2007 discharge: EU general budget - Council (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Søndergaard, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2007, Section II - Council (C6-0417/2008 -.
Søren Bo Søndergaard
rapporteur. - Mr President, on a point of order first, because I just want to be very sure that the Council has been invited for this item. As we are going to discuss the problem of the Council, it would be very bad if the Council was not invited for this item. I just want the President to guarantee that the Council has been invited.
President
Mr Søndergaard, I can confirm on behalf of the Presidency that the Council was indeed invited to attend the debate on this item. Despite this, it is with the Presidency's sincere regret and on behalf of Parliament as a whole that I note the Council's absence; I believe this was also the case this morning, when the President of Parliament welcomed the Council but received no reply whatsoever. Although I regret this, I can do nothing to remedy the situation and we are thus obliged to hold the debate as planned. I therefore invite you to take the floor again as rapporteur, to introduce the debate on this report and on this item.
Søren Bo Søndergaard
rapporteur. - (DA) Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I very much regret the fact that we are going to conduct this debate in the absence of the Council - the very Council whose budget we are about to discuss. It is absurd, of course, that the Council should simply choose to ignore this debate in this way, given that the Committee on Budgetary Control has voted by a very large majority to recommend that Parliament postpone its discharge decision for the Council's 2007 budget.
Why have we done this? Is it because we suspect some fraud or irregularity? The answer is 'no', because we have no indication or information which points in that direction. So why, then, have we done it? We have proposed that the grant of the Council's discharge be postponed, because our committee has not yet received any official reply from the Council regarding a series of ambiguities in the budget. These ambiguities may well, in fact, be the result of misunderstandings, but the Council has declined to clear up these misunderstandings. Naturally, it could have done so by replying to our questions.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, no operational appropriations for the Common Foreign and Security Policy may appear in the Council's budget. As representatives of the European taxpayer, we have the task of ensuring compliance with this agreement. However, in order to do so, we must be given the chance not only to ask questions about the Council's budget, but also to obtain answers to those questions.
In the annex to the report we have listed a number of questions, some of which are actually quite straightforward, and it should not be difficult to provide an answer to them. For example: how many accounts outside the budget did the Council have in 2007? What funds did they cover and what were they spent on? Another question is: can the Council offer any explanation as to how its own internal auditor could have come to the conclusion that there were shortcomings in the control and verification of invoices? Yet another one: is there any explanation as to why it has been necessary to transfer substantial amounts from the translation budget line to the travel budget line, year after year? Despite repeated calls from me, as rapporteur, and from the committee as a whole, the Council has to date given no official reply to these questions.
That causes great difficulties, of course, not only for the committee, but for the whole of Parliament, as well, because how can we grant discharge for a budget, in other words accountably claim to our electorate that this budget is correct, without knowing what lies behind the figures? That would be absurd.
We on the Committee on Budgetary Control are nice people. This is why we are giving the Council one more chance to answer our questions. We, therefore, recommend to Parliament that it postpone granting discharge for the Council's budget. This will allow the issue to be raised again in November and give the Council a few more months to consider whether or not transparency is better than secrecy.
I hope that with today's debate and tomorrow's vote we will send a clear message that we do not want to be a rubber stamp for the forces of darkness. We want openness, we want transparency and we want a full insight into how taxpayers' money is being spent. That is what we want today and that is what we want after the elections in June.
José Javier Pomés Ruiz
Mr President, I read in the applicable financial regulation that the Secretary-General and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, assisted by the Deputy Secretary-General, shall have full responsibility for administering the appropriations entered in Section II - Council - of the budget and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are properly managed.
Where is Javier Solana? Where is the Deputy Secretary-General, since he is not at this debate? This is despite the fact that the only piece of information that we have, namely the report by the internal auditor, says that there is a B account, an off-budget account at the Council. Pursuant to the financial regulation, it is not the Czech Presidency or the French Presidency but Javier Solana who is responsible for the Council, together with his deputy.
What is this off-budget account?
The auditor says that this section should be eliminated. We would like to know what it has been used for, and why.
We would like to know why, of the EUR 650 million administered by Mr Solana, and for which he is responsible, EUR 13 million was transferred from interpretation to travel expenses in 2006, but in 2007 the allocation for travel expenses was not increased. The same thing is happening again, and we do not know what so much travel means, and where these funds are going to end.
We are angry, because there is only one exception to the democratic scrutiny exercised by this Parliament over all the accounts funded by taxpayers in the European Union: the accounts kept by the Council. Those are not audited. We, the Members of this Parliament, have not even been able to obtain a single official meeting with the Council to discuss the accounts.
They have refused to give us papers. They have refused to give us documents. They understand that we have no jurisdiction to scrutinise the Council; this was all very well when the Council carried out solely administrative duties, but now the Common Foreign and Security Policy represents operational expenditure, and we do not understand why this should be exempt from democratic scrutiny.
Here, therefore, I would like to say that the attitude adopted by the Secretary-General, Mr Solana, is unacceptable and that therefore, on this occasion this Parliament is going to propose that the Council's accounts not be approved, as happened 10 years ago when Mr Elles said that he was refusing to approve the Commission's accounts, triggering the resignation of the Santer Commission.
Costas Botopoulos
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, the decision that we are about to take is a very important one. The Socialist Group is in favour of postponement for four reasons of principle.
The first is the credibility and the role of our own Parliament. It is very important to say, from the outset, what Parliament can and cannot do. What it can and must do is control democratically the accounts of the Council, too, notwithstanding the gentlemen's agreement that has been put in place.
The second reason is interinstitutional equilibrium. It is important that we do not do something that we cannot do as a Parliament, but it is also very important to say that it is our right to have a view, to have an opinion on the Council's accounts, when these accounts are operational and where these operational accounts must be accounted for. This is the democratic principle and this is what we are about to do. So we are not saying we want to do something else. We are saying we want to do our duty.
The third reason is the respect and the preparation for the Lisbon Treaty. You know very well, colleagues, that, with the Lisbon Treaty, the common external policy acquires much more depth and much more momentum. It is a much more important common policy and we cannot from the outset say that Parliament will not have a bearing on that policy at all. We must have the opportunity now to say what the role of Parliament is.
The last - and probably the most important - point is transparency vis-à-vis the citizens. Our role as a Parliament is accountability vis-à-vis the citizens. We cannot, and we must not, say to the citizens that the big common policies, like the external and defence policy, will lie outside the democratic control of our Parliament.
So for those four important reasons of principle, we believe that we must vote in favour of postponement.
Kyösti Virrankoski
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Mr President, first of all I wish to thank Mr Søndergaard for his excellent report.
The report on the Council's discharge is very long and thorough. It is also based on references to documents and the EU Treaty.
The most problematic issue is transparency. The Council's budget only partly concerns administration, as a large share of the funds go on operations, such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Council is fairly unwilling to discuss the implementation of the budget with the Committee on Budgetary Control, and it is not keen to hand over the documents requested either.
The European Parliament, together with the Council, is the authority responsible for the EU's budget. Its task is also to oversee the use of funds and the budget's general implementation.
As far as I can see, it is this very lack of cooperation that has forced the Committee on Budgetary Control to propose that discharge should be postponed, and not so much the way funds have presumably been administered. The situation is an awkward one because good levels of cooperation between Parliament and the Council are the lifeblood of fruitful European policy. That is why my group will make its final decision regarding its position this evening.
Bart Staes
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Thank you, Mr Søndergaard, your report is a gem, covering, as it does, all the pertinent points. I should, however, like to ask the President and this Parliament's Bureau to take note of the Council's absence and not to leave it at that. We should not let them run rings around us. I should like to urge the Bureau to consider sending the Council a very firm letter of protest with the message that this is unacceptable.
Indeed, as things stand at the moment, we refuse to grant an extension. This is beyond question now. We cannot grant discharge to the Council. This is not so much about fraud, as it is about a matter of principle, namely transparency. EUR 650 million from the European budget is managed by Mr Solana in the area of defence, security and foreign policy, but without any form of monitoring. This is not acceptable in a democracy. It has to stop. Hence the justified demands for an activities report, transparency and clarity.
That is not all, however. As a rapporteur on VAT fraud, in my report that was approved on 4 December, I clearly asked the Council to answer a number of questions. We are now four or five months down the line, and this period has been marked by a deafening silence from the Council, while the estimated fraud involved is between EUR 60 and 100 billion annually. The Council must act. Coordination is what is needed in the fight against VAT fraud, and as long as there is no willingness to act on their part, I will not grant discharge to the Council.
Jens Holm
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Mr President, I, too, would like to ask the same question, and that is where is the Council in this debate? It is, of course, the Council and its budget management that we are to scrutinise. I find it remarkable that no one from the Council is here at this point to answer our questions. We in the Committee on Budgetary Control, in particular our draftsman Mr Søndergaard, have put several question marks against the Council of Ministers' management of its finances. We have pointed it out on numerous occasions, but have not received any satisfactory answers.
Allow me to give two examples. In 2006, the Council spent EUR 12.6 million on travel. This money was intended to be used for interpretation. I would like to ask the Council a question, but if the Council cannot answer, perhaps the Commission can: where did the Council travel to in 2006? What do these EUR 12 million represent?
The Council also has confidential accounts, so-called comptes hors budget. The internal auditor has urged the Council to abolish these accounts, but without success. I would like to ask why this has not happened. How many such accounts are there alongside the budget? What do these accounts contain?
Our job as Members of the European Parliament is to scrutinise the Council's use of budget resources. This we do because we represent the taxpayers. The Council's job is to answer our questions. We want answers to these questions now! What happened to these EUR 12 million? What do the confidential accounts contain? How many confidential accounts are there?
If we do not receive a satisfactory response - which we have not done as yet - then we will not grant discharge to the Council tomorrow.
Nils Lundgren
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, we are facing one of the really important, fundamental questions here. You could say that, as a representative of a eurosceptic party, I believe that it should always be the Council that dominates European cooperation and that this Parliament should concentrate on the internal market and cross-border environmental issues. However, there is a third issue that has now come to the fore. The Council and this Parliament are, in principle, equally responsible for the budget and the uses to which taxpayers' money is put. Now what is, in my view, an unprecedented event has occurred in that the Council is keeping the uses to which the money is put a secret. We therefore have no transparency. Citizens are not able to say 'I accept that because I know what the money has been used for'. Therefore, I would say - and as far as I understand, all the speakers in this Parliament are in agreement for once - that there can be no question of granting discharge to the Council until we know where the money has gone.
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) Mr President, I rise to speak here as a passionate pro-European, and am convinced that we are currently receiving a lesson in what EU democracy should not look like. The fact that the Council does not deem it in any way necessary to meet Parliament's very clear criticisms in any acceptable form whatsoever unfortunately shows that all the critics of the EU, and also those who now reject the institution, are right, as we are flagrantly disregarding precisely the fundamental principles on which a democracy should be based.
Treaty after Treaty, we have been allowing the centre of power to remain completely unsupervised in reality and the Council - and this can be proven - to be lazy and incompetent and to operate largely in secret. I say 'lazy' because it can be proven that the majority of ministers - that is, those who take the decisions that are really important to Europe behind closed doors - are often not even present, and civil servants take decisions on extremely fundamental issues. This used to happen in Austria until 1848, after which the situation improved somewhat. This is not democracy.
The Council is not even willing to grant access to the agenda items that are being discussed. Members can work this out themselves minutely, detail by detail, via parliamentary questions - as I have done - and the results are frightful. These people are simply lazing around. Those who are, in reality, more important in legislative terms than us MEPs are leaving others to turn up in their place.
It is also claimed that there is now more transparency in the Council when, in actual fact, there has been less transparency in that institution since the 2006 Council Decision. A single agenda item out of 130 in the most important Council - the External Relations Council - was dealt with in public in 2008. Everything else was discussed in camera. Everything else is less transparent than the Mafia.
Then there is the use of funds. Where do the many millions of euro go? Why is the Council refusing to cooperate on this? What is the attitude of the House towards a secret service that is being extended more and more under the leadership of Javier Solana? Javier Solana is based in Spain, which admits that there is, of course, an EU secret service. Where does the money go? How corrupt are these people, and how lacking are they in transparency?
Herbert Bösch
(DE) Mr President, I should like to say two things on behalf of this committee. Congratulations to the rapporteur, who asked straightforward questions and received no answers. Congratulations to this committee, which adopted Mr Søndergaard's report by an overwhelming majority - 27:2. The Member States are conspicuous by their absence today even though, as I would remind you, Mr President, we placed this item on this afternoon's agenda especially to accommodate the Council's scheduling problems. The Member States are doing things here that they would not dare do at home.
Now we shall be conducting an election campaign where things are being shifted to Brussels again. The problems lie in the capital cities, not Brussels. I should have liked to see the Commission offering us somewhat greater support on this from time to time. In my view, its behaviour is sometimes rather too cowardly. When, as the rapporteur says, we have comptes hors budget - in my country we call these 'black accounts' - this calls to mind Eurostat and similar stories. This will not work for long. It was this committee's job to warn of such a development, and I am proud that it did so by such a large majority. I believe - and this is a positive message I shall take away with me if the House follows our lead by what I hope will be an equally large majority tomorrow - that we have ensured that control does indeed work. There is someone to take care of it. After that, we shall take a look at the consequences.
Paulo Casaca
(PT) Mr President, I join in congratulating our rapporteur on his work, as also the various political groups, the Commission and our committee in the person of its chairman. I must say that not only is the existence of slush funds absolutely unacceptable to us, but also that this supposed gentlemen's agreement, which will be 39 years old, does not, in my view, now have any reason to exist.
We are not nowadays a fan club. Definitely not. We are a Europe of citizens. We have to be accountable to everyone.
Here in the European Parliament, with the reforms that we have just now finished putting into practice, we are absolutely ready, from this next parliamentary term, to answer in full for the management of everything relating to our accounts.
The Council must do the same. It is highly regrettable that the Council has not taken advantage of the opportunity that it was given to be present here today. It was precisely for this reason that we chose this time. We should like to say that this definitely cannot continue and that we will do everything to ensure that the Council is forced to account for the way in which it implements its budget.
Karl von Wogau
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from the point of view of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, I should like to introduce another rather different emphasis into this debate. Some speeches we have heard could give rise to the impression that there is no parliamentary scrutiny of common foreign and security policy, but this is far from the truth. Excellent cooperation has evolved between the Council and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, and we are informed of every detail - including the budgetary aspects. The Committee on Budgetary Control is not involved in this - this is an internal matter for the European Parliament - but the Chairmen of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence are regularly informed of budgetary aspects. Parliamentary scrutiny is taking place here.
Then there are the confidential aspects, for which there is a special committee, which is also informed at regular intervals of all the details of European security and defence policy by Mr Solana personally.
Things may have gone very unsatisfactorily in this regard from the point of view of the Committee on Budgetary Control. I agree that the Council's absence from this debate is unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, nonsensical remarks such as those made by Mr Martin give the impression that there is no democratic control of any kind of the important matter of foreign and security policy in the European Union. There are more important things, for example the issue of the accounts from which Mr Solana's travel is financed. There is the issue of the operations in Chad, Congo, Georgia and many other countries. Dialogue and effective democratic control are a reality here.
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) Mr President, I should like to make a personal statement pursuant to Rule 149, which was Rule 145 in the previous version. I was mentioned by name; I was accused of making nonsensical remarks. I firmly reject this accusation. The data can all be documented. It is true that, in many cases, civil servants take the decisions in the important committees of foreign ministers and others - the specialist Councils - because, for whatever reason, ministers have not made the trip. Sometimes it can be proven that they prefer to attend party conferences.
It is also true - and this might perhaps be pointed out - that a Chairman, whose private dealings should be investigated at long last, has said things here that cannot go unchallenged. This parliamentary scrutiny does not exist, there are no scrutiny mechanisms whatsoever for the various security systems that have been developed accordingly - intelligence fields, that is. I shall give the following example in this very connection: the Intelligence Division (INT), with 30 members of staff...
(The President cut off the speaker and called him to order)
President
Excuse me, you have the floor in order to answer a personal question, not to give a speech on this, and you have already responded to the personal question.
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) Then I should just like to personally invite Mr von Wogau once more to disclose with whom his law firm does business and from whom it derives its profits, and then we can continue to talk.
President
I think your words just now are much more serious than what Mr von Wogau said. He in turn has asked to speak on a personal matter and so I give him the floor.
Karl von Wogau
(DE) Mr President, Mr Martin has just addressed me in a most outrageous way. Whilst I shall certainly not be giving Mr Martin himself any information about my personal circumstances, I am prepared to provide details of them at any time in the appropriate manner, as what has been intimated here is absolutely unfounded.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by saying that it would have been good if, when he was here in plenary, Mr Klaus had expressed his opinion on the accusations that are already well known. This would undoubtedly have helped show the separation of powers, which works very well at European level, in its true light.
Secondly, I should like to raise an objection to the comparison of the Council with the Mafia. This is something that simply cannot be said in a proper democracy.
Moreover, I believe that the national courts of auditors were indeed given the opportunity to work together rather more intensively with the European Court of Justice. Particularly with regard to the Council, national-level scrutiny by national parliaments is also a very important exercise, of course, one that should be performed regularly. Secondly, it is also vital, of course, that the European Court of Auditors analyse these exercises in detail and provide the necessary documentation.
I believe that the very transparency we are calling for here is also justified by the Treaty of Lisbon and that, therefore, we must press hard for this Treaty to be brought to a favourable conclusion as quickly as possible.
Herbert Bösch
Mr President, I should like to pick up briefly on what Mr von Wogau said. Mr von Wogau, you may have a body that holds very interesting discussions on future projects. However, discharge is not the responsibility of three Chairmen or a diverse body, but instead of the Committee on Budgetary Control and then of plenary. If you can tell us what is happening with the Council's off-budget accounts, then please go ahead. I am convinced that you do not know, and we do not know either. Yet, by granting discharge, we take full responsibility for what the Council has or has not done.
This is not a kindergarten; if we do not know what they have done, we cannot take responsibility for it, otherwise we make ourselves a laughing stock the world over. Anyone wishing to do that tomorrow is welcome to, but my recommendation is not to grant discharge and to opt for postponement.
Ingeborg Gräßle
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is in our interests to find a solution to this dispute, but this will be possible only if the Council makes a move.
We have complied with procedures, we have sent rapporteurs, and the four coordinators have written letters and asked questions. No replies were forthcoming, with just a reference made to a gentlemen's agreement - which certainly never applied to discharge, only ever to the budget meeting. Even then, it applied only to the administrative part. This gentlemen's agreement has never applied to the operational part; indeed, at the time the agreement was made, there was no operational part.
The Council must offer us a solution to this; it has time to come up with one, and we would urge it to do so. I am a little ashamed on its behalf on account of the members of the public up there, as this is the negative side, the arrogant side of Europe. We no longer live in a monarchy, and it is time that, in this regard, the Council joined us on the path of democracy - of greater democracy - which, incidentally, it always helps push through in the Treaties, too.
We would urge the Council to stop making this House a laughing stock, and the Council should also stop making itself a laughing stock.
Pierre Pribetich
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as symbolic as it may be in this institutional triangle, we are all the same witnessing with astonishment today an essential act of the European Parliament - the discharge - taking place, and one key participant is missing. Indeed, I am thinking, ladies and gentlemen, of the visitors who are witnessing this scene in which some speakers are saying that extra-budgetary accounts exist, which cannot be made public - meaning that they cannot be dealt with transparently - and in which the Council is not here to testify where necessary to difficulties or to other circumstances.
I believe that as MEPs we cannot accept this state of affairs, this deplorable absence of the Council, and we can only protest and in particular approve the suggestion made by the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, namely to postpone this discharge, because, otherwise, Parliament would make a fool of itself by validating accounts that it does not know about and has not had the opportunity to inspect.
Frankly, Mr President, the Council needs to pull itself together and be able to provide the information needed in relation to transparency so that it can prevent the Eurosceptics from seizing upon this issue in order to say that we are not transparent and that we are committing errors, especially where democracy is concerned.
Søren Bo Søndergaard
rapporteur. - (DA) Mr President, first of all I would like to express my satisfaction with the unanimity of the views which we have heard here today and I hope that they will have some impact on the Council. I fully endorse what the Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mr Bösch, said to Mr von Wogau, and I would also like to put one more thing to Mr von Wogau: Why should Parliament grant discharge, when it is being denied information?
Certainly, if this were a matter for some other body, there would be no reason for us to get involved. May I point out, however, that if we do grant discharge, we will be taking on a degree of responsibility. Granting discharge means taking on a degree of responsibility and we can only shoulder that responsibility if we are given information. It may well be that this information has been made available to some other quarters in Parliament, but why should the Committee on Budgetary Control be denied access to it, when it is supposed to be dealing with this matter?
I also think that Mr Staes made a valid point in proposing that we ask the Bureau to lodge a protest with the Council, especially because there are unsigned documents being circulated which appear to originate with the Council, with partial answers from the Council to the questions we have raised. It is totally unacceptable, of course, to have a situation where unsigned documents which claim to answer our questions are being handed out to the press, when the Council is not attending this debate to present its views. Therefore, I think it would certainly be a good thing if we went along with the proposal for the Bureau to register a note of protest with the Council.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee for the excellent work it has done. Much attention has been paid...
Ah, the Council has arrived! Very good.
(Applause)
Perhaps we can start the discussion all over again! I will give the President the opportunity to start the whole discussion again so we can have the questions to the Council. So I will propose that to the President.
President
The Council is, of course, welcome, but they have come for the next debate.
(Protests)
However, I will make sure that the Presidency-in-Office understands the concerns of Parliament, as expressed in the last debate about the budgetary discharge. I am sure the Minister will take that message back to Prague.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.


2. Iran: the case of Khadijeh Moghaddam
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the case of Khadijeh Moghaddam.
Paulo Casaca
author. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one of the darkest aspects of the theocratic Iranian regime is its misogyny. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, the Iranian authorities have successively eliminated all the most important women's rights. Stoning, mutilation and violation of privacy and of the most basic rights are now the rule. Society is reacting increasingly clearly and forcefully to this situation.
In this context, the movement for a million signatures that began organising around two years ago in Iran is one of the most important manifestations of Iranian civil society's wish to demonstrate its opposition to the regime in power.
In the last two years, we have witnessed around 100 prison sentences and other punishments meted out to people who have signed the movement's petition. Today, after we submitted our motion, we were informed by various human rights organisations that three women activists from this movement - Nashrin Afzali, Nahid Jafari and Zeynab Peyghambarzadeh - have been sentenced to suspended prison sentences and whipping. This is an intolerable situation and I appeal to all my fellow Members to show their repudiation of the situation and express their support for Iranian women.
Erik Meijer
author. - (NL) Mr President, Iran is a country where only people prepared to be terrorised by the military and conservative theologians can bear to live. Freedom, democracy and human rights have no meaning there. They do hold elections, but candidates have to be endorsed by the conservative clergy, so dissenters are by definition excluded. Many Iranians have fled the regime of terror in their country and many of them would no longer be alive if they had not done so. We should find room for these refugees in Europe instead of sending them back or treating them as terrorists.
At the same time there is no denying that a section of the Iranian population approves of the killing of homosexuals, discrimination against women and the suppression of ethnic minorities. That section abhorred the western decadence in their country during the time of the Pahlavi dynasty, who were driven into exile in the late 1970s after making Iran an extension of America and Europe. There was no talk of democracy then either, and opponents of the regime were persecuted or exiled. The mistakes of the West were largely responsible for the present-day regime of terror coming to power. If Iran had had a real chance of becoming a modern nation under Prime Minister Mossadeq in the early 1950s, it would never have become a breeding ground for the rulers of today.
There are movements for change in Iran, but they are subjected to generalised harassment. Mrs Khadijeh Moghaddam was seized on 8 April and charged with 'the spreading of propaganda against the state, disruption of public opinion and actions against national security.' She has since been released, but the tight restrictions on women simply continue. We must show solidarity with the oppressed.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
author. - (FI) Mr President, as is evident from the resolution, coercive measures are being used in Iran to try and silence those who speak up for women's rights there. They are arrested, interrogated and sentenced to prison. Some are even threatened with stoning. The work of NGOs has been made very difficult and there are restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. Furthermore, at the beginning of January Zanan magazine, which spoke for equality, was closed down.
It is also worrying that Iran has still not ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Iranian human rights lawyer, Mehrangiz Kar, has said that Iran's legal system is incompatible with the UN Convention on women's rights, because its constitution cannot go against Sharia law. Most Muslim countries, however, have ratified the Convention.
The question arises as to whether Iran's decision-makers and authorities believe that politically active women who are critical of the system pose a real threat to Iranian society. These persistent and courageous women represent a huge force for change. It is important that the EU shows its support for these Iranians who are fighting for fundamental human rights.
Ewa Tomaszewska
author. - (PL) Mr President, there are serious breaches of human rights in Iran, in particular the threat to stone nearly ten women to death - I am speaking here of Iran, Khayrieh, Kobra N, Fatemeh, Ashraf Kalhori, Shamameh Ghorbani, Leyla Ghomi, Hajar and the sisters Zohreh and Azar Kabiriniat, and other people, too. The use of the death penalty for children and for those who talk about women's rights demands a strong reaction from the democratic world. The arrest of those involved in the 'million signatures' campaign shows how society is being prevented from exercising its right to speak out on important issues.
These actions must be condemned. European Union bodies should monitor the human rights situation in Iran. We would like to see a group of observers sent to Iran and for them to prepare a detailed report that the European Parliament can consider, so that it can define its own position and put forward its proposals for measures that could help to improve the human rights situation in Iran.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, however much one tries to be understanding about the different society, lifestyle and circumstances prevailing in a deeply Muslim state like Iran, one cannot help but feel shocked and angry at the grossly undemocratic and brutal treatment of women in that country.
Some examples include the exclusion of women from most senior state offices and appointment as judges, the discriminatory rights of women in marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance, the fact that evidence given in court by women carries only half the weight of that given by a man, the legal age of marriage of women at just 13 years and the condemnation of women to severe and degrading punishment, and even death, by primitive and barbaric means, even for such presumed crimes as having an extramarital relationship.
Instead of the governing regime of Iran making efforts to improve the situation, attempts are presently under way to make matters worse. An example is the draft bill on family protection, which is currently under consideration and which aims at further legitimising polygamy, temporary marriage and the unilateral right of men to arbitrary divorce and child custody. In addition, the Iranian authorities are conducting an ever-increasing campaign of repression of female activists and women's rights defenders in general.
We call upon the Iranian regime to try to free itself from religious fanaticism and long superseded, failed political philosophies and, using common sense, to try to bring its country back into the 21st century, rather than plunging it further into the dark ages of the extreme Muslim totalitarianism of the past.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - (ES) Mr President, I was aware of the case of Mokarrameh Ebrahimi due to the international campaign waged at the time by Amnesty International and Stop Stoning Forever, the purpose of which was to obtain the release of this woman who had been sentenced to death by stoning for having had an extra-marital relationship.
The good news is that thanks, at least in part, to that campaign, Ebrahimi was freed on 17 March 2008 after spending eleven years in prison. The bad news is that her partner was less fortunate and was stoned to death one year ago, just as least ten other women and two men are threatened with death by stoning in Iran at the moment.
Sadly, this is not just an isolated incident in a country where breaches of human rights, including women's rights, is achieving disturbing records. Executions doubled in 2007, making Iran the country with most executions per capita after Saudi Arabia and, together with Yemen, these are the three countries in which there were most executions of persons under the age of eighteen.
Since the start of the Stop Stoning Forever campaign, in October 2006, six people have escaped death by stoning, others have been granted a reprieve and many cases are under review.
However, I should point out that a great deal of persecution and repression is being suffered by those who dare to be human rights activists in Iran.
The Islamic Consultative Assembly is currently revising the Iranian Penal Code, but even so, the sentence of death by stoning is to be replaced, in the most favourable cases, by other methods of execution or whipping.
Bernd Posselt
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, this imposing building here in Strasbourg is named after Louise Weiss, who fell foul of the police and the courts in the democratically enlightened France of the inter-war years because she campaigned for women's suffrage.
We cannot, of course, compare that situation to the totalitarian dictatorship in Iran, but the memory should serve to teach us Europeans a certain degree of humility. The regime in Iran is an unacceptable, totalitarian one, but Iran is a big, multifaceted country, where the forces of reform are steadily gathering strength. The initiators of this petition, for example, are among the reform movements to which we must lend our emphatic support, and which have now spread to include even members of the Khomeini family.
There are already more women to be found in politics, in administration and in the academic world in Iran than in most other Islamic or Asian states. That may not tally with the clichéd view but it is a fact.
We need to build on this plurality in Iran in order to bring about the ultimate downfall of the unacceptable, totalitarian regime there. That is a tremendous challenge for us as Europeans. I am therefore very grateful to my colleague, Albert Dess, for helping me on Monday to keep this important item on the agenda - because, ladies and gentlemen, we need to make Iran one of our priorities in the context of Parliament's work to support human rights!
Marianne Mikko
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, the situation of women in Iran is serious. Religion is often used as an excuse for violations of human rights.
It is humiliating to learn that even today women can be punished by lashing or even with the death penalty. It is essential for Iran to sign the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as soon as possible. This important document has already been signed by 185 countries. Iran, however, is a genuine 'blot' in the region because all the countries which border it have already acceded to the Convention.
I warmly welcome the release of the champion of the fight against discrimination against women, Khadijeh Moghaddam. But let us be honest, she had to spend nine long days in a detention cell. The one-million-signature campaign she initiated was a forceful step towards establishing women's rights. It is unacceptable for women ever to be jailed for fighting for equal rights. Violence against women in Iran must stop; women must have their say on all issues. Iran cannot class itself as an exception in the world's global village.
Janusz Onyszkiewicz
(PL) Mr President, today there was a meeting between Mrs Rajavi, head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and French politicians and representatives of the European Parliament.
In her presentation Mrs Rajavi clearly stated how important women's rights are for the democratic Iranian opposition, showing once again that the opposition gives us hope that change will take place in Iran. All that is necessary is for us to take certain measures.
The first step is to comply with court rulings stating that the Iranian Muhajedin should be removed from the list of terrorist organisations. The second, which is perhaps even more important, is finally to recognise the National Council of Resistance of Iran as the representative of democratic Iran, and this is where we should place our hopes for peaceful change.
Carlo Fatuzzo
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have to give in to the temptation to cite an example, and in my view a very tangible one, of the credibility of the Iranian government authorities.
Yours truly, Carlo Fatuzzo, standing before you now, was said to be a supporter of anti-Iranian terrorists, I repeat, anti-Iranian, to my great satisfaction of course, at a public and official meeting between the Iranian Foreign Minister and a Commission delegation from the European Union-Iran delegation. That was five years ago, I repeat five years ago. I leave it to you, Mr President, and my many colleagues, to judge the threat that I represent to the regime in Iran. That is how credible the ministers and leaders of Iran are.
Tunne Kelam
Mr President, for almost 30 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a major menace to human rights and democracy. Women have been the first target of this extremist branch of Islam. Their rights have been hijacked by the mullahs' regime. Even young girls are not exceptions, and a nine-year-old girl is treated as an adult and punished by flogging, execution and even stoning.
However, many women have not complied with the regime. It is encouraging to see that the main democratic opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance, is led by a woman like Mrs Maryam Rajavi. Resolutions are good, but they are not enough. We need to support such women in deeds.
Armando Veneto
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to remind the House that when I was a national MP in the Italian Parliament, I had substantial dealings with the Iranian resistance and was in favour of the decisive action to protect human rights which its representatives advocated.
I received a veiled rebuke from the government at the time because I was told that clear-cut and explicit positions could not be taken for reasons of realpolitik. I say this because this debate should ultimately be looking at a fundamental point: while we in this House set great store by the humanitarian commitment of Europe as a whole and of the European Parliament, concrete pressures to do with oil, self-interest and opportunism run counter to that commitment. That is what needs to be combated!
Androula Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission shares Members' concern regarding Ms Khadijeh Moghaddam and the cases of women and human rights defenders harassed by the Iranian authorities.
Ms Moghaddam is a leader of the One Million Signatures petition campaign, which lobbies to change Iranian laws which contradict the principles of gender equality and human rights.
We welcome the news of Ms Modghaddam's release, albeit on a high bail. However, we must underline the fact that two other members of the signature campaign, Ms Hana Abdi and Ms Ronak Safazadeh, have been detained since autumn 2007.
Moreover, we deplore the recent sentencing of four more members of the campaign for allegedly acting against national security, following their participation in a rally outside a Tehran courtroom two years ago: Ms Zeynab Peyghambarzadeh to two years' suspended imprisonment and Ms Nashrin Afzali, Ms Nahid Jafari and Ms Minoo Mortazi to six months' suspended imprisonment and 10 lashes. We vigorously condemn such sentences, which can only be seen as part of the ongoing effort to intimidate and humiliate these peaceful women campaigners.
The campaign for women's rights and equality is very important and significant in the Iranian context. Each of these courageous women deserves our full support. I call on the Iranian authorities to release unconditionally Ms Abdi and Ms Safazadeh and drop all charges against them and their fellow women's rights campaigners.
Alas, many other human rights defenders are at risk in Iran. I specifically call on the authorities to release unconditionally Mr Mansour Ossanlou and Mr Emadedin Baghi and to end the harassment, intimidation and political persecution of human rights defenders.
The Commission reiterates its concern about the closure, two months ago, of the independent women's magazine Zanan. The Commission appeals to the Iranian authorities to re-allow the publication of Zanan. The EU will consider Iran's attitude towards Zanan, as well as towards the women's campaign for equal rights, as an indicator of its willingness to seriously engage in the improvement of the human rights situation.
We call on the Islamic Republic of Iran to fully comply with its obligations under international conventions, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We also recall that, when standing for election at the UN Human Rights Council, Iran affirmed that it was considering accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The European Union has raised issues relating to human rights, including women's rights and the promotion of gender equality, with the Iranian authorities and will continue to do so. Without a systematic improvement of the human rights situation in Iran, our relations with Iran cannot develop properly.
The President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.


One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
President
The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.
Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš
(LV) Mr President, the whole of the European Union is feeling the global economic crisis, but the recession has had its most serious effects in the Baltic States. For these states, the way out of the economic crisis is closely linked to a full transition to the euro. Although, since 2005, all the Baltic currencies have been directly pegged to the euro, because of the official Maastricht criteria they still cannot fully join the euro area. It is therefore the case that the Baltic States are suffering from the European Central Bank's low interest rate policy, which brought the loans and property bubbles to a head, but they are prevented from enjoying the true fruits of currency stability. I call upon you to take a political decision so that the euro can be introduced in the Baltic States on an exceptional basis. The small economies of these states are not a threat to the euro area. The threat is instability in the region, if these countries remain outside the euro area. Thank you for your attention.
Alexander Mirsky
(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the very dangerous economic situation in the Republic of Latvia. Currently, there is a plan in the country to close 50% of the hospitals. In some regions, unemployment is at 25%. In Latgale, 50% of workers have been laid off. 30% of police officers, 30% of schoolteachers and 30% of doctors have lost their jobs. The tax reforms, which are designed to increase taxes, will lead to the utter collapse of the economy. In this situation, instead of assistance, Latvia is being offered loans, which demand even more cuts to the very small budget. Things have now gone so far that some Swedish ministers are literally blackmailing the Latvian Government, demanding a reduction in funding. All this has led to a social explosion ...
Luigi de Magistris
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that Parliament should be very concerned by the latest report from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Indeed, while some governments in the European Union, and most recently the Italian Government, continue to make immigration a criminal offence, violate the right to asylum and indiscriminately refuse entry, I believe that we need strong cooperation since it is a disgrace that the level of poverty described by the FAO in Africa, the Middle East and Asia still exists. Cooperation does not mean undertaking pointless projects which merely generate business for the same old companies, but helping these countries to emancipate themselves.
Another disgrace which Parliament needs to address is the privatisation of water, something in which certain governments of the EU engage. Water is a resource that belongs to everyone, an essential resource and not a commodity at the service of the multinationals.
Karima Delli
(FR) Mr President, my speech concerns the deterioration in working conditions in Europe.
Today, nearly half of the people working in the world earn less than USD 2 a day. 12.3 million people are still victims of slavery, and more than 200 million children are forced to work. In Europe, the number of working poor is increasing day by day, and each year the International Labour Organisation records 160 000 deaths linked to a lack of prevention.
In this context, I would like to emphasise our responsibility towards all those who are deprived of jobs and social rights, who work in unfit conditions, towards those millions of workers who suffer mentally and physically, who are, at times, driven to suicide, or who are victims of cancers or chronic diseases caused by their working conditions. It is time to break with the religion that dictates that we must work harder, and to stop the race to make profits and to compete in the short term. Guaranteeing the right to decent work and strengthening labour law must be the Union's top priority over the next 10 years.
Janusz Wojciechowski
(PL) Mr President, the Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report recently in which it states that world food production must rise by at least 70% by 2050, or humanity will face the threat of famine. This is confirmation of an obvious truth. It is well known that there are increasing numbers of people in the world, while the amount of arable land available is falling. Meanwhile, European Union agricultural policy, under the guise of caring for market principles and improving the competitiveness of agriculture, is based on the systematic reduction of agriculture production in almost all of its sectors. In the context of world tendencies, this policy may turn out to be lethal, and may cause hunger in the not too distant future.
I think that in the European Union, there is a need for a fundamental change in the political approach to agriculture and its problems. We must really care for the food security of our continent. Enough of the policy of restricting agriculture, because it is a policy which is short-sighted and devoid of imagination.
Bairbre de Brún
(GA) Mr President, about this time three years ago, the British Government gave a commitment that they would bring in an Irish Language Act to protect and develop the Irish language in Northern Ireland. The legislation to protect the rights of Irish speakers is a significant part of the peace and reconciliation process.
As such, the Irish language should have the same statutory protection as native languages in the South of Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales.
Three years on, that legislation is still not in place.
I would appreciate it if you, Mr President, could speak with the power-sharing executive in Belfast about the importance and influence of multilingualism in general.
Eleven years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, and three years after the signing of the St Andrews Agreement, it is a matter of urgency for us that an Irish Language Act be put in place to normalise the rights of Irish language speakers in Northern Ireland.
President
Thank you. Please submit a written request on this matter.
John Bufton
Mr President, Wales is currently a major beneficiary of EU funding under the 2007-2013 Structural Funds programme. The money is largely directed towards developing sustainable economic growth and creating jobs. West Wales and the Valleys receives the highest level of support under the current Structural Funds, and rightly so.
Many regard the UK as a wealthy place to live. Very few people know the reality of the scale of poverty and unemployment in Wales. The Valleys have all but been destroyed by the closure of big industries which, at one point, were the backbone of solid hardworking communities. Today, the mines are closed. The factories that grew up in their place are outsourcing work overseas. The communities that thrived on this employment have not just lost their jobs but also their sense of purpose and belonging.
With more and more countries queuing up to join the EU, I am worried that Wales will see much-needed support go to newer member countries. I urge the Commission and the Council to ensure that Wales receives adequate funding, through a strong transitional settlement, when the current round of Structural Funds ceases in 2013.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Mr President, the extraordinarily dangerous Temelín nuclear power plant, at which there have already been 127 incidents since 2000, is very close to where I come from in Upper Austria and there is another close to Vienna at Mochovce in the Slovak Republic. Together, they form an unpleasant cocktail of old Soviet design and American engineering. From a legal point of view, the whole issue is problematic, as environmental impact assessments are not carried out in compliance with European legislation in either country. The parties to the proceedings have no possibility of obtaining judicial review of the final decision. That contradicts Article 10 of the Community Directive on environmental impact assessments.
I should like to take this opportunity to call on the Community to firmly oppose this construction project.
Georgios Papastamkos
(EL) Mr President, given the resumption and intensification of Doha Round negotiations and in the run-up to the WTO ministerial conference to be held in Geneva at the end of November, we call for an in-depth debate with the Commission so that we can jointly decide on the European Union's negotiating position in light of the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. We also call on the Commission, as far as the agricultural sector is concerned, to respect its negotiating mandate in full and for any offer on its part not to entail further reform and, more to the point, not to pre-empt the review in 2013. In other words, we do not want a premature reform of the common agricultural policy through the back door or imposed from on high.
Alajos Mészáros
(HU) Mr President, it is commendable if a politician wishes to gain the maximum benefit for his or her country. We all do this, bearing in mind our voters' interests. However, this benefit cannot be gained to another person's detriment, and cannot, in any way, be the result of blackmail.
Václav Klaus, the Czech President, has astonished us all with his tactics for blocking the Treaty of Lisbon. This man who started his political life as a reformer has come up with demands that bring shame on both him and his country. I feel it is unacceptable to link the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon with the immunity of the Beneš Decrees. The Beneš Decrees passed in 1945 applied the principle of collective punishment, which is alien to the European legal order. In accordance with these laws, millions of innocent civilians had their citizenship revoked and were forcibly deported from the land of their birth simply because their mother tongue was German or Hungarian.
According to our European legal order, we cannot tolerate violation of human rights and personal freedom in any shape or form. However, this is what Václav Klaus is demanding from us.
Chrysoula Paliadeli
(EL) Mr President, the recent kidnap of Athanasios Lerounis, the president of the non-governmental organisation 'Greek Volunteers', is the last in a series of kidnaps in the chaotic area between Pakistan and Afghanistan which contains Polish, British, Spanish, Chinese and Canadian citizens, most of whom have not escaped death. The residents of this area, also known as Kafiristan, which means land of the infidels, are fighting to uphold their principles, traditions and customs in a hostile environment which is gradually taking over.
Mr Lerounis and his team have been working effectively with the Kalash tribe for about fifteen years and have managed, during that time, to improve living conditions in this isolated community.
We call on the members of the European Parliament to use their power and to help rescue a volunteer who has devoted much of his adult life to understanding a community in central Asia threatened with extinction.
Harlem Désir
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, two Member States - France and the United Kingdom - have announced their intention to send to Afghanistan refugees who came to Europe in an attempt to save their own lives.
I do not believe that we can continue to stand back in the face of this very serious threat to their lives. The British newspaper, The Guardian, reported in October that some Afghan refugees expelled from Australia had been killed upon their arrival in their country.
I believe that all of this goes completely against all of our international commitments.
The European Commission itself said in an action plan dated June 2008 that legitimate measures to reduce illegal immigration should not result in refugees being denied access to protection within the European Union, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has warned the European Union against making any attempt to undermine the Geneva Convention and the other additional forms of protection that are designed to ensure that Afghan refugees are not deported to Afghanistan.
A large number of MEPs, from four different groups, have signed an appeal along these lines. I call on you, Mr President, to talk to the European Commission, the United Kingdom and France, and our House, our Chamber, must take up this issue in order to prevent this crime against the right of asylum from being committed.
Ramon Tremosa I Balcells
Mr President, I would like to denounce the restrictions suffered by the Catalan language in the Spanish state. More specifically, I am referring to the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Community which, in 2007, closed the TV repeaters of La Carrasqueta and Mondúver. Some other TV repeaters will be closed in the coming months.
These TV repeaters allow the reception of Catalan television in the Valencia region. The Valencian Autonomous Government is acting against the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which ensures the free circulation of television contents between European countries. Inside the EU, cultural freedom exists but, inside the Spanish state - for Catalan television - it does not exist. This is the sad paradox I wanted to share with all of you this afternoon.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 'equal pay for equal work' is a principle of the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Community. This principle is still topical today because, although more and more women occupy managerial positions, there is still a blatant income divide. It is incomprehensible that women, merely because they are women rather than men, are paid a lower wage for the same work, especially the same standard of work. The benefit to a modern democratic society when it finally fully implements this principle, which we should rather call a demand, should be clear and obvious to everyone. I therefore think it is important for something to be done to improve current laws and wage transparency. One small example is Austria, where the income divide is about 28%.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
(ES) Mr President, I would like to condemn an event that is without precedent in the ten year reign of King Mohammed VI in Morocco: the fact that a Moroccan military court is going to try seven Saharan independence activists for collaborating with the enemy, a charge that could carry the death penalty.
This has not happened since the times of King Hassan II. A civilian has never been put in the dock in a military court. This means that repression is once again intensifying in this former Spanish colony.
While the complicit silence of the European Union is very striking, what is even more serious is the silence of the Spanish Government, which is primarily to blame for the current situation in the Western Sahara due its abandonment of the area.
My question is therefore a very direct one: is this the Moroccan regime with which we want to have a special relationship? Is this the regime with which we want to establish a relationship of friendship and mutual respect? How many more times can we and must we keep quiet in the face of what is happening in the Western Sahara?
Is this the way they intend to resolve the problems that are currently facing the whole of that population? I think that it is precisely now, in the context of these negotiations, that we should give a clear, firm response to this situation.
Petru Constantin Luhan
(RO) The European Union has 1 636 border points designated as checkpoints for entering EU territory and every year, approximately 900 million border crossings are made. I am actually from a region located at the European Union's external border and I am very much aware of the problems encountered by the customs authorities. This is why I believe that we must address this issue with utmost seriousness and review the Frontex agency's mandate.
Frontex is currently facing a number of problems. For example, Member States must take a more active involvement in cooperating at the European Union's external borders. More attention must also be focused on cooperation with third countries which are, in many cases, the countries of origin or transit countries for illegal immigration. The Stockholm Programme actually helps reinforce the involvement of Frontex so that this agency will play a key role as part of the future integrated mechanism for monitoring the EU's borders.
Artur Zasada
(PL) Mr President, in view of the increasing amount of freight moving from the north to the south of the continent, and the insufficient number of transport corridors, I should like to underline the significance of the Central European Transport Corridor, CETC Road 65. This encompasses road, inland waterway and rail transport through an area which links the Baltic Sea with the Adriatic and runs from Sweden through Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia.
The corridor would be an axis of regional development for the entire area through which it runs. It would fully accord with the principles of intermodality and would have a balanced influence on the natural environment. It would help increase the tempo of social and economic development in a large part of the European Union by increasing speed and volumes of trade between countries of the Baltic Sea region and countries of the Mediterranean and Adriatic region.
It is my duty as an MEP, but also as a specialist who has been associated with the transport industry for years, to ask for support for the CETC project. It fully deserves to be included in the existing TNT network of Pan-European Transport Corridors.
Sylvie Guillaume
(FR) Mr President, following the dismantling of the 'jungle' camp in Calais at the end of September, I wish to denounce here the organisation, by France and the United Kingdom, of forced returns to Afghanistan, a country in total chaos.
Like my colleague, Mr Désir, who spoke just now, I too call on the European Commission to put pressure on the Member States so that they stop putting these people's lives in grave danger by forcibly returning them to Afghanistan.
We know that these migrants are unable to apply for asylum in France under the Dublin II Regulation because they are liable to be deported to Greece or Italy, where the detention conditions are unacceptable and the chances of them seeing their asylum applications succeed are slim.
The only effect that dismantling the 'jungle' camp has had is to make the tragedy suffered by these migrants in need of protection even more traumatic. In contrast to the objectives set by the French authorities, these migrants have become more vulnerable as a result of the camp closure, and they are even more likely to be handed over to people traffickers who, for their part, are not in the least bit worried.
Now more than ever, we must remember that the credibility of an asylum system is compromised if it fails to protect the people who need protection.
Proinsias De Rossa
Mr President, I welcome the endorsement by the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) of the recommendations of the Goldstone report and their call for an end to the illegal siege of Gaza, which is causing so much human suffering. I propose that our relevant parliamentary committees should now examine without delay what steps the European Union should be taking to ensure that the Goldstone recommendations are pursued in an effective way.
I was shocked that four Member States of this Union - Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary and Slovakia - voted against the HRC resolution. Human rights and international law are not optional extras to be defended or ignored depending on the relevant political advantages. All our Member States must defend international law and human rights without fear or favour, otherwise our credibility is undermined as a force for justice in the world - and, indeed, as an honest interlocutor for peace in the Middle East.
Finally, could I ask that, in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, you insist that no new agreements with Israel are signed by the Commission or the Council in the coming week.
Tomasz Piotr Poręba
(PL) Mr President, in the second half of September this year, Russia and Belarus held military exercises codenamed 'West' 2009 and 'Lake Lagoda' 2009. It was the largest undertaking of its kind on the western borders of Russia since the end of the Cold War. Assault exercises on a similar scale last took place in 1981, at the height of the Cold War. It is interesting that the 'West' 2009 phase started on 18 September, which was almost to the day the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Part of the exercises were held at the mouth of the Bay of Gdańsk, and 'Lake Lagoda' 2009 is universally thought by experts to represent preparations for a potential attack on the Baltic countries and Finland.
Despite openly hostile moves by the Russian Federation, both the European Union and NATO have remained passive. They still have not developed a strategy for defence in the event of an invasion from the east because some of the countries and NATO members consider the question too sensitive politically.
In view of the approaching EU-Russia Summit, and also in view of the facts I have mentioned, I have submitted a question on the matter to the Council of the European Union.
Gabriel Mato Adrover
(ES) Mr President, agreements should be honoured and rules should bind everyone equally. This statement, which may seem obvious, is not so obvious in reality when we are talking about the Association Agreement between the European Union and Morocco, which contains consistent irregularities, as recognised by the European Anti-Fraud Office.
Spanish tomato producers, particularly in the Canary Islands, are going through a difficult time, and need the agreement to be honoured, but also want to know what the Commission plans to do about the new agreement that is still being negotiated: whether an increase has been offered in the preferential tomato quota and under what terms, whether the entry price system is going to be changed to prevent further breaches in the future, and whether the plant health requirements demanded of European producers are going to be enforced.
Also, while we are talking about agreements, banana producers are also following negotiations, in some cases bilateral negotiations with third countries, with a great deal of concern, because such dealings could have irreparable consequences if they do not go hand in hand with compensatory measures.
In both cases, the Commission cannot abandon its producers and we cannot allow that to happen.
Françoise Castex
(FR) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the arrest of Mohammad Othman, a 33-year-old Palestinian human rights activist and supporter of the non-violent civil society campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.
Mohammad Othman was arrested on 22 September by the Israeli authorities. Since then, his detention period has been repeatedly extended by the Israeli army. A military judge is due to rule on his detention on Tuesday 20 October - i.e. tomorrow.
Mr President, on behalf of the European Parliament, I call on you to take action to ensure that this human rights activist, whose only crime is a thought crime, is released.
This week, we are going to award the Sakharov Prize. Sadly, we cannot give the Sakharov Prize to all human rights campaigners, but at least let us offer them our support when their freedom is in jeopardy.
Róża, Gräfin von Thun Und Hohenstein
(PL) Mr President, I speak today as a member of the Committee on Culture and Education, and also as a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. In this role, I appeal for continued, comprehensive consultations and efficient action on the matter of the digitalisation of books and the role of Google. We cannot allow our market, all that we have accomplished in this area in Europe, to be dominated by one firm. We must develop good legal instruments, which will protect the interests of our authors and publishers, and the European Union must do this together with others, especially with the United States, but also with other countries in today's globalised world.
It is a question of our European literature, our culture, and our identity. We must develop these things, and act together to protect them. They are our European authors and our European publishers. The problem of digitalisation is too important to be decided only across the Atlantic. We must establish this legislation together, and we must devote the greatest attention to this matter.
Cătălin Sorin Ivan
(RO) These days are crucial to the democratic development of the Republic of Moldova. The election of the president by the new parliament, scheduled for 23 October, was postponed due to a lack of competition. Once again, by resorting to subversive tactics through not put forwarding a candidate, the Communist Party is attempting to sabotage the path to democracy.
It is our duty to monitor the entire process closely to ensure that the constitutional provisions are applied and that the Republic of Moldova passes the democratic test of elections.
The strengthening of democracy in this country must be one of the priorities of the European Union in its neighbourhood policy. This can then serve as an example for the entire area to the east of the EU. It is our duty to offer this democratic government a new opportunity by providing it with the moral and technical support that it needs. The most appreciated sign of this support would probably be to come up with a viable solution for giving the citizens of the Republic of Moldova access to the European Union.
Jelko Kacin
(SL) After some serious and careful thought, the voters of Ireland have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon with a two-thirds majority. We receive this news with pleasure and pride, as the Treaty will enable further enlargement. The only ones still making their minds up are President Václav Klaus and the Czech Constitutional Court.
I come from the former Yugoslavia and I have memories of us supporting Czechoslovakia, not just when they played ice hockey against the Soviet Union, but on every occasion and in every context. From the time when the forces of the Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring, we always showed solidarity with them. On this occasion, however, I cannot and must not do so, as that would be to the detriment of the European Union, my own country and any future candidate countries.
I must express our concern publicly and say that we will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed. For this reason, I call on the political leaders and the public opinion of both the current and future candidate countries to let the President of the Czech Republic know that he is toying with our destinies and with their destinies. It is high time that this game came to an end.
Csanád Szegedi
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, three years ago, on 23 October 2006, tens of thousands of people gathered in Budapest to celebrate in a dignified manner and commemorate the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and fight for freedom which our people waged against the Communist dictatorship. Three years ago, terrorists disguised in police uniforms without any identification insignia used banned weapons to disperse the crowd that was holding a peaceful commemoration. This was presumably under the political order of the party which has succeeded the Communist dictatorship.
It took 50 years after 1956 for Hungarian blood to be shed again on the streets of Budapest. On Friday of this week, 23 October, at 15.00, several thousand people will commemorate the events of 1956 again on Deák Square. We Jobbik MEPs, along with several fellow Members, such as Andreas Mölzer and Bruno Gollnisch, will monitor at this location the physical safety of those attending the commemoration. However, I would like the European Parliament to send observers and I would ask Mr Buzek in particular to draw the Hungarian police chiefs' attention to observing the European Convention on Human Rights.
Simon Busuttil
(MT) The past weeks have witnessed a number of violent incidents in the Holy City of Jerusalem, in the Al Aksa area. Both sides are pointing fingers at each other as to who is to blame, who the instigator is, and who is ultimately responsible for these violent acts. As frequently happens in this region, one incident can quickly escalate into a crisis. Let us not forget, in fact, that the most recent Palestinian intifada took place right after the incidents in Al Aksa. In a situation such as this, I believe that we must analyse our duties as the European Parliament. We are duty bound to take a clear stand against all unilateral measures and to ensure we put a stop to all international law violations immediately. Experience has taught us that in situations like these, we should not remain silent.
Vladimír Maňka
(SK) For three and a half months, Slovakia has been subjected to a brutal campaign of discreditation concerning the amendment to the national language law.
EPP Vice-President, Viktor Orban, said in Romania in July that Hungarian foreign policy must treat this matter as a serious instance of 'casus belli' which translates as 'a cause for war'. One week later, the former Hungarian ombudsman for ethnic minorities, Jenö Kaltenbach, stated that all of the minorities in Hungary had suffered a complete loss of identity, unable to speak their own languages and unaware of their own history. The words of the former ombudsman did not provoke the slightest political or media debate.
Greater Hungarian nationalists are not interested in the rights of minorities in Hungary but only in the rights of Hungarian minorities in other countries. The innocent people living in the south of Slovakia have, in this way, become hostages to these nationalists and their dreams of a politically reunited Hungarian nation.
Maria da Graça Carvalho
(PT) Regional differences remain a challenge in the context of an enlarged European Union. For this reason, it is essential that cohesion policy supports those regions and Member States that are less developed. That is why we are extremely apprehensive about the recent amendment to the General Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund proposed by the Portuguese Government to the European Commission.
This amendment establishes exceptions to the general rule on the geographical eligibility of expenditure relating to operations with a spillover effect and those relating to technical assistance, allowing funds destined for the convergence regions of Northern Central Portugal, Alentejo and the Azores, to be actually disbursed in the Lisbon area.
This amendment may constitute a violation of the principle of economic and social cohesion - a principle that is a cornerstone of the European project.
Mitro Repo
(FI) Mr President, I am concerned about freedom of religion in Turkey. Turkey's possible membership of the EU depends on its fulfilment of all the Copenhagen criteria. Recently, the country has seemed less willing to improve the situation with regard to its human rights and freedom of religion because of internal tensions. There has also been negligence in the investigation of crimes against churches. What is more, the Orthodox Church, for example, is still unable to choose its Patriarch freely and irrespective of nationality, and there are ever more attempts to place restrictions on clerics as regards wearing their priestly garb in public.
Concrete measures are to be expected of Turkey in talks on its membership, measures which would demonstrate that it understands and recognises the value of the European cultural heritage, even on Turkish soil. For that reason, Turkey should immediately allow the Halki Seminary, for example, to continue to function and, furthermore, restore the protection of church property.
George Sabin Cutaş
(RO) The surveys published by the European Commission indicate that the current account deficits of the large majority of European Union Member States are expected to exceed the 3% of GDP limit during 2009 and 2010. Similarly, in 2010, an average level of public debt of 80% is envisaged for the 27 Member States and of more than 80% for the countries in the euro area.
In the case of Eastern European countries, however, the need to curb the recession clashes with the duty to comply with the Maastricht criteria. In fact, a discrepancy can be seen between the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact for the countries in the euro area, where deficits and public debt are on the rise, and the extremely stringent standards imposed on those wishing to join the euro area.
It is therefore necessary to adapt the Maastricht criteria to the current climate and economic realities characterised by larger cyclical movements. Adapting the Maastricht criteria and providing quicker access for Eastern European countries to the euro area would strengthen the European Union and continue the integration process.
Nikolaos Chountis
(EL) Mr President, I should like to speak about accidents at work in Greece and Europe. The shortcomings and negligence of shareholders, control mechanisms and national and Community authorities in applying health and safety regulations is criminal. The statistics for my country, Greece, are tragic. There were 142 fatal accidents in 2008 and there have been more than 56 since the beginning of 2009.
At a time when lives are being lost, companies, the national authorities and the Commission are addressing the issue in a very relaxed manner and crimes are basically going unpunished; crimes for the sake of profits, such as the crime which France Telecom has been committing since February 2008. Last week, another worker, just 25 years old, committed suicide due to the intolerable working conditions. What does the Commission have to say about that? Had it been a different matter, it would have intervened. That is why I call on the Bureau and my fellow members to observe a minute's silence at some point during the three-day plenary for the victims of France Telecom and other accidents at work.
Ioannis Kasoulides
Mr President, last month, I informed the plenary of the discovery of the remains of Cypriot soldiers who, during the invasion of 1974, were photographed surrendering to the Turkish army, alive and well. In a new development, the European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey guilty of cruel and inhumane behaviour towards the relatives of missing soldiers of that period by failing to investigate and inform the relatives about their fate. Turkey was ordered to pay compensation in this regard. I call again on this Parliament to urge the Turkish army to provide its records to the UN Committee on Missing Persons for the resolution of this humanitarian issue.
Rosario Crocetta
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank you for asking the Belgian and French authorities to provide me with police protection.
To feel the solidarity of the institutions when you are on the frontline fighting a phenomenon such as the mafia in Italy, which has resulted in many victims over many years, is really important in my view, and I offer my heartfelt thanks. However, for some time, Mr President, mafia organisations have been a global phenomenon: not just through money laundering, but also through their permanent presence in various European countries, and also via immigration.
When, on 16 July this year, I called for the establishment of a committee of inquiry into mafia organisations in Europe, I did so with the aim not only of serving my country, but also the European Community, in the belief that a lack of vigilance when it comes to organised crime associations such as the mafia could have a negative impact on citizens' quality of life and safety and on development mechanisms. And it is strange, I have finished, Mr President ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
President
Thank you. I would like to say that I have also asked the authorities in Brussels to increase vigilance around the European Parliament, because we have had an unfortunate incident recently. The Brussels authorities have replied very positively to the European Parliament's request, and talks are also being held on this subject.
Corina Creţu
(RO) The report published to mark World Food Day indicates that one in six people are suffering from hunger and the number of undernourished people in the world has passed the 1-billion mark, while the number of people blighted by famine has risen by 100 million in just one year.
During this entire period, the World Food Programme has been facing a 50% drop in international donations compared with 2008, which is having a serious impact on the volume of food aid being supplied to poor countries.
The European Union is the leading campaigner against global famine. Its position was strengthened by the commitment made at the G8 summit in L'Aquila to provide EUR 2 billion, which is in addition to the EUR 1 billion Food Facility. This is a large sum, but is still far from what would be required to meet the objective set by the UN, which is to halve the number of people suffering from endemic hunger.
A much broader political effort is required to mobilise the resources of all the major industrialised powers in the world. I believe that a Marshall Plan is an absolute necessity with a much more specific and tangible objective, which is to help the billion of our fellow human beings suffering from hunger rise above the subsistence threshold.
Ioan Mircea Paşcu
Mr President, the missile defence project of the former US Administration, of which Europe has been made part, was fiercely contested by Russia, which chose to see in it a move directed against it, and by some Europeans who were upset because the Russians were upset.
The Obama Administration is trying to address such a position by shifting defence from the long-range to the short- and medium-range missile threat, thus increasing the direct protection of Europe, and apparently by accepting Russian cooperation through providing a radar facility in the Caucasus.
Still some Europeans contest the project, ignoring its new orientation. Russia has not spoken yet. I only wish that the European position is not moulded only by this fact, but reflects a genuine search to find the best way to protect European soil from this real threat, in cooperation with the US, and with Russia, too, if the latter is willing.
Philip Bradbourn
Mr President, last year, this House debated the use of whole-body scanners at airports and subsequently the European Commission withdrew its proposal in this regard.
Recently, at Manchester Airport, a new trial was started and legal advice has now been given that to use these machines on minors could be in breach of child safety and protection legislation because of the nature of the image produced. Similar cases of this nature took place in 2005 and 2006 by the Action on Rights for Children group, which resulted in the banning of the use of body scanners on under-18 year olds.
Since the very raison d'être for these machines has now been compromised by this legal advice - and I address this directly to Commissioner Barrot - is it not now time that the Commission ruled that the use of these types of scanner in the EU should not be allowed, since my constituents travelling anywhere in the Union should not be subject to this indecent and degrading treatment? I also call for a global ban on such technology in order to protect all EU citizens.
László Tőkés
(HU) Mr President, last year I protested against religious fanaticism and the persecution of Christian minorities, and I am doing the same again this year. Having heard about the most recent anti-Christian acts in India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey, allow me to speak out again against the continuing atrocities in the name of religious exclusivism, which are being perpetrated in general by Muslim and Hindu fanatics against our fellow Christians.
However, in India, in the states of Orissa and Gujarat, both practising Christians and Muslims are suffering severe persecution. In Transylvania, Romania, where I come from, religious freedom was proclaimed by the Edict of Torda in 1568. Religious freedom is both an individual and a collective human right. Jesus says: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'. According to the teachings of our faith, I call on Jerzy Buzek, the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the European Commission to ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Nessa Childers
Mr President, the imminent closure of Independent Network News, a Dublin-based news agency providing a first-rate national and international news service to the majority of Ireland's local radio stations, raises serious and legitimate questions about the ownership, plurality and regulation of the media in Ireland. Local radio stations in Ireland are required to ensure that 20% of their news content is national and international. This service has largely been supplied by INN in recent years.
On foot of INN's demise, the Newstalk station owned by Communicorp - which is also a major shareholder in INN - has been awarded the contract to provide a replacement service for the next six months. UTV, whose withdrawal from INN precipitated the service's demise, has also been centrally involved in the efforts to source a replacement service. The National Union of Journalists has raised important questions over the appropriateness of the involvement of these two bodies in this process, in the context of diversity of media ownership in Ireland. These questions must be fully explored.
Sergej Kozlík
(SK) I would like to warn you that representatives of Hungary are attempting to provoke Slovakia. On 21 August 20 years ago, a Soviet and Hungarian army invaded the former Czechoslovakia.
On the very same day this year, Hungarian President Sólyom, despite the reservations of three senior representatives of the Slovak Republic, was preparing to take the provocative step of unveiling a statue of a Hungarian king on the ethnically mixed territory of Slovakia. Today, he is protesting that he was denied entry into Slovakia.
On a visit to Slovakia last week, Viktor Orban, head of the leading Hungarian political party Fidesz, called on the Hungarian minority to undertake autonomy-related initiatives. He called for joint planning over the future of Hungarians in the Carpathian basin. This is a revival of the idea of Greater Hungary - a provocation that has no place in a modern Europe. It is playing with fire and the European institutions must not turn a blind eye to it.
George Becali
(RO) I would like to say that there is no specific mention made of sport in the Treaty of Lisbon, and particularly of football, an activity which has a huge social and cultural influence. I would like to tell you that there is no legal basis for an EU policy on sport.
In actual fact, sports are governed by the rules of the relevant sports associations, but I believe, Mr President, that it must be clearly specified in the Treaty that activities and the organisation of sports activities should operate according to the rules of the relevant sports associations, while any activities linked to these sports activities should operate according to civil regulations and laws.
President
The debate is closed.