I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. I thank Deputy Carey, in particular, for being present. I hope one or two other colleagues will arrive later although it is lunch time.
I became an MEP last summer. As anyone who has been to the European Parliament will know MEPs, soon after been elected, specialise in certain areas. I had two areas of real interest in which I wanted to get involved — foreign affairs and human rights-development and an economic-business area. I am on the internal market committee from a business point of view and on the foreign affairs committee from a foreign affairs point of view within the European Parliament and have now been made spokesperson for the EPP on human rights issues.
My first report within the European Parliament was a somewhat controversial one — that was the reason I took it on — the annual report on human rights in the world and EU policy in that area. Last year there was quite a bitter debate on the report where the Parliament divided on the thorny issue of abortion and whether termination of pregnancy was appropriate as a policy promotion area in the developing world, following savage human rights abuses, such as rape being used as a war tool and so on. This year that debate emerged also but it was more responsible where both sides of the argument understood where the other was coming from. There is much more to the report than that.
I decided to put a new structure on the report because the title is as broad as one could possibly have. Any report that is expected to give an overview on human rights in the entire world and the EU policy on human rights would require almost a lifetime thesis. Having looked at previous reports I felt there was not enough structure on them. In order to find the areas in which people were interested, whether in geographical terms, or in thematic terms, a much tighter structure was needed. That was my first challenge.
Perhaps I can give an updated report because I think the report that has been given to members of the committee is the report that went to the plenary. It includes the words, "final report". Approximately a dozen amendments were made to that report. It is important that members would have the report. I shall refer to some of the key changes shortly, in particular, in regard to Iran, which is a positive change.
The report is in two pillars. The first pillar deals with geographical areas in the world — Asia, Africa, the Americas, the Balkans and Russia because we considered it needed its own section due to the intense interest the EU has in Russia. With ten new member states there was an insistence that we had a separate section on Russia. The idea is that if one is interested in a certain area, for example, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, America or the US, one can quickly find the appropriate paragraph. I wanted people to be able to do that rather than having to read the whole report to find a section on north Korea, Iran or whatever country in which one was interested. Most people will read only the areas of the report in which they have an interest.
The second pillar of the report is structured in a similar way under eight different headings. We deal with thematic issues that I believe should dictate EU policy in the area of human rights for the coming 12 months until we get another annual report from Parliament which will, hopefully, influence the direction in which the European Union looks from a human rights points of view. The first area deals with balancing human rights and civil liberties with the fight against terrorism, which as one can imagine within the EU Parliament was a difficult area on which to get consensus as there is a broad spectrum of political opinion and ideology. The second is an area in which the European Union has been failing in regard to the promotion of policy, which is children's rights and the need to link children's rights with development policy coming from the EU. That is an area where I have got some guarantees from the Commission. We hope to see a communication from the Commission before Parliament on the issue of children's rights and the approach it intends to take which is a positive result from this report.
The third pillar is a somewhat gruesome section on the impact of conflict on women and children. It deals with the difficult issues of child soldiers, the use of rape as a war tool and its physical and psychological consequences on communities and impunity around that whole issue. There is a specific section on impunity which is the biggest contributing factor to large scale human rights abuses that continue in the world. Whether warlords, government ministers or local gangland thugs, if they feel there are no consequences for the actions they take they will continue to take them. If the European Union does anything in the field of human rights in the world in an effort to support the UN and other bodies it is the fight against impunity, particularly in the developing world and on the continent of Africa but also in other parts of the world. It does not apply only to Africa.
We have a strong section on the death penalty because this is a consistent theme within the European Union. We have managed, with the exception of Belarus, to create a situation where all the countries within the EU neighbourhood policy — the countries that surround the EU, not including transatlantic neighbours — that is, Morocco, Algeria, the Balkans, Ukraine and so on, to either bring about a situation where Governments have legislated to outlaw the death penalty or the use of the death penalty or have introduced a moratorium on the death penalty. Largely because of insistence by the European Union we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of people being put to death for crimes in the vicinity of the European Union. That is positive and is recognised in this report. It is recognised also that we have much work to do in regard to other countries with whom we are developing better relations. I will deal with the question of those countries shortly.
I was determined to treat all countries equally in terms of the report's critical eye. There was much concern among some people that I would treat the United States differently because of our special relationship with the US, that I would treat China differently because it is a vital future trading partner for the European Union and that I would hammer smaller, less politically significant countries, from the point of view of trade with the European Union, over their human rights records while taking a softly-softly approach towards more influential countries in the world. I tried not to do that and anyone who reads the sections in the report on China, India, the US and Russia will realise that. That approach ruffled a few feathers in the European Parliament. Some people were uncomfortable with it and tried to amend certain aspects of the report but I tried to resist that, where democratically possible, in the European Parliament.
The other sections relate to trafficking in human beings and human organs, which is a growing international crime. A number of conferences have been held in Ireland on this issue, particularly the trafficking of women and girls into Europe and Ireland for the sex trade. It is a growing problem and we are not responding satisfactorily to it. The level of co-ordination between European countries is not sufficient in this area. The reality is that as the European Union grows and as our borders move east, trafficking for the sex trade is increasing.
With regard to women and girls coming from Moldova, Russia and new and existing member states, we are not adequately dealing with co-ordinating an effort to try to reduce and end trafficking in women and girls. The primary victims are the women and the girls themselves, many of whom come to the European Union on the expectation that they will be working in a bar or disco but who end up either in lap-dancing clubs or brothels. That is a problem the European Union and the international community needs to respond to in a much more effective way.
Section 6 was a particularly difficult area for my party in the European Parliament, which sees itself as a pro-business, enterprise and competition party. However, we achieved a good compromise in section 6 on the thematic issues, which deal with the responsibility of business within the international community towards human rights issues.
I would like to see a voluntary code of conduct developed within the European Union for multinationals coming from the EU to other parts of the world in terms of appropriate practice in the area of human rights. For example, if there are European multinationals working in Uganda or South Africa employing large numbers of people, we should be promoting concepts such as free health checks, free AIDS tests and education programmes on issues like AIDS, sexual health and so on. We got quite a positive response from the business sector to these ideas, which are not new but are new in this report.
If we look at other voluntary models for business within the European Union, for example, the voluntary code of conduct on arms exports, they can have a positive impact on behaviour of companies. Some people wanted us to take a harder line and demanded a legally binding code of conduct for international business. That is the wrong approach because it would annoy business people and multinationals.
We should begin by seeking a voluntary code of conduct to which businesses would sign up because in time that will develop into a binding legal policy area. We can encourage that by adding elements to it such as requiring companies that have been given Government contracts to sign up to a voluntary code of conduct. If the European Union is funding projects in which multinationals are involved, it should expect companies not only to sign up to a voluntary code of conduct but to promote the idea.
Section 7 deals with an issue I have already raised, namely, impunity. It is my priority, as human rights spokesperson for the European People's Party, to hammer away at the issue of impunity for as long as I am a Member of the European Parliament. If the European Union has the power in economic terms that we all know it has, it also has a major influence on many countries. In negotiating trade contracts we must ensure they include human rights clauses and the issue of impunity and attitude towards the International Criminal Court in particular is an area in which the European Union must flex its muscles more effectively.
The biggest hurdle we have to get over in terms of building international respect for the International Criminal Court is to do everything to ensure the US, which is the most influential foreign policy giant in the world, signs up to the International Criminal Court at some stage in the future. Approximately 101 countries have signed the Rome statute, which involves signing up to the International Criminal Court as a means for solving post-conflict situations or significant human rights abuses in countries, but for as long as the United States not only opposes but actively undermines the ICC, we will be at a significant disadvantage. Anyone who knows me will be aware that I am pro-US on most issues and I admire the US as a magnificent example of freedom and opportunity and for all the other positive advantages the US offers but in this area the United States is the biggest obstacle to bringing about a situation where the International Criminal Court can act and be funded efficiently in different parts of the world. I would recognise some progress, however, which is that agreement has been struck within the UN for the International Criminal Court to work in Darfur, in western Sudan. The US has reluctantly allowed that go through, which is a positive step in the right direction.
The final thematic section relates to recent positive policy changes within the European Union. Michael Matheson has been appointed Javier Solana's personal representative on human rights issues. He is a very impressive man whom I have met on a number of occasions. I believe he will add to the human rights armoury within the European Union and raise human rights issues at a foreign policy level in a more effective way than in the past.
A fundamental rights agency is being developed also to monitor human rights abuses and policy on human rights within the European Union. I understand the remit of that agency will be expanded to applicant countries of the European Union to ensure they are consistent with the charter for fundamental rights in the EU. That is also positive progress. Members can read some of the other criticisms and acknowledgements of progress in the report. I was supposed to speak for ten minutes but, in typical politician fashion, I have gone over time. I had intended to outline some of the interesting areas with regard to different countries but members can read that themselves. However, I wish to highlight section 31 on Iran. The first, second, third and tenth draft of this report gave a damning report on Iran and its continuing and consistent disregard for people's human rights. The final draft of this report has seen some changes to that.
The seriousness with which the Iranians seem to take this report was a huge surprise to me. I was lobbied by dozens of ambassadors seeking to improve the paragraphs on their countries. That is their job. However, the Iranian ambassador to the EU met me many times. I told him that if he wanted the section on Iran to be more positive, he would need to give me assurances in writing that positive things were happening. As far as I am concerned, the EU-Iranian dialogue has failed to produce any type of positive change as regards human rights. I wanted assurances in writing from the Iranian Government of some positive development. I received that.
I am sceptical about whether to believe it but the reason I have included positive elements under section 31 is that I got absolute assurances, in writing, about three areas where the Iranians intend to make changes. The first is stoning. A moratorium on stoning has been in place in Iran for about 18 months and I am given an assurance that it will continue. The second matter is the execution of minors. The week this report was published the Iranians announced it would introduce a moratorium on the execution of minors and on the execution of people who committed crimes when they were minors but who were now adults. It often happened that somebody would be imprisoned at the age of 16 years for a crime and then executed in public on their 18th birthday.
There have been two examples. One is a 19 year old who had been sentenced to death when he was 17 years old and was due to be executed. That will not happen now. The other case was a 16 year old who was sentenced to death, along with his father. His father was subsequently hanged in public but we have assurances that the son will not be executed now or when he reaches 18 years of age. Legislation is due to come before the Iranian Parliament to outlaw the death penalty for minors. That is the next step from a moratorium. This type of action must be encouraged rather than ignored, the latter being the hardline view on Iran which I was tempted to take it.
The final area, which is probably the most gruesome, is the introduction of a moratorium on amputations. Recently, a 19 year old was sentenced to have his left leg and his right arm cut off for a third or fourth crime. I am told that this type of barbarity is now not happening in Iran. The reason I have highlighted this is that if there are examples of breaches in these three areas, we intend to make a huge issue of it in the EU-Iranian delegation, of which I am part, the foreign affairs committee and in the human rights sub-committee. We will do everything possible to embarrass Iran by showing that it is not able to keep its word in the assurances.
That is one example of where the report has had an impact in pressurising one of the 70 countries that are dealt with. I hope this will not be just another report that is thrown on a shelf. Approximately a dozen reports come through the European Parliament each week but I hope this report will continue to be relevant until the next human rights report is finished. We got assurances from the Commission that all the questions we raise in this report will receive a detailed written response. I will pass that response to the sub-committee when I receive it.
