leading up to it prove that violations of human rights are very much on the agenda.
Now is a particularly good time because the negotiations have been re-opened; the cooperation agreement of 1995 is being renegotiated. It is true that, after China, the European Union is Vietnam's second-largest trading partner, and it is for precisely that reason that we will be able to make progress. Partnership agreements are certainly not pointless.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament calls on the Commission to work to ensure that the freedom of the press, freedoms for minorities and activists for democracy, freedom of religion and, of course, the freedom of UN observers to operate are guaranteed. Then we will be able to develop an even closer friendship with this beautiful country.
Athanasios Pafilis
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (EL) Mr President, we understand perfectly that imperialism and its representatives, the European Union and the United States of America and all those who support them, are unlikely to forget Vietnam, because it was a global symbol: its people beat both French and American imperialism and won their independence.
The identical resolutions proposed today are unacceptable and call on Vietnam to comply with the suggestions of the European Union. What you failed to achieve with weapons you are now trying to achieve with economic blackmail. That is the point of the clauses which you have adopted about so-called respect for human rights and democracy.
Since you have raised the question of human rights, I ask all of you, including Mr Cappato, to answer us: there are tens of thousands of people in Vietnam suffering from agent orange, an inhumane chemical and biological weapon used by the United States of America. There are thousands of mutant births, deaths from cancer and entire areas laid waste from the use of this weapon, which was manufactured by the well-known company Monsanto.
Do these people, who are still suffering and dying, not have human rights, including the supreme human right, the right to life? Why then do you not support the demand by the Vietnam Government and the victims for compensation and for the consequences of this forbidden biochemical war to be addressed, but you do support presumed human rights for the return of ecclesiastical property which belongs to the people?
That is why it is hypocritical to cite human rights. Only the people of Vietnam have the authority to resolve their problems, not the people who, in the final analysis, should have apologised to them for murdering one million people in the war which they unleashed against them. What is needed is balanced, mutual, beneficial economic cooperation without political and economic blackmail.
Jim Allister
Mr President, despite the past protestations from the Vietnamese Government that they guarantee religious freedom, and despite the best efforts of the last speaker to whitewash the regime in Vietnam, the reality is very different, particularly for isolated Christian groups. While confiscation of church property has been rife, those linked to unregistered evangelical house churches have been particular targets for state persecution. Just months ago, a young tribal man who refused to repudiate his Christian faith died from injuries inflicted under official interrogation; hundreds remain in prison for their faith where ill-treatment is rampant. I salute their courage, I condemn their persecutors, but above all I appeal to this EU not to put improving relations with Vietnam and trade above defending and demanding basic human rights for these human beings of very great faith. We must not, for the sake of trade or other short-term gain, sanitise the outrageous human rights record of Hanoi.
Bernd Posselt
(DE) Mr President, Vietnam is a country that is becoming increasingly open to the European Union, but it has one serious stumbling block, and that is human rights and the fundamental freedoms. In this connection, I should like to turn our attention in particular to religious freedom, just as this resolution, thankfully, also does. Christians in Vietnam are persecuted, and the Bishop of Augsburg, who is particularly concerned with persecuted Christians, is here today to talk with us on the subject. Moreover, Buddhists and other religious groups are also hindered and persecuted in the practice of their religion.
We can make it quite clear that it is our duty to work to ensure that Vietnam becomes an equal partner, that it opens up, and that it draws nearer to us. This must not, however, be at the expense of fundamental human rights, but must be based on a fair partnership founded on fundamental human rights.
Richard Howitt
Mr President, our resolution today does not simply raise our concerns over freedom of expression, repression of dissent and religious discrimination in Vietnam. It calls on the European Union to account for what is being achieved through our human rights dialogue and to set clear benchmarks for improvement in moving towards a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam.
We can never accept that when a journalist uncovers evidence of embezzlement of USD 750 000 within the Transport Ministry, in part used to wage bets on English Premiership football matches, that journalist should find himself in jail.
We can never accept the use of the death penalty for 29 different offences, for us not one offence. Executions, we are told, take place at 4 a.m., without warning, which means that prisoners never sleep before six o'clock in the morning for fear that their time has come.
And we can never accept threats and intimidation against the Catholic Church such as that which followed the peaceful mass protests in Hanoi last month. Amnesty International recorded one woman leaving church to find a gang shouting 'Kill the archbishop' and 'Kill the priests'
Vietnam has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1982. The current evidence presents a clear breach of Articles 2 and 18. What is more, in July Vietnam took charge of the presidency of the UN Security Council. We call on European negotiators to make clear to the Vietnamese Government that any aspiration to uphold international law in international institutions has to be matched by respect for it at home.
Konrad Szymański
(PL) I think that from the list of human rights infringements in Vietnam it is necessary to highlight state violence towards Catholics. The government in Hanoi unilaterally controls the Catholic Church's assets, in contravention of prior undertakings. Catholics who oppose the seizure of buildings in Hanoi belonging to the Apostolic Nuncia are attacked by hit squads. The number of prisoners of conscience is growing. Recently, there were further arrests in the grounds of the Redemptorist monastery in Thai Ha. The Archbishop of Hanoi, Quang Kiêt, is under house arrest and remains under surveillance, living in fear for his life. Although Vietnam has, relatively speaking, opened up in economic and social terms, it has become a country where Christians are increasingly persecuted. The new agreement between the European Union and Vietnam must address the issue of religious freedom in that country. Otherwise, it should not be signed.
Marco Cappato
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say to Mr Pafilis that the war in Vietnam today is the war being carried on by the Vietnam regime against its own people, the Vietnamese people, the Khmer Krom people and the Degard people.
There will be a human rights clause in the new agreement. That is a good thing, but there is already a clause in the current agreement, and we are not managing to make sure it is abided by. So our request, which I believe is very important, is that before a new agreement is signed we obtain concessions on fundamental aspects where a systematic violation of human rights is taking place: access to Vietnam's central highlands, the release of the political prisoners and recognition of the Buddhist Church and the property of the Catholics, because if we do not achieve something before the agreement is signed, it will be impossible to subsequently demand respect for European and international law after the agreement has been signed.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Cappato, I believe, on the one hand, that we should not confuse what it means to have been a victim of imperialism with knowing, today, what it means to respect human rights. For my part, I would not compare victims of biochemical weapons with those who are victims of attacks on religious freedoms. All this forms a single, absolutely indivisible, whole.
To respond to Mr Tannock, but also to some extent to Mr Cappato, we should not underestimate the value of the suspensive clause where human rights are concerned. We have only to consider the difficulty in concluding other agreements that are often negotiated for nearly 20 years with other groups of States - I am thinking of the Gulf States here. We have only to consider, too, the role played by this clause with regard to certain countries within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. This shows that the European Union is taken seriously in its concern to promote human rights in these agreements.
As regards the additional concessions requested by Mr Cappato, it is precisely the negotiations conducted by the Commission that must make it possible to see - and the Commissioner has emphasised this point - whether progress has been made by the Vietnamese authorities in this area. Such progress will be assessed as a whole. Once again, I believe that it is through dialogue that we are going to see progress made in these countries' relations with the European Union, and it is through such agreements and such clauses that the Union is best able to promote the values that you and we, Mr Cappato and others in this Chamber, clearly hold dear.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think it is very clear that we all want to address the question of human rights whenever and wherever possible. As I said, I just did so a few weeks ago, and I did so when I went there two years ago. I remember then I was also able to obtain the liberation of a few prisoners, so there is indeed a possibility. What we also do is provide lists to them and say here, here and here, something has to be done.
I think this was therefore an important debate because it has re-focused our ideas on the particular issue of religious communities and, in this specific case, of Christians and Catholics. We have to focus very clearly on these questions, but at the same time I would also like to say that we know that Vietnam is also now facing a difficult economic and social situation, so, if Vietnam is not careful, investment will not come from foreign countries, particularly European countries. This is also a very good instrument that we have in addition to mere dialogue.
For instance, we will certainly ask for a gesture of clemency on the part of the Vietnamese authorities in favour of the two journalists who were recently imprisoned and have been judged in Hanoi for having used their freedom of expression. That is something that we will clearly also mention again.
Finally, I would like to say that Vietnam will next time be subject to a periodical, universal review of its human rights situation in Geneva, and that will be another excellent occasion to very clearly mark the questions and see what has been done so far.
President
The debate is closed.
I have received four motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday.


Reducing health inequalities (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Estrela, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on reducing health inequalities in the EU.
Edite Estrela
Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation and the work that we did together, as well as thanking the rapporteurs for the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. All the contributions were very useful.
Health inequalities vary from country to country and from region to region. They are linked to economic and social conditions and can be exacerbated because of gender or culture. In other words, health inequalities are not just related to access to healthcare, but also to factors as different as living conditions, housing, education, profession, income and lifestyle. Although there has been some progress, major inequalities within the 27 Member States still persist. For example, according to Eurostat, life expectancy at birth for men varied by 14.2 years between EU Member States in 2007, while among women it was 8.3 years. Health and life expectancy are still linked to social conditions and poverty, and when poverty is combined with other forms of vulnerability, such as childhood or old age, disability or minority background, the risks of health inequalities increase further.
Health inequalities can start during childhood, continue until old age and be passed from generation to generation, hence, the importance of this matter and the urgent need to find a solution. The current situation of global crisis tends to make the situation worse. As is obvious, the crisis is having a severe impact on the health sector in a number of Member States, in terms of both supply and demand. On the supply side, the crisis may lead to a reduction in the level of funding for public health, at the same time as it may lead to increased demand for health services.
The crisis has revealed that the earnings of some have no limits and that this lack of fairness has contributed to increasing the gap between the rich minority and the poor majority. The crisis can therefore also be an opportunity to combat inequalities through bold measures promoting equality. If we do not learn the lesson and if we limit ourselves to changing a few things so that everything stays the same, we will be increasing inequality. As we have been seeing, unequal societies are unstable societies.
Several Member States have included measures to mitigate the impact of the economic crisis on the healthcare sector within their recovery packages by investing in health infrastructure, optimising funding to the healthcare sector, and restructuring and reorganising the healthcare system. It is essential that reducing inequalities be considered a priority at all levels of political action. I therefore welcome the Commission's proposals.
However, I should like to draw attention to some of my report's proposals, specifically those aiming to step up the attention given to the needs of people in situations of poverty, disadvantaged migrant groups, including irregular migrants and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, older people and poor children. I advocate measures to mitigate the impact of the economic crisis on the health sector by investing in infrastructure. I consider it essential to guarantee children and pregnant women good health conditions. I also think it is desirable for the Cohesion Fund and Structural Funds to support projects related to factors that contribute to the existence of health inequalities. In other words: we have to build a better, fairer future for later generations.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Mr President, in recent years, we have been actively involved in supporting innovative medicine. Therefore, I welcome this report, which focuses on vulnerable groups and their access to treatment and preventative care; I consider this to be vitally important. Of course, many points in the report infringe the principle of subsidiarity of Member States. I strongly reject the wording of point 25, for example, as abortion should not be used as a method of birth control. Points 26, 29 and 53 are also contentious. I also want to point out that differences in the average life expectancy in the 27 Member States are only partly caused by differing standards of healthcare and access to it. There are also differences in people's overall standard of living or lifestyle and the level of development of the country they live in, and this has a greater impact in this respect. These differences should be rectified with the help of development programmes financed by the EU.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Mr President, the current economic and financial crisis has hit healthcare services hard, with many Member States cutting the budgets allocated to public health. Some have even decided to close hospitals in smaller towns or to carry out a small number of surgical operations. In particular, patients living in rural areas or isolated locations are forced to travel tens of kilometres to receive specialist healthcare services. Therefore, there are health inequalities not only between Member States, but also between regions in these states.
Reducing the budgets for national healthcare programmes jeopardises access to the newest and most effective treatments. In addition, reducing subsidies for some treatments means that patients are unable to continue with the treatment, entailing a much heavier price and consequences for their health. Inequalities in the European healthcare system also cause medical staff to emigrate to other Member States to practise their profession. This is why the Commission ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) Mr President, the current situation, with austerity policies that are, above all, anti-social policies, and cuts in public healthcare investment in particular, is clearly increasing problems in the area of health when, in the name of reducing the budgetary deficit, the cost of accessing public health services is increasing, the cost of medicines is increasing, even for chronic diseases, and support for the transportation of patients in areas where there is no public transport to treatment and consultations is being removed through the reduction of subsidies. Inequalities in health are increasing and this is happening in some countries of the European Union, specifically in my country, Portugal. The people who are worse off are finding it increasingly difficult to access healthcare, which is why, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, words are not enough: what we need ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Nicole Sinclaire
Mr President, healthcare should be the primary concern of every Member State, but, of course, this Chamber purports to make laws for the whole of the European Union. But it does not seem to be able to lead by example.
Some of you may - and many of you will not - have seen the London Sunday Times yesterday, which talked about MEPs' health benefits. My colleague, Mrs Figueiredo, has just talked about budget cuts and how they have caused further inequalities in healthcare. Yet the European Union - and MEPs - gave themselves a 36% increase in healthcare last year, paying for things such as anti-ageing treatments, thermal spas, etc. But in this week when we are talking about women's inequality, one statistic stands out. In the UK, for example, IVF treatment can be given only once to women - one cycle - but women MEPs and their relatives can have five cycles. Come on, if you are going to have equality ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Anna Záborská
(SK) Mr President, all individuals are unique, with their own abilities, priorities and ways of living. From this natural inequality is born the motivation to do better - a motivation which is the driving force of the economy.
The attempt to eliminate inequality in the area of healthcare, however, has more to do with humanity than the economy. This is because people are equal in sickness and suffering. We should not make business out of suffering.
That is why doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, and not, for example, entrepreneurs. The idea of levelling out inequalities in the area of health is based on the value of human life. However, an absolute right to abortion, which the submitted report also defends, undermines this value.
The mandatory funding of abortions from the public purse deprives healthcare of its moral imperative and debases it to the level of a luxury that cannot be withheld.
Mario Pirillo
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even today in the European Union, health inequalities still persist over access to services, treatment and social factors, and this necessitates an integrated response.
The reasons for these differences are, in many cases, avoidable and unjust, because they are due to discriminatory factors such as the reduced economic capacity of individuals. I believe that reducing health inequalities should become a fundamental priority for Europe, with an approach based on 'health in all policies', enhancing the quality of care for all.
In the coming months, the European Parliament will discuss the revision of the directive on recognition of professional qualifications. It is an appropriate opportunity to achieve an improved mechanism capable of dealing effectively with emergencies without any discrimination.
Seán Kelly
Mr President, there are a number of aspects here.
One I would like to home in on is that the best way to eliminate inequalities in health is actually to make people more healthy. I am pleased that, prior to Christmas, a number of colleagues and myself were successful in steering through Parliament a written declaration aimed at making 100 million people in the European Union more active by 2020, through sport, etc. I look forward to the European Commission's proposals on that.
Secondly, I am pleased to say that a new government has been formed in my country - an EPP government with Socialists - with one of its primary aims being universal health insurance. The idea is that money should follow the patient, and that the patient should have access to healthcare, regardless of status or wealth or anything else, based on need. I believe that this will be very successful. It is based on the Dutch model and we are very pleased with it.
Karin Kadenbach
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the topic today is 'Reducing health inequalities'. It is a highly ambitious task. In the current situation, I tend to fear that at European level, we are contributing in every area to increasing these differences, these inequalities, yet further in the coming years and decades. It is not just about actual regression in healthcare provision; it is also about declining social standards, reduced access to education and making education more difficult. After all, we know that where we find a lower level of education and greater social difficulties, there is greater poverty. We also know that poverty makes people sick.
I call on the Commission to make it clear - even when it is necessary to consolidate the European budget and the national budgets - that our failure to invest in health, in social services and in education today will cost us in the future in terms of the health system.
Elena Oana Antonescu
(RO) Mr President, health inequalities pose a challenge to the European Union's commitment to solidarity, social and economic cohesion, human rights and equal opportunities. This is why the health factor must feature in all EU policies. Member States must be encouraged to include health as a principle in every policy and in devising new action plans in any area, so as to help reduce the inequalities and create a high level of health protection.
I support the need to produce a set of specific indicators which will monitor health inequalities, as well as comparable indicators which could enable national authorities to assess the progress made in this area, with a view to improving healthcare systems. As yet another aspect of the efforts to resolve the problem of health inequalities, consideration must also be given to creating a strategic labour planning mechanism to ensure that we can recruit and retain healthcare professionals.
Petru Constantin Luhan
(RO) Mr President, the World Health Organisation estimates that smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise and poor diet will cause 70% of all illnesses and premature deaths by 2020. The fact that there is a systematic correlation between state of health and social class shows that these differences arise from the inadequate conditions for accessing basic social services. This indicates that health inequalities are not the result of an individual choice but are avoidable and unfair.
For the first time in the 2007-2013 budgetary planning, health was proposed as one of the first 10 Structural Fund priorities. However, the European Commission must include in the procedures for monitoring the Europe 2020 strategy differentiated comparative indicators, based on socio-economic status, and take into account age-based discrimination.
Maria Damanaki
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is grateful to Parliament for its support for our action to bridge health inequalities and for its recommendations on this important issue. I would like also to thank, in particular, the rapporteur, Ms Estrela, for her commitment to this cause.
Disparities in health between countries, between regions, between rich and poor, between different ethnic minorities, affect each and every EU Member State and, in many places, they are getting wider. I would like to be sincere on this issue. We are now beginning to see the full effects of the economic crisis on people's health and on the health services. We are now beginning to see the effects of unemployment and of deficits, so there is a risk that such inequalities will grow worse. Reducing health inequalities is important both for our citizens' wellbeing and for Europe's economic recovery. It is a major challenge which, as Parliament's report points out, requires action across policy areas and levels of government.
Your report gives important pointers for the future. You underline the need to improve access to promotion, preventive care and effective healthcare services. You further emphasise the need to pay particular attention to vulnerable groups and to use new technologies, such as telemedicine, in a way that reduces disparities in healthcare. The Commission fully shares your concern.
You also highlight gender inequality as an important element contributing to social health inequalities. I personally agree fully with you on this.
The Commission is vigorously taking forward its programme of action to help reduce health inequalities, as set out in the Communication on solidarity in health, by working across policies and in partnership with Member States and stakeholders.
To make such partnerships operational, Member States are now beginning a joint action on health inequalities, funded through the EU health programme. This action includes work on health inequality impact assessment, regional and scientific networks and stakeholder initiatives.
Action across policies starts with our work on public health, for example, on tobacco control and nutrition and through action on active and healthy ageing. But our strategy also includes commitments in areas such as employment and social policy, agriculture, research and regional policy.
Clearly, more action is needed. Equally clearly, this will not happen overnight. It will take years to fully succeed, but together we can - and indeed we must - make a lasting and tangible difference so that all Europeans have a chance of living in good health.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at midday on Tuesday, 8 March.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Common objectives relating to the reduction of inequalities in health status and access to healthcare are among the priorities of the EU. We know that there are visible differences in health between countries and between people with different levels of education or income or different professions. The inequalities also relate to gender and, characteristically, appear early in life and often continue throughout the following years and even generations.
I would like to point out that the report by Mrs Estrela deals with many aspects of health issues. However, it is worth noting that currently, there is also a problem related to the migration of medical staff, which leads to inequalities in access to their services. We therefore need a common, comprehensive European strategy, which would draw attention to resource management, the registration of professionals, education and training, and which, in turn, should contribute to increasing quality and safety, not only in national but also in cross-border healthcare.
In addition, I always emphasise that we should talk more about prevention, and invest in it above all else. It is necessary to develop diagnostics, promote healthy lifestyles, exchange information effectively and invest in modern technologies, since it is better to prevent in advance.
Tiziano Motti
Health inequalities within the European Union are a matter of fact and must be overcome. Differences also exist within each Member State between the elderly, immigrants, the unemployed and the poor. They must all be guaranteed the right to health and the necessary care. Citizens should be guaranteed access to all the necessary information about health, including by means of new information and communications technologies, and the repayment of expenses incurred: economic hardship cannot, and must not, result in a limit to the possibilities of care. In this specific area, the simplistic approach to the issue of abortion, seen as a contraceptive or treatment measure, but always necessary, is a matter of concern. A woman who finds it necessary to terminate a pregnancy is often alone and lacking adequate resources, afraid of facing a choice that brings her face to face with one of the primary themes of her existence. For this reason, rather than relegating abortion to the role of a guaranteed contraceptive measure, I would prefer adequate facilities to be made available to ensure all women a welcome, support and specific social and welfare policies that help them to overcome, wherever possible, the causes that lead them to choose an abortion.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
There are major differences between healthcare systems both inside and between Member States. I want to stress that during an economic crisis, no government should have the right to make drastic cuts to the budget allocated to healthcare. I would like to draw your attention to the situation of the healthcare system in Romania. Thanks to the budget cuts made by the current government, a significant number of Romanian specialist doctors are emigrating, chronic patients no longer have access to healthcare services and reimbursed medication, and the equipment in hospitals is obsolete. Furthermore, the right-wing government is proposing the merger of hospitals, even though some wards do not have sufficient beds for all the patients and always need to be supplemented. This is why I want to appeal to the European Commission to make greater efforts to align healthcare service standards and to exert pressure on Member States to allocate appropriate budgets to guarantee citizens accessible, high quality healthcare services.
Bernadette Vergnaud
Having been rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament on the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am delighted with the text that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has adopted, which contains many of the proposals we and other associated committees made.
In this respect, I think Edite Estrela's report is excellent, as it places the emphasis on some of the crucial aspects of our European social and healthcare model: equality of access to high quality healthcare for everyone in Europe, better management of reproductive health, monitoring of the efficacy and quality of drugs through independent pharmacovigilance systems and, above all, the necessity of high levels of public funding for healthcare during this period of economic crisis.
Health is not a general good like other goods, and our welfare systems have the duty to ensure that the most disadvantaged have access to healthcare. I am naturally astounded therefore at the votes to remove some of the abovementioned points requested by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group. This step smacks of reactionary neoliberalism, and I hope that the final vote will preserve the spirit of this report and be a credit to this Parliament.


Announcement by the President
President
Ladies and gentlemen, that brings me to the statement on Strasbourg. The Bureau considered the matter yesterday. Various repairs are still being carried out in Strasbourg. The Bureau adopted a unanimous decision yesterday evening - also at Mr Fazakas's suggestion - which we intend to publish now that the Conference of Presidents has been informed, as is the case: thus the September II part-session will take place here in Brussels as well.
(Applause)
I do not want your delight to be premature: we have found that there are several places in this building as well where the rain is coming in, and we are looking into that. We want to have the same safety standards here in Brussels as we have in Strasbourg, and I can assure you that safety will always be paramount.
As things stand at present, the final inspection by the experts will take place on 22 September. That allows enough time for a decision on the October part-session to be taken. I would like to wish you a safe and pleasant stay here in Brussels, and as lunchtime is approaching, let me also wish you bon appétit!


Multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for 2007-2012 (debate)
President
(FR) The next item is the report by Michael Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Decision of the Council implementing Regulation (EC) n° 168/2007 on the adoption of a multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for 2007-2012 - C6-0322/2007 -.
A point of order here: could the Honourable Member please tell me which article of the Regulation he is referring to?
Roger Knapman
Mr President, on a point of order under Rule 171. Just now you told the House that 19 Members had sought to make speeches. Before lunch we were told that there were 14 Members. I know that when it comes to statistics, and particularly when there is no roll-call vote, things are a bit loose here, but could you explain the difference between those two figures?
President
(FR) It is difficult to give you an explanation here and now, but I shall do my best.
We receive requests to speak - and I have been in the chair on many occasions for explanations of vote - in real time. In all probability what happened was that when Mr Vidal-Quadras made his announcement there were 14 names on the rostrum before him, then, within seconds or minutes, other Members of the House approached the rostrum to tell the President that they wished to speak. That is undoubtedly why the figure increased from 14 to 19 in the interval between Mr Vidal-Quadras's announcement and my own of just a moment ago. It is, however, a very interesting point and we shall check the relevant rule.
Permit me now, if you will, to return to the Cashman report and to begin straight away with the Commission representative.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Parliament for the very constructive cooperation and support for the quick adoption of the multiannual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency for the years 2007-2012.
I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, for his personal commitment on this file. The multiannual framework 2007-2012 as proposed by the Commission and discussed in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs will enable the Agency to work to the best of its capabilities. I would like to say here that I fully understand the reasoning behind each of the amendments proposed by the rapporteur. I am pleased to say that I can accept Amendment 1; Amendment 2 regarding the notion of ethnic minorities; Amendments 3, 4, 5, 8 and 13 (in part) regarding the notion of multiple discrimination; Amendment 15 regarding the notion of social exclusion and Amendment 16 - in particular as all these amendments reflect the compromise solutions found in discussions between the Presidency, the Commission and the rapporteur.
Regarding the other amendments, I cannot accept them for a number of legal and technical reasons which I will explain here very quickly. Some of the amendments do not comply with the basic regulation, namely Amendments 10, 11 and 18. In some cases, amendments go beyond the regulation, particularly Amendment 17. In some other cases they are in contradiction with the regulation, from my point of view of course, such as Amendment 10. Others do not correspond with the better regulation requirements, particularly Amendments 2, 7 and 13, as regards the adding of 'traditional national minorities and linguistic minorities' that are already covered by the regulation.
Some amendments are outside Community competence or the competence of the Agency, namely Amendments 14 and 15 (in part). Finally, Amendment 12 would significantly limit the scope of the areas to be dealt with by the Agency as laid down in Article 2 of our proposal.
One point concerning Amendment 6. I am not against the substance of the provision. However, the proposal for the multiannual framework is not, from my point of view, the best place to introduce general statements on the nature and definition of human rights.
This is best done in relevant international conventions and in the Charter. However, I will not oppose this amendment if both Council and Parliament are willing to accept it.
Finally, I cannot accept Amendments 7 and 9. On Amendment 7 the multiannual framework is designed to regulate obligations on European Institutions and/or the Member States to monitor compliance with all international human rights conventions to which the Member States are party.
On Amendment 9, a reference to a review of the multiannual framework before the five-year period is not necessary, given that Commission, Council and Parliament can always request to go outside the scope of Article 2 of the framework.
Generally speaking, the time-frame of five years was set up to prevent jeopardising the effectiveness of the work of the Agency, which needs time to plan its work and to deliver on it. The introduction of systematic reviews could risk undermining the work of the Agency.
Finally, in my view the establishment of the Agency has been a big success for the promotion of the respect of fundamental rights in the European Union. It has also been a success in terms of interinstitutional cooperation. Now we have to set the proper conditions for the agency to operate successfully and to prove its worth in the years to come.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Mr President, I should like to thank Vice-President Frattini for those words.
If Parliament had codecision on this we would be in a much stronger position. I have to say to colleagues here today that I met with NGOs and civil society at the very beginning, as did other shadow rapporteurs, to see what we could do. It was quite clear to me at the very beginning that if I had my way I would have a list that was endless, because human rights are so important: they are paramount and are the very reason that the institutions were established so that we never got back to those conditions that created the Second World War and the appalling shadow that was cast across so many different peoples and so many different minorities.
However, the reality is that we are merely consulted, which is why I have had to take on a very difficult position. It is extremely difficult for me as a gay man not to want to include specifically homophobia. However, if I am to be consistent in the application of principle in that we need to bring on board that which is not covered, then I have to forego the very things that also my heart desires. So it has been difficult.
I am pleased to say that this report was adopted by 48 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions. That indicates that what we have here - although, indeed, there are some amendments which I did not personally support - are the wishes of the committee. I want to pay great tribute to the Portuguese Presidency and my colleague sitting here in the Chamber who worked very closely with me, who supported Parliament in order to try to achieve a position which both the Council and the Commission could support.
I am pleased that the Commissioner has listed nine out of the eighteen amendments. We are getting 50% support - of course, I want 100% support but I live in the real political world. I want the Agency, above all, to succeed. The origins of the Agency are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and all the international conventions on human rights that we have in common amongst the Member States.
However, there are some delegations, some politicians and some Member States who want the Agency to fail. They do not want it to be effective, and that is why I have been absolutely specific in the demands that we are making upon this Agency. I want it to succeed. I believe that the amendments that were adopted in committee will help it to succeed, while not placing upon the Agency undue demands which will go beyond the resources, both human and financial.
There have been suggestions amongst some of the women's groups that this does not go far enough, but we have introduced the gender perspective and taken account of the Gender Institute. Of course, there must be complementarity, but we must not have duplication because, again, that would waste the resources.
So let me finish and let me listen - arguably the most important thing and one of the most difficult things to do in politics. Let me listen to the debate, but I will not be able to support the amendments that will be placed before the plenary tomorrow for the simple principle: I said at the beginning I could not take on board a whole range of amendments and to change that attitude now would be to go back on the agreement that I reached with the shadows. Of course minority languages are important, of course other areas are important, but there is nothing more important than an Agency for Fundamental Rights which is successful in the work that we set it to do.
Libor Rouček
draftsman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the establishment at the beginning of last year of the Agency for Fundamental Rights is a very important and necessary step towards the protection and support of fundamental human rights both within and outside the European Union. Unfortunately, the long-term framework has not been yet accepted and some of the personnel issues have yet to be resolved. The Committee on Foreign Affairs is therefore asking for this situation to be rectified as soon as possible. Where the activity of the Agency outside the European Union is concerned, the Committee on Foreign Affairs supports the measures adopted in order to prevent duplication of work and to secure the necessary coordination of activities with international organisations operating in this field: primarily the Council of Europe, the UN and the OSCE. We are also of the opinion that dialogue on human rights is crucial for the relationship between the Union and developing countries. We therefore welcome the fact that the Agency is open to the participation of candidate countries. Finally, we presume that as soon as the Reform Treaty comes into force and the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is created, the Agency will provide every assistance to this representative in his or her activities .
Kinga Gál
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. I am delighted that we have reached the adoption of the framework programme for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work and the willingness to cooperate that he has demonstrated throughout what has been a formidable task.
It is now equally important for the institutions, the Member States and the citizens of the EU that the Agency start its proper work as soon as possible, since it was officially created in Vienna on 1 March last year, but still does not have a structure, mandate or leadership fit for purpose.
It is therefore very important that the framework programme be adopted now. We have confronted such a complex problem here, when on the one hand we could list countless questions of human rights and fundamental legal questions, yet on the other hand we have to consider what would really make this Agency fit for purpose today.
As I see it, my fellow Member, Mr Cashman, has tried to put this opinion together so that it meets the two criteria above at the same time: that it can deal flexibly with the human rights problems that affect us all in a sensitive way, and keep the Agency fit for purpose at the same time.
I feel that the Parliament fully supports these proposals, and - despite listening carefully to Mr Frattini saying what is unacceptable to him and the Commission - I sincerely hope that the Council understands our many questions, since they could be the keys to how the Agency should carry out its work so as to focus on real problems.
The matter of linguistic minorities and national minorities was omitted from the original list but is included in the proposal. I consider this to be very important, since we are seeing now that these problems crop up again and again, and the Union will indeed confront them; it has to get involved. I therefore hope that this Agency will be able to pay attention to them. We will not be dealing with a 'paper tiger', but with a real working institution. Thank you for your attention.
Stavros Lambrinidis
for the PSE group. - Mr President, the Fundamental Rights Agency must at last begin to accomplish its important task. This is why the rapporteur, whom I congratulate, has been compelled to limit the amendments to the proposed programme in order to facilitate a rapid interinstitutional agreement on this important issue. It would of course be preferable if the subject areas included social rights, and there were explicit references to questions of human trafficking, and to the protection of the private sphere and human dignity within the framework of the measures taken against terrorism. But the door remains open.
Today I shall focus in particular on an important amendment which I and some other colleagues submitted, an amendment which was passed and which explicitly mentions effective, independent administration of justice, including the rights of the accused and suspects.
Mr President, when public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is undermined, the basis of our democratic societies is undermined, and for this reason, very rightly, the responsibilities of the Agency included this dimension from the outset. At the same time, however, we tend to forget that each person is innocent until proved guilty. The pillorying of the accused by the media to boost ratings, or even by governments and officials for the sake of short-lived political gains, flagrantly violates this principle. And suspects, Mr President, - especially in this day and age when it turns out that so many fundamental principles can be bent in the name of combating terrorism, - cannot be abducted, mistreated and deprived of their fundamental rights without consequences. If anything can teach us this, then surely it's Guantanamo, whose sixth anniversary has just passed with, regrettably, hardly anyone noticing the fact.
Sophia in 't Veld
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the rapporteur, Mr Cashman. I always regard him as a great ally in the fight to defend fundamental rights. Where I differ from the rapporteur, therefore, is not on the substance, the content, but on the strategy. It might be a strategy to relinquish a couple of priorities in exchange for support from the Council, but is the Council offering us enough for us to abandon what we want? Not in my opinion, and that being so I prefer just to state my position clearly.
The ALDE amendments propose four additional priorities, namely homophobia, privacy, counter-terrorist policy and fundamental rights, and discrimination against the Roma, and right now makes these the four main areas in which Member States continually breach human rights. The Fundamental Rights Agency should have become a watchdog to keep the Member States on the right path, but unfortunately it has not managed to do that. At any rate, it has already become a toothless tiger. As far as I am concerned, and certainly also when I listened to what Commissioner Frattini has just said, the European Parliament, as the most important partner of the Fundamental Rights Agency, should simply set its own clear priorities.
Quite honestly, if we are counting on support from or agreement with the Council, I wonder anyway where the Council is today. I am afraid, therefore, that I very much agree with the rapporteur on the content - I am going to consult in my group - but I regret to say that I cannot support the strategy.
Konrad Szymański
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the Fundamental Rights Agency was formed on the basis of the Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This change could have been the precursor of an improvement. The Centre in Vienna was known for its unreliability and the ease with which complaints about racism and anti-semitism were abused - this was the case, for example, in 2001 and 2005 with regard to Radio Maryja, the Republican League and my own country, Poland.
If the new institution follows the rapporteur's recommendations, it will soon be repeating the old mistakes. The proposal to go over and above the thematic areas, the flexibility or the so-called proactive measures - these are just quotes from the justification provided for this report - this is nothing other than a green light for the agency to act in an uncontrolled manner, dictated to by extreme ideologies, and outside of international law. None of this would really matter, after all this would not be the only case where European money is being wasted, but a system for the protection of human rights that lacks the framework of international law, and which is left to professional anti-racists, loses the most important asset in its possession - credibility.
Cem Özdemir
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, we voted for the report in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We shall approve it again here, although we subscribe to much of the criticism voiced in the chamber and even by the rapporteur himself. One of my points has already been raised by the rapporteur. Although the Fundamental Rights Agency will continue to address sex discrimination, issues such as homophobia, unfortunately, are not part of its remit. In the light of the debates we have had within Europe and the present state of discussions, it is regrettable that we were unable to arrive at that compromise with the Council and the Commission.
There are other points to be made. We tabled amendments in committee, but unfortunately all of them were rejected. I only intend to refer to a few of these. Discrimination against the Romany people would have been an important problem to address, as would the protection of personal privacy. Data protection would have been another important point. Here in Europe we have attained a certain standard, which we must uphold within the Union for the sake of our credibility. It is, however, important, not least in the light of our experience in combating terrorism, to examine the extent to which the fight against terrorism can be reconciled with fundamental rights. This is another matter that would be worth including in the remit of the Fundamental Rights Agency.
Everyone agrees that the Fundamental Rights Agency should become operational as soon as possible, but we have not even managed to agree on a director. There is therefore room for a degree of doubt as to whether the Agency will actually be able to perform its functions. The good news is that there will not be many more of these procedures. When the revised EU Treaty takes effect from 2009, we shall have other processes through which the involvement of the European Parliament in these debates will be channelled.
Bairbre de Brún
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (GA) Mr President, I welcome Mr Cashman's report on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The members of Committee on Civil Liberties have done sterling work on this important subject. I congratulate them as well as the rapporteur.
But I particularly welcome the improvements whereby discrimination as regards traditional languages and minorities is to be encompassed within the Agency's specific responsibilities. I call on Members to back these reforms tomorrow.
The United Nations has declared this year, 2008, International Year of Languages. The European Union has to participate in this venture, and we too must follow suit.
I personally have a special interest in this matter. I am continuing to work at EU level, to demand the resources necessary for Irish as an EU working language, and at constituency level, to support the campaign for an Irish Language Act, a piece of legislation sorely needed in Northern Ireland to protect the rights of Irish-speakers.
Those rights cannot be exercised at present. They will be available if they are enshrined in binding legislation and if a body such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is able to challenge my compatriots and others in the matter of discrimination based on language.
Koenraad Dillen
(NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be voting wholeheartedly against this report, because I see the Agency as the European watchdog for the political correctness that which is gaining more and more of a hold over Europe. Whilst the Agency claims that it is going to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, it is actually a threat to some of our most fundamental rights and freedoms and the principle of subsidiarity.
The spirit of political correctness that haunts Europe means that freedom of expression has to be subordinated to the demands of a particular religion, namely Islam, which does not accept any criticism.
The European Monitoring Centre for Racism, to which this Agency is intended to be the successor, very deliberately equated the legitimate expression of views opposed to immigration and the negative aspects of Islam with racism. The Centre also maintained that Islamophobia is a new form of discrimination and that, following the clashes over the Danish cartoons, there should be anti-blasphemy laws. When a study that had been commissioned showed that violence against Jews in Europe was mainly perpetrated by young Muslims, the director of the Centre promptly consigned it to the bin.
Very few people in this House seem to realise yet that freedom of expression is the supreme fundamental right and that progress in history has always been driven by progress in freedom of thought. Europe would never have been the centre of the world at one time without the freedom to be able to tell the truth bluntly and uninhibitedly, however much it might offend. This report and this Agency set that principle on a slippery slope.
Íñigo Méndez de Vigo
(ES) Mr President, the establishment of a multiannual framework for the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency is an extraordinarily important matter for those of us who believe that basic rights are part of Europeans' DNA. Therefore I should like to join with the rapporteur and other spadkers who have said 'onward' with the multiannual framework 'onward' with the Agency's work.
I also believe that this report, as Mrs Gál, whom I support as spokesperson for my group, has said, is a balanced report which strives to be productive without being over-ambitious.
Realistic, that I believe is the expression the rapporteur used. As the report is realistic I would like to ask Commissioner Frattini, my good friend Franco Frattini, for a little more support. For the European Commission only to accept nine of the 18 amendments we have tabled seems to me to be a poor effort, and an effort, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, is what is required on a matter of such importance as this.
I had the good fortune and honour to be President of Parliament's delegation to the Convention which drew up the Charter and am also equally honoured to chair the ATD Fourth World Intergroup, and we have succeeded on one amendment, number 15: to include combating social exclusion and poverty among the Agency's objectives. Why? Because anyone who is socially excluded, living in abject poverty, ultimately does not enjoy any basic rights and that is why we are of the view that it would be an important political signal to our fellow citizens for amendment 15 to be viewed more synmpathetically than it has been by you, Mr Vice-President of the Commission. Ultimately, we MEPs represent the people and the people are asking us to concern ourselves with the least well-off as well.
Therefore, Commissioner, I hope this debate will help you understand the importance of moving from accepting nine amendments to accepting more, and to support the European Parliament's position on this matter.
Magda Kósáné Kovács
(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Nine months on from the ceremonious handover of the Fundamental Rights Agency, it is no joy for me to speak about the fact that the institution has not been able to start work, and still has no management.
At least this week the multiannual framework programme will be adopted by Parliament, for which I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman. The multiannual framework programme is crucial for the Agency's work and for how effective it will be in monitoring fundamental rights and formulating what to do. The trilateral agreement process for creating the founding charter left open some routes down which it is our duty to continue.
For example, the statement by the Council wanted to use political strength to achieve the possibility for the Agency to investigate the enforcement of human rights in the area of cooperation with the police and judiciary at the Agency's request. It is important for Member States and the Union to avail themselves of the opportunities they have until this is incontrovertibly the duty of the Agency, after the entry into force of the Reform Treaty.
Likewise, it is our joint responsibility that the individual and community rights of national and ethnic minorities are rendered unquestionable, not only by prohibiting discrimination but also through the requirement for positive law enforcement. In principle, the recognition of social rights as human rights cannot be questioned either, since there is no human dignity without basic security.
It is a cliché, but true nonetheless, that every decision is worth however much of it is implemented. Mr Vice-President Frattini's words have cast a little doubt, but nonetheless I hope that the Agency will be consistent in protecting human rights.
Hubert Pirker
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to take the opportunity to make two basic points. The first is that I fervently hope and urgently appeal for immediate action to appoint the director of this Fundamental Rights Agency as soon as its work programme has been adopted, for the whole purpose of establishing an agency is that it should be made fully functional as soon as possible.
My second basic point is that I wish to use this discussion to call once again for an appraisal of the performance and utility of all agencies. As a matter of fact, I am not convinced that all agencies work in the way we wish or that they must exist for all eternity; on the contrary, I firmly believe that there are some parallel structures and that it would certainly be possible to dispense with some agencies without anyone noticing their absence or being any the worse for it. I should like to ask you when the Commission intends to launch such an evaluation.
Genowefa Grabowska
(PL) Mr President, while congratulating the rapporteur Michael Cashman, I would like to make one comment, namely: during the sittings of the LIBE committee we discussed in detail whether the Human Rights Agency will or will not be doing the same work as the Council of Europe. We came to the conclusion that it will not, but I have the impression that we envy the Council of Europe the fact that it carries such weight, which allows it to apply a specific legal system.
It seems to me that the Fundamental Rights Agency, despite the conditions and the competencies that it possesses, should base itself strongly on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This should give it the clear understanding that it too is a guardian of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also for those citizens, those Member States, who have not accepted the Charter of Fundamental Rights in full. I believe that this is very important and I also believe that the Human Rights Agency should move in this direction with our assistance, with the support of the European Parliament.
Franco Frattini
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank everyone who took the floor for their suggestions and contributions.
First of all, the European Union should be, and should be seen by citizens to be, not only the best defender but also the best promoter of fundamental rights. By this I mean the rights of groups and communities as well as the rights of individuals. That is a very important approach.
I also feel that, following the proclamation of the Charter and the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, the Agency should become the most effective European instrument in this field. To this end, I would like to see Parliament organising the hearing of the candidates short-listed for the post of director as soon as possible, so that the Agency can start working to the best of its capacities.
I fully agree with the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, that we have to let the Agency start working now. Overburdening it with too many tasks would risk making the Agency a body that appears to be strong, but which in practice is incapable of acting with the required speed.
Finally, I am aware of the concerns expressed by many of you, and can promise you that, well before the end of the five-year period, I would be ready to make full use of the Commission's powers to request the Agency to go beyond the scope of Article 2, namely in the field of justice and security cooperation.
One final word: I am sympathetic to what my friend, Mr Méndez de Vigo, has said, and will look closely at his suggestions, particularly as regards Amendment 15, in order to try to meet the expectations expressed concerning a European strategy against poverty.
I would also repeat that I am prepared to accept Amendment 6, even if I do not agree with it in principle. I hope that my trying to meet your expectations will make Mr Cashman happy.
President
(FR) Thank you, Commissioner. It would seem that the House is appreciative.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for relenting on the very important issue of Amendment 6, which states 'All human beings are born equal and therefore human rights are indivisible and inviolable'. Can I thank colleagues for their contributions, and can I just tell you that, when one of the non-attached Members states that they are going to vote against me, when those extremists within Parliament vote against me and against my report, my heart fills with joy and my brain tells me that we have got it absolutely right. Because there should be no extremism when it comes to the defence of human rights, except to be extremely defensive of human rights.
I would say to my good friend Sophia in 't Veld that of course I agree with her, but I believe that the issue of the Roma, privacy and homophobia are already covered. Indeed, the Roma would be covered under discrimination based on ethnicity and race. I would say to my colleague Mr Lambrinidis that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights gives us the area in which we can operate on the basis of privacy, preventing trafficking and dealing with social exclusion. Ms Gál said it was absolutely right that it is about the workability of the Agency and that is what we have to face.
That is why I have included multiple discrimination. We must remember that we are not dealing solely with the areas that they can cover. These are thematic areas based on the objective foundations which are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the international conventions, which all of the Member States have in common.
To my great friend Mr Cem Özdemir - çok teşekkür ederim! - I would say, on data protection, yes, it is covered. Also, we have the data protection supervisor and we have data protection directives, and the last thing we want is duplication.
It is interesting and we should celebrate. The Angelilli report is coming up. It is an own-initiative report, yet here we have an absolute commitment - not an own-initiative, not a request - that the rights of the child be covered under the Agency which protects fundamental rights. Therefore, I congratulate the House. I urge it to vote with me. Let us not bring in more, let us not dilute, let us be focused, let us get the job done - and Mr President, save your gavel for another time!
Irena Belohorská
(SK) I would like to protest strongly against what Mr Cashman has just said: I belong to the Group of non-attached Members and I would like to say that in the past, when I was a member of the Council of Europe, I drew up a report on the ban on child labour and I also took part in the preparation of another report on the rights of the child. That is why I strongly protest against the comments by the rapporteur, who said that he does not care whether anyone from the Group of non-attached Members will be voting against him.
President
(FR) Mr Cashman, please, to reply personally on comments that were received as a personal attack.
Michael Cashman
rapporteur. - Mr President, I was not, of course, thinking of the Honourable Member when I made my comment.
I referred generally to the non-attached Members, but specifically to the comments made by Mr Dillen, which I believe are extremist comments. But in no way did I mean to offend the Honourable Member, whose record speaks for itself.
President
(FR) I can confirm, at least with regard to the French interpretation, that the comment was made in relation to extremists, as opposed to non-attached Members. The rapporteur made a clear distinction.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 January 2008.