“How to work with the new European Parliament?” Brussels, 23-25 September 2009

EPF/Small Grants Facility Program of
EuroNGO’s Workshop
“How to work with the new
European Parliament?”
Brussels, 23-25 September 2009
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.
Background information
2.
Rules of Procedures
3.
Decision Making Procedure during the Simulation Exercise
4.
Role & Organisation of Political Groups
5.
Role & Organisation of Parliamentary Committees
6.
Role of Political Advisors
7.
Role of Political Group Coordinators
8.
Role of DEVE Secretariat
9.
Specific conditions for participation
10.
Workshop’s programme
11.
Factsheet on the EP Working Group on Reproductive
Health, HIV/AIDS and Development
12.
Factsheet on the EP Working Group on Human Dignity
13.
Overview of DEVE Committee members
14.
Logistical information
15.
List of Participants
16.
Bibliography
17.
Amendments’ template
2
1. Background information
I. BACKGROUND
The European Parliament elections which were held from 4-7 June 2009 signal a set of new
dynamics between political parties in the European Union and reveal many important lessons
which advocates for the ICPD agenda and more broadly for global health and women's rights
would be wise to take note of. At a practical level, the new composition of the European
Parliament will have a significant impact on how SRHR are handled at EU level,
requiring building a new set of alliances across political parties.
While, at the time of writing, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) will remain the
largest group in the EP with 36% of seats in the EP (even without the UK Conservatives) they
lack an absolute majority and will need to turn to the centre left to forge larger alliances, for
example among the Greens and the Liberals who look as if they could play a position of
‘kingmaker’. The centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) shrinks to 182 MEPs,
representing 24% of the EP (previously 27%), while remaining the second biggest group in
the EP. The Liberals and Greens both maintain sizable groups in the EP with the Greens
increasing in absolute numbers. An important unknown will be the dynamic within the newly
created European “Conservatives and Reformists Group” counting 55 members from eight
countries with the British Tories being the biggest delegation within this group (26 seats). This
new group campaigns against the Lisbon Treaty and a bureaucratic EU.
II. JUSTIFICATION
Support in the EP for SRHR has traditionally come from well known sources and over the past
few years a clear voting pattern emerged, best exemplified by the vote on the EP Resolution
on MDG5 in October 2008. The pattern of support for SRHR required a socialist-liberal-greenleft alliance, combined with an equally important division within the centre-right (EPP) and
right. With the clear swing in favour of the centre-right, are SRHR at risk? The traditional 'proSRHR' alliance of socialists-liberals-greens-left will have 47.5% in the EP, compared to 51% in
the 2004-2009 period. Therefore, the traditional 'pro-SRHR' will have lost its absolute
majority and will now depend to a greater extent on support from centre-right
parties such as the EPP.
For the first time, to win a simple majority vote in the EP on SRHR will require a defection to a
pro-SRHR position by at least 26 members of the EPP (or other centre-right parties such as
the UK Tories or others currently 'non-aligned').
III. PURPOSE
The three-day workshop will confront participants with the new political realities and dynamics
in the European Parliament. Underpinned by a theoretical introduction of how to work with
Members of the European Parliament (MEP), emphasis will be put on the practical element in
doing so.
This is why two thirds of the workshop will be held in form of a simulation game. A
Committee Session in the European Parliament will provide the framework of the simulation.
Each participant is allocated a specific role and will be attributed membership of a political
party. The aim of the workshop is to negotiate and adopt a draft resolution on an SRHR topic
that will be prepared by EPF in advance of the workshop.
In order to add greater realism to the exercise, enough time will be allocated during the
workshop to allow for the introduction and negotiation of amendments, of forming alliances in
order to create political majorities and to discuss content.
This format allows participants to “live” the role they have been allocated and not only develop
and practice the theoretical knowledge in practice but also to learn how to present and defend
diverging views, positions, interests and values, networking techniques, negotiation skills,
team work etc.
Although this workshop is predominantly about how to work with (conservative)
MEPs it is nevertheless of direct relevance to EuroNGOs members working at
national level. Future trends show that not only will the role of national parliaments
3
become a more important one at EU level but that strong links between national MPs
and their European counterparts will be crucial to generate overall support for SRHR
issues. Building these links requires a certain familiarity with EU decision-making
and, in addition, it can also help those organisations working in a more conservative
environment at national level to formulate adequate messages.
IV. DATE AND V ENUE
The workshop will be held from 23-25 September 2009 in the Best Western Hotel in Uccle
(Square des Héros 2-4, 1180 Uccle, Brussels).
V. ORGANISERS
The capacity-building workshop is organised and funded by the 6th Small Grants Facility
Programme of EuroNGOs and will be facilitated by the European Parliamentary Forum on
Population and Development (EPF).
4
2. Rules of Procedures
RULES OF PROCEDURE
(Extracts adapted for the purpose of the Workshop)
16th edition
March 2009
5
COMMITTEES – FUNCTIONING
Rule 1 Committee meetings
1. A committee shall meet when convened by its chair.
2. The Commission and Council may take part in committee meetings if invited to do so on
behalf of a committee by its chair. By special decision of a committee, any other person may
be invited to attend and to speak at a meeting.
Rule 2 Calling speakers and content of speeches
1. Members may not speak unless called upon to do so by the Chair. Members shall speak
from their places and shall address the Chair;
2. If speakers depart from the subject, the Chair shall call them to order.
3. Speakers may not be interrupted except by the Chair.
Rule 4 Allocation of speaking time
1. Speaking time shall be allocated in accordance with the following criteria:
a) a first fraction of speaking time shall be divided equally among all the political
groups;
b) a further fraction shall be divided among the political groups in proportion to the
total number of their members;
c) the non-attached Members shall be allocated an overall speaking time based
on the fractions allocated to each political group under subparagraphs (a) and (b).
2. No Member may speak for more than two minutes on any of the following: the minutes,
procedural motions, amendments to the final draft agenda or to the agenda.
Rule 5 List of speakers
1. The names of Members who ask to speak shall be entered in the list of speakers in the
order in which their requests are received.
2. The Chair shall call upon Members to speak, ensuring as far as possible that speakers of
different political views are heard.
3. No Member may speak more than twice on the same subject. The rapporteur of the
committees concerned shall, however, be allowed to speak at their request for a period to be
decided by the Chair.
AMENDMENTS
After the draft report or opinion has been presented to the committee, a deadline for tabling
amendments (to the draft) will be announced by the Chairman. The deadline is set in order
that amendments are translated in time for the meeting at which they will be considered:
amendments submitted after the deadline will not be accepted.
In the case of amendments to non-legislative reports (or opinions), the text that may
be amended is the rapporteur's motion for a resolution or the draftsman's draft opinion.
Amendments are presented in a single column:
• Additions are indicated in bold italics
• Deletions are indicated by the word '(deletion)' in bold italics
• A completely new paragraph is to be marked '(new)' in bold italics
• If a whole paragraph is deleted, this is to be marked, e.g.: 'Paragraph 6: deleted' in bold
italics.
Examples of amendments to NON-LEGISLATIVE texts
Amendment by Karin Junker
Amendment 4
Citation 5b (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 20 November 2002 on media concentration
(P5_TA-PROV(2002)0554),
6
Amendment by Karin Junker
Amendment 5
Recital C
C. whereas the audiovisual sector is of fundamental importance for democracy, diversity of
opinion, pluralism and cultural diversity and contributes to technological innovation,
economic growth, the creation of jobs and the functioning of the single market,
Amendment by Yvonne Sandberg-Fries
Amendment 6
Recital Ca (new)
Ca. whereas the television directive performs an important function as a directive
setting minimum standards;
Amendment by Karin Junker
Amendment 26
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates, nevertheless, its belief that a thorough revision of the entire Directive is
necessary to take account of technological developments and changes in the structure of the
audiovisual market;
Amendment by Marielle de Sarnez
Amendment 27
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates, nevertheless, its belief that a (deletion) revision of the Directive is necessary
to take account of technological developments and changes in the structure of the audiovisual
market;
Amendment by Yvonne Sandberg-Fries
Amendment 28
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Considers that the directive's provisions on the principle of a country of origin
should be revised from a democratic angle; certain cases show that jurisdiction
ought to be discussed; programme-making companies should compete on the basis
of programme content and not on the basis of which Member State offers the most
advantageous rules governing, for example, advertising;
Rule 6 Tabling and moving amendments
1. Amendments shall be tabled in writing and signed by their authors.
2. An amendment may seek to change any part of a text, and may be directed to deleting,
adding or substituting words or figures. In this Rule the term "text" means the whole of a
motion for a resolution/draft legislative resolution, of a proposal for a decision or of a
Commission proposal.
3. The Chair shall set a deadline for the tabling of amendments.
4. An amendment may be moved during the debate by its author or by any other Member
appointed by the author to replace him or her.
5. Where an amendment is withdrawn by its author, it shall fall unless immediately taken over
by another Member.
6. Amendments shall be put to the vote only after they have been printed and distributed.
Oral amendments tabled in committee may be put to the vote unless one of the committee's
members objects.
Rule 7 Admissibility of amendments
1. No amendment shall be admissible if:
a) it does not directly relate to the text which it seeks to amend;
b) it seeks to delete or replace the whole of a text;
c) it seeks to amend more than one of the individual articles or paragraphs of the
7
text to which it relates. This provision shall not apply to compromise amendments nor to
amendments which seek to make identical changes to a particular form of words throughout
the text;
2. An amendment shall lapse if it is inconsistent with decisions previously taken on the text
during the same vote.
Rule 8 Voting in committee
1. Any Member may table amendments for consideration in the committee responsible.
2. A committee may validly vote when one-quarter of its members are actually present.
3. Voting in committee shall be by show of hands.
4. The chair may take part in discussions and may vote, but without having a casting vote.
5. In the light of the amendments tabled, the committee may, instead of proceeding to a vote,
request the rapporteur to submit a new draft taking account of as many of the amendments
as possible. A new deadline shall then be set for amendments to this draft.
Rule 9 Tied votes
In the event of a tied vote, the text as a whole shall be referred back to committee.
Rule 10 Principles governing voting
1. Voting on a report shall take place on the basis of a recommendation from the committee
responsible. The committee may delegate this task to its chair and rapporteur.
2. The committee may recommend that all or several amendments be put to the vote
collectively, that they be accepted or rejected or declared void. It may also propose
compromise amendments.
3. Where the committee recommends that amendments be put to the vote collectively, the
collective vote on these amendments shall be taken first.
4. Where the committee proposes a compromise amendment, it shall be given priority in
voting.
Rule 11 Order of voting on amendments
1. Amendments shall have priority over the text to which they relate and shall be put to the
vote before that text.
2. If two or more mutually exclusive amendments have been tabled to the same part of a text,
the amendment that departs furthest from the original text shall have priority and shall be put
to the vote first. If it is adopted the other amendments shall stand rejected. If it is rejected,
the amendment next in priority shall be put to the vote and similarly for each of the remaining
amendments. Where there is doubt as to priority, the Chair shall decide. If all amendments
are rejected, the original text shall be deemed adopted unless a separate vote has been
requested within the specified deadline.
3. The Chair may put the original text to the vote first, or put to the vote before the
amendment that departs furthest from the original text an amendment that is closer to the
original text. If either of these secures a majority, all other amendments tabled to the same
text shall fall. The Chair shall decide whether amendments are admissible. In the case of
compromise amendments tabled after the close of a debate, pursuant to this paragraph, the
President shall decide on their admissibility case by case, having regard to the compromise
nature of the amendments.
The following general criteria for admissibility may be applied:
- as a general rule, compromise amendments may not relate to parts of the text which have
not been the subject of amendments prior to the deadline for tabling amendments;
- as a general rule, compromise amendments shall be tabled by political groups, the chairs or
rapporteurs of the committees concerned or the authors of other amendments;
- as a general rule, compromise amendments shall entail the withdrawal of other amendments
to the same passage.
4. Where two or more identical amendments are tabled by different authors, they shall be put
to the vote as one.
8
Rule 12 Split voting
1. Where the text to be put to the vote contains two or more provisions or references to two
or more points or lends itself to division into two or more parts each with a distinct logical
meaning and normative value, a split vote may be requested by a political group or at least
forty Members.
2. The request shall be made the evening before the vote, unless the Chair sets a different
deadline. The Chair shall decide on the request.
3. Decision Making Procedure during the
Simulation Exercise
1. Objective
The objective of the workshop is to agree on a text on the basis of an own initiative report that
will have the support of the majority of the conference participants present and voting.
2. Own initiative reports
'Own-initiative reports' are drawn-up by the Committee at its request. They consist of a
motion for a resolution and an (optional) explanatory statement. Own-initiative reports are
reports on subjects which fall within the competence of a committee but on which the
Parliament has not received any formal document for information or consultation.
Reports are normally considered in Committee on several occasions before adoption.
3. Decision-making procedure
The following decision-making procedure applies for the simulation exercise:
The draft of an own-initiative report with the prospect of advancing the ICPD agenda will be
submitted to conference participants prior to the workshop.
First Committee Meeting (Wednesday, 23 September 2009, afternoon)
• Initial exchange of views (in the presence of Commission and/or Council Representative
and/or external expert)
• Presentation of draft report and setting of deadline for tabling amendments
Second Committee Meeting (24 September 2009, morning)
• Discussion on Amendments and Parliamentary Questions
Third Committee Meeting (24 September 2009, afternoon)
• Vote on draft report and amendments
Fourth Committee Meeting (25 September 2009, morning)
• Vote on Compromise Amendments
• Adoption of Report
9
Parliamentary written questions for oral answer:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Questions may be put to the European Commission and UNFPA by a political group
with a request that they be placed on the agenda of Parliament.
Such questions shall be submitted in writing to the Committees’ Secretariat who shall
immediately refer them to the Chair of the Committee.
The Chair of the Committee shall decide whether and in what order questions should
be placed on the agenda.
The questions to the European Commission and UNFPA – which should not exceed 5
lines in length - must be referred to the Committees’ Secretariat by 23/09/2009 at
19.30 to be considered.
The Chairperson of each political group has 2 minutes to introduce it and the
European Commission and UNFPA shall have 5 minutes max to answer it.
The Chair of the Committee may invite the members to comment and open the
debate.
Linguistic Information
Keep in mind, that there are a few “linguistic rules” in the European Parliament:
-
The Chairperson is always addressed as: “Chair”. When you are allowed to take the
floor during committee meetings, the first sentence should be: “thank you, Chair”.
Fellow MEPs are addressed as “colleagues”.
Commission and Council are addressed as “Commission Representative” and Council
Representative”.
List of Abbreviations:
EPP – European Peoples Party (Conservatives)
S&D – Group of Progressive Socialists and Democrats
ALDE – Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Greens/EFA – Greens/European Free Alliance
GUE – Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left
ECR – European Conservatives and Reformists Group
10
4. Role & Organisation of Political Groups

Organisation
The Members of the European Parliament sit in political groups – they are not organised by
nationality, but by political affiliation. There are currently 7 political groups in the European
Parliament (EP).
They are:

The Group of the European Peoples Party (EPP)

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D)

Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA)

European Conservatives and Reformist Group (ECR)

Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE)

Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (Note: as this group has extremist
tendencies, we have left it out of our simulation exercise)
Each political group is responsible for its own internal organisation. It is usually led by a Chair
or two co-chairs and has a secretariat.
Each political group has a shadow rapporteur monitoring the Motion for Resolution on behalf of
his/her group. This person is responsible for coordinating the group’s position as well as the
amendments on the Resolution.

Role and powers in the decision making process
Political Group Sessions are usually held before Committee Meetings take place in the EP.
These meetings form the basis on how a political group will vote on a specific report or
resolution in the European Parliament’s Committees, respectively in plenary, when the final
decision is made to adopt or reject a report/resolution. Note that political groups in the EP do
not exercise the “whip system” where members have to vote according to group or party line.
Although the group position is more powerful if it is coherent, MEPs are free to vote according
to their personal conviction on an issue.
Group Sessions and their relevance for the simulation game
Before every vote in plenary the political groups scrutinise the reports drawn up by the
parliamentary committees and table amendments to them.
The position adopted by the political group is arrived at by discussion within the group. No
Member can be forced to vote in a particular way.
Group sessions held in the framework of the simulation game are designed to discuss the draft
resolution that has been distributed to workshop participants and determine a common line on
the groups voting behaviour with respect to the draft resolution and the proposed
amendments.
The designated Group leaders will:
-
chair political group sessions
act as the group’s spokesperson,
coordinate the amendments tabled by their political group and
are responsible for the overall coordination of their group.
11
5. Role & Organisation of Parliamentary
Committees

Organisation
There are 20 parliamentary committees in the EP. A committee consists of between 24
and 76 MEPs, and has a chair, a bureau and a secretariat. The political make-up of the
committees reflects that of the plenary assembly which means members of all groups are
represented in each committee according to their size. MEPs are usually members in two
committees (in one as a full member and in the other as a substitute member).
The parliamentary committees meet once or twice a month in Brussels. Their debates
are held in public.

Role and Function
The committees draw up, amend and adopt legislative proposals and own-initiative
reports. They consider Commission and Council proposals and, where necessary, draw up
reports to be presented to the plenary assembly.
Parliament can also set up sub-committees and special temporary committees to deal with
specific issues, and is empowered to create formal committees of inquiry under its
supervisory remit to investigate allegations of maladmistration of EU law. Currently, the EP
has two sub-committees - one on Human Rights (DROI) and one on Security and Defence
(SEDE).
Committee Meetings and their relevance for the simulation game
Two Committee Meetings of the Development Committee (DEVE) are previewed during our
simulation exercise which will be chaired by a workshop participant (MEP). The Committee’s
chair will be assisted by a member of the Committee’s secretariat.
The committee’s chair will:
- guide the discussion on the draft resolution and the amendments,
- assign speaking time,
- be responsible for the list of speakers during the meetings.
The draft resolution as well as the amendments and, at a later stage, the compromise
amendments, will be discussed and voted upon during committee meeting.
The Commission and Council may take part in committee meetings if invited to do so on
behalf of a committee by its chair. By special decision of a committee, any other person
may be invited to attend and to speak at a meeting.
Any member may table amendments for consideration in the committee. For logistical and
timing reasons, each participant is allowed to table 1 individual amendment to the
motion for resolution. In addition, members are allowed to table 1 group or crossgroup amendments (amendments supported by more than one MEP from one or different
political groups).
12
6. Role of Political Advisors
Each political group has a secretariat responsible for assisting Members with their
parliamentary work. Group secretariats include political advisors responsible for the
various policy areas covered by the parliamentary committees. Such political advisors follow
the work of each committee, providing political briefing to Members on the various dossiers,
advising on the political position to adopt, assisting in the preparation of reports and
opinions and amendments to these and drawing-up voting lists.
During the simulation game, a number of political advisors will be appointed to
assist and answer any procedural question that participants might have. They will
help drawing up the voting list, assemble amendments and assist the
Chairpersons of the respective political group meetings.
When sending their amendments to the DEVE Secretariat, the Members are
requested to copy in their respective political advisors:
Marina Davidashvili
Erik van den Meij
Saskia Pfeijffer
Miguel Ongil
Vincent Villeneuve
Nadine Krysostan
Silvia Theodoridis
Political Advisor EPP
Political Advisor ALDE
Political Advisor Greens/EFA & GUE
Political Advisor ECR
Political Advisor S&D
DEVE Secretariat
DEVE Secretariat
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
7. Political Group Coordinators
The political group coordinators are members chosen to represent their groups at
preparatory discussions on policy guidelines, on the strategy pursued by the parliamentary
committee and on organising the practical side of the committee's work (assigning reports
and opinions to the groups, deciding on hearings, preparing studies, making arrangements
for committee delegations, etc.). The coordinators normally hold a short meeting (half an
hour or so) in closed session in the course of the main Committee meeting.
During the simulation exercise, the Chairs of political groups also function as
political group coordinators.
8. Role of DEVE Secretariat
The Committee administration is dealt with by a secretariat of officials from the Secretariat
of the European Parliament. These are non-political career civil servants. Their principal role
is to assist the Committee Chairman in organising the Committee's work. However, they are
also able to provide procedural advice to all Members, and some drafting assistance to
Members drawing up reports and opinions.
During the simulation exercise, Nadine Krysostan and Silvia Theodoridis will be your contact
persons in the DEVE Secretariat. All the amendments should be sent to both emails
[email protected] and [email protected].
13
9. Specific conditions for participation
Workshop participants are required to take part in the whole workshop.
Participants should not schedule other meetings during the official dates of the workshop.
The interactive mode of the workshop will require their presence in the evenings for
negotiations and discussions.
To arrive at a meaningful and successful outcome of the workshop it is important to make
the best use of the short time available. Workshop participants are, therefore, asked to be
available for additional meetings and activities taking place at the workshop venue during
evening hours.
If possible, we kindly ask participants to bring their laptop.
14
10. Workshop’s programme
EPF/EuroNGO’s Workshop
23-25 September 2009
“How to work with the new European Parliament?”
Time
Wednesday, 23 September
2009
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Friday, 25 September 2009
07.00-07.30
07.30-08.00
08.00-08.30
08.30-09.00
09.00-09.30
09.30-10.00
10.00-10.30
10.30-11.00
Arrival of Participants
Group Meeting: Consideration and
Discussion of Amendments
Coffee Break
11.00-11.30
Committee Meeting: Consideration
and Discussion on Amendments,
PQ and Draft Report in presence of
the European Commission and
UNFPA
11.30-12.00
12.00-12.30
12.30-13.00
13.00-13.30
13.30-14.00
14.00-14.30
14.30-15.00
15.00-15.30
15.30-16.00
16.00-16.30
16.30-17.00
17.00-17.30
17.30-18.00
18.00-18.30
18.30-19.00
19.00-19.30
19.30-20.00
20.00-20.30
20.30-21.00
21.00-21.30
21.30-22.00
22.00-22.30
22.30-23.00
23.00-23.30
23.30-24.00
Group Meeting: Discussion on
Compromise Amendments
Lunch
Introduction and Orientation
Session on: Procedures, Decision
Making and Functioning of the
European Parliament and its
internal structures
Working Lunch: Human Dignity
WG
Working Lunch: EPWG
Coffee Break
Committee Meeting:
Final Vote on Amendments and
Adoption of Report
Wrap up and Evaluation
Lunch
Departure of Participants
Committee Meeting:
Vote on Amendments
Coffee Break
Group Meeting (political parties)
Initial Discussion of own initiative
report (INI)
Committee Meeting:
Initial Exchange of Views with the
European Commission and UNFPA
on Draft Text
Preparation of Amendments and
Parliamentary Question (PQ) in
political groups. Deadline for
tabling amendments and PQ:
19.30h
Coffee Break
Discussion on Compromise
Amendments in political
groups/negotiations with other
political groups
Deadline for Tabling
Compromise Amendments:
19.30
Dinner
Dinner and Continuation of
Discussions
15
11. Factsheet on the EP Working Group on
Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS and
Development
Mission
The Working Group on Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS and Development in the
European Parliament (EPWG), in accordance with the Programme of Action of the
International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD, September
1994), advocates the support of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)
and the fight against HIV/AIDS, as the basis for sustainable social and human
development and achieving gender equality as an integral part of human rights.
Inadequate access to reproductive health
remains one of the leading causes of
maternal
morbidity
and
mortality
worldwide. The 2005 World Summit,
recognising the critical importance of SRHR
to development, added Target 5b, i.e.
universal access to reproductive health, as
a separate target of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). However,
millions of women are still prevented from
exercising their sexual and reproductive
rights. Poor women of childbearing age,
especially those living in low income
countries,
continue
suffering
disproportionately
from
unintended
pregnancy, maternal death and ill health,
sexually transmitted infections including
HIV/AIDS and gender-based violence.
Currently, more than half a million women
die in pregnancy and childbirth every year
- that's one death every minute. Of these
deaths, 99 per cent are in developing
countries. Although in smaller scales,
access to SRH in developed countries
remains an issue.
Members of the European Parliament
(MEPs) have a unique role to play in
ensuring that the EU, as the world’s largest
donor, improves its commitment to the
MDGs overall and SRHR, HIV/AIDS and
gender equality in particular.
The EPWG is a dynamic all-party group in
the European Parliament, established in
1991 and representing a cross-section of
the EU Member States and the Parliament’s
political groups / parties. As such, the
EPWG represents the main forum in the
European Parliament to advocate for an EU
integrated approach to SRHR, HIV/AIDS
and gender equality.
MEMBERSHIP
The EPWG is open to all MEPs who are
interested in SRHR issues and the fight
against HIV/AIDS. Further information on
how to become a member can be obtained
by contacting the EPWG Secretariat.
OBJECTIVES

Providing a forum for ongoing
dialogue and for raising awareness
within the EU of the need for an
integrated approach to SRHR, the
response
to
HIV/AIDS,
gender
equality
and
sustainable
development.

Monitoring and increasing resources
(mainly) from the EU for SRHR
programmes in developing countries.
ACTIVITIES
EU Policy Input

Initiating
European
Parliament
reports on SRHR, HIV/AIDS, gender
equality and related issues.

Tabling amendments at Committee
and Plenary levels to ensure that all
relevant European Parliament reports
draw
attention
to
SRHR
and
HIV/AIDS.

Fostering
discussions
with
the
Commission and the Council on EU
policy regarding SRHR and HIV/AIDS.
16

Ensuring EU commitment to UN
international agreements (e.g. ICPD,
Beijing, and Millennium Development
Goals).
Resource Mobilisation

Calling on the EU to recommit funds
for SRHR and the fight against
HIV/AIDS
in
the new
financial
framework.

Maintaining dialogue with EU officials
on the effective mobilisation and use
of resources.

Advocating for a more efficient and
effective
use
of
the
European
Development Fund in the context of
health programmes in ACP countries.
Awareness Raising and Information
Dissemination

Launching the annual UNFPA ‘State of
the World Population’ report and
hosting a variety of events, as well as
facilitating MEPs visits to reproductive
health
care
and
HIV/AIDS
programmes in developing countries.

Producing fact sheets, briefings and
position papers and disseminating
up-to-date documentation on SRHR
and
HIV/AIDS
issues,
also
in
cooperation with external agencies.

Facilitating keynote
from expert speakers.
presentations
EXAMPLES OF WORK IN THE PAST
LEGISLATURE
EPWG Meetings
The EPWG meets on average four times a
year and on an ad hoc basis, when
necessary. European Commission and
Council
Secretariat
officials,
ACP
representatives, UN agencies and SRHR
and HIV/AIDS NGOs are often invited to
the meetings.
Hearings and Events
In March 2008, the EPWG hosted a
roundtable
entitled
“Abstinence:
the
Politics of Denials”, aimed at linking the
available research on abstinence to the
effects of abstinence based policies. In
May, the EPWG brought together key
experts in a lunch meeting entitled
“Fractured Lives in Fragile Situations: is
Aid Effective?”. Inputs were provided to
the Accra High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness, highlighting the importance
of SRHR in situations of fragility. On the
occasion of the 60th anniversary of the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights and
World AIDS Day, on 11 December, the
EPWG in collaboration with Stop AIDS
Alliance organised a hearing on “Increased
EU leadership in promoting human rights in
the global response to HIV/AIDS”. In April
2009, the EPWG hosted the launch of
UNIFEM’s flagship report, Progress of the
World’s Women 2008/2009, Who Answers
to Women? Gender & Accountability,
published half-way to the 2015 deadline
for achieving the MDGs.
UNFPA State of World Population
Report
Every year, the EPWG organises the launch
of UNFPA’s ‘State of the World Population’
at the European Parliament. MEPs,
Commission
and
Council
officials,
Embassies’ and NGOs’ representatives and
other relevant actors are invited to the
presentation and reception. The 2008
report,
entitled
“Reaching
Common
Ground: Culture, Gender and Human
Rights”,
launched
in
December
2008,endorses
culturally
sensitive
approaches to development and to the
promotion of human rights, in general, and
women’s rights, in particular.
European Parliament Resolutions on
the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs)
The EPWG played an important role in
galvanising support for the adoption of two
Resolutions on the MDGs, respectively, on
the Role of the EU in the Achievement of
the MDGs and on Maternal Mortality
(MDG5). The Resolution on the Role of the
EU in the Achievement of the MDGs (2007)
played a key role in raising awareness of
the MDG review process within the EP and
was the first document adopted during the
past legislature to mention SRHR and EU’s
commitment to the ICPD. The Resolution
on Maternal Mortality (2008) has called on
the Council and Commission to reduce the
differences in maternal mortality rates
between industrialised and developing
countries as well as to extend maternal
health care services as part of primary
health care.
17
OTHER ACTIVITIES
The EPWG, through its Bureau, writes
various letters, articles and letters to key
decision-makers in various European and
international fora concerning topical issues
of SRHR and HIV/AIDS. The EPWG also
offers
or
provides
upon
request
amendments, parliamentary questions,
speech
notes,
statistics
and
other
information to its members.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY FORUM
(EPF)
The Secretariat to the EPWG is provided by
Marie Stopes International:
Address: Place du Luxembourg 2- 3,
B-1050, Brussels
Tel: +32 (0)2 551 54 51
Fax: +32 (0)2 551 54 59
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.epwg.eu &
www.mariestopes.org
The EPWG is a founding member of the
EPF, a network of over 20 parliamentary
groups around the European continent,
aiming
to
strengthen
and
increase
parliamentary
support
for
resource
mobilisation and creating an enabling
environment for SRHR, population and
development issues (www.iepfpd.org). The
EPWG is regularly invited to participate in
activities such as field visits to developing
countries, events and seminars and to
share
its
expertise
with
other
parliamentary groups around Europe.
EURONGOs
The EPWG is an associate member of the
European NGOs for SRHR, Population and
Development (EuroNGOs), which seek to
translate the commitments of the ICPD
into international cooperative programmes
in the field of SRH in developing countries
(www.eurongos.org).
18
12. Factsheet on the EP Working Group on Human
Dignity
“Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, our creator. In acknowledging this, we
allow the moral sense to testify that the human person has certain properties, and that these
properties are intrinsic and indelible. These properties have come to be known in the modern, secular
state as fundamental human rights, and it is these rights the Working Group will seek to recognise in
their fullest capacity by recognising their source.”
The Working Group believes human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, our creator. It
is precisely this image and likeness which man acknowledges in himself with such profound awe and
respect to call human life sacred; and in so acknowledging, allows the moral sense to testify that
certain properties are inalienable; indelible from conception to natural death.
The Working Group does three things:
1) The Working Group promotes within the European Parliament the view that a person´s rights are
intrinsic to his/her being, and not the product of legal charter. This understanding is essential to
sustain liberty in a free society. It assists the work of those MEPs who seek to promote such a view of
human dignity in their activities, and thereby promote the foundation of all human rights.
2) The Working Group makes explicit the point that in believing a person is created in the image and
likeness of God lies the most effective protection of a person’s dignity (and therefore rights). It follows
the work of the European Parliament’s Sub Committee on Human Rights, and complements this work
through promoting the parallel concept of human dignity.
3) The Working Group serves those MEPs who welcome a formal grouping to support these aims, and
provides briefing notes and assorted material for relevant debates, draft amendments where
necessary and organise conferences and seminars. People shape their politics according to their most
deeply held principles and convictions. A society which holds within the very deepest vault of its
culture a belief that God’s fullest revelation to mankind was, for Christians, in the person of Jesus
Christ; that he created all men equal, that the central commandment to his people was for them to
love one another, and that mankind is the purposeful creation of a loving, benevolent God - such a
society will have a very different political praxis from one which believes mankind to be an accidental
product of survival of the fittest; the exultation of the strong and the elimination of the weak.
The work of the Working Group should not be misunderstood as a demonstration of intolerance
towards other religions. Indeed, other religions exist around the world quite securely, and their
influence in shaping their own cultural and political environment can be readily discerned and
observed. However, the European Union is not simply a smaller version of the rest of the world, but a
specific collection of specific countries, with strong identities formed and influenced through the
Christian tradition.
19
13. Overview of DEVE Committee members
EPP
S&D
Annica Ryngbeck
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Italy
Marianne Haslegrave
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Poland
Ann Mette Kjaerby
Rapporteur for Motion for Resolution,
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Germany
Mette Kristine
Schmidt
Sini Karusto
Chairperson/Coordinator of EPP Group,
Member of EPWG
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Germany
Renata
Daunoraviciute
Member of EPWG
Sweden
Marios Theodorou
Chairperson/Coordinator of S&D Group
Member of EPWG
Member of EPWG
Ireland
Shadow Rapporteur for S&D,
Member of EPWG
Chairperson of DEVE,
Member of EPWG
Spain
Chairperson/Coordinator of ALDE
Group,
Member of EPWG
Shadow Rapporteur for ALDE,
Chair of EPWG
Germany
Vilma Gabrieliute
Cecile Schierbeck
Johanna Stratman
ALDE
Solvita Melne
Arben Fetai
ECR
Greens
Romania
Germany
UK
Silvia Ernhagen
Shadow Rapporteur for ECR,
Chair of WG on Human Dignity
Teresa Sanchez
Ravina
Chairperson/Coordinator of ECR Group, Poland
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Jakub Skrzypczyk
Shadow Rapporteur for Greens,
Member of EPWG
Member of EPWG
Ventzi Kirkov
GUE
France
UK
Germany
Francophone
Belgium
Katarzyna Pabijanek
Chairperson/Coordinator of GUE Group, Portugal
Member of EPWG
Ilona Uleviciute
Shadow Rapporteur for GUE,
Member of EPWG
Denmark
20
14. Logistical information
Your Hotel

A room has been reserved for you at the Best Western County House Hotel:
Square des Héros 2-4, 1180 Uccle
Tel: +32 (0) 2 375 44 20
Website : http://best-western-county-house.h-rez.com
Meals

Breakfast, lunches and dinners will be served at the hotel.
Lunches and dinners are covered in the workshop’s programme.
Workshop Venue

The workshop will be held from 23-25 September 2009 in the Best Western Hotel in Uccle.
(Square des Héros 2-4, 1180 Uccle, Brussels)
Recommendations
۩
Participants are allowed to dress up according to their character’s features. 
Miscellaneous

Participants are required to be flexible with the workshops’ schedule
Participants are required to participate in the 3 days workshop
Participants are required not to schedule any other meeting during the 3 days workshop
Participants are kindly asked to bring their laptop
Participants will have internet access facilities in the hotel in order to be able to send their
amendments to the DEVE Secretariats.
?
Your contact person during this event is Nadine Krysostan (Senior Advocacy
Officer, EPF) Tel: + 32 (0) 2 500 86 54 or +32 (0) 473 56 12 12
21
15. List of Participants and Role’s assignment
1. Annica Ryngbeck (RFSU)
2. Silvia Ernhagen (RFSU)
Political
Party1/Country
assigned
EPP- Italy
ECR - UK
3. Marianne Haslegrave (UK)
4. Ann Mette Kjaerby (UK APPG)
EPP – Poland
EPP - Germany
5. Mette Kristine Schmidt (S&S)
EPP – Germany
6. Cecile Schierbeck (S&S)
S&D - Spain
7. Vilma Gabrieliute (Lithuania)
8. Solvita Melne (Latvia)
S&D - Romania
ALDE - Germany
9. Arben Fetai (MSI-BXL)
ALDE – UK
10. Johanna Stratman (DSWBXL)
11. Teresa Sanchez Ravina
(FPFE)
S&D – Germany
12. Sini Karusto (Vaestoliitto)
EPP – France
13. Katarzyna Pabijanek (ASTRA)
GUE - Portugal
14. Renata Daunoraviciute (IPP
Youth)
15. Ilona Uleviciute (IPPF)
EPP - Sweden
Participant/Org.
16. Jakub Skrzypczyk (IPPF)
17. Marios Theodorou (CFPA)
18. Ventzi Kirkov (Bulgaria)
19. Patrizia Pompili
(SGF/EuroNGOs)
20. Karin Heisecke (UNFPA)
21. Neil Datta (EPF)
22. Marina Davidashvili (EPF)
23. Erik van den Meij (PSI)
24. Saskia Pfeijffer (EPF)
25.
26.
27.
28.
Miguel Ongil (EPF)
Vincent Villeneuve (EPF)
Nadine Krysostan (EPF)
Silvia Theodoridis (EPF)
ECR – Poland
GUE – Denmark
Greens –
Germany
S&D - Ireland
GreensFrancophone
Belgium
Role
Voting pattern
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Shadow Rapporteur for ECR,
Chair of WG on Human Dignity
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Rapporteur for Motion for Resolution,
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Chairperson of EPP Group & DEVE
Coordinator, Member of EPWG
Shadow Rapporteur for S&D,
Member of EPWG
Member of EPWG
Chairperson of ALDE Group & DEVE
Coordinator, Member of EPWG
Shadow Rapporteur for ALDE,
Chair of EPWG
Chair of DEVE Committee,
Member of EPWG
Chairperson of ECR Group & DEVE
Coordinator, Member of WG on Human
Dignity
Member of WG on Human Dignity
Anti-Choice
Anti-Choice
Chairperson of GUE Group & DEVE
Coordinator, Member of EPWG
Member of EPWG
Anti-choice
Anti-Choice
Conservative with
room for negotiation
Pro-choice
Pro-choice
Progressive with
some restrictions
Pro-choice
Pro-choice
Anti-Choice
Conservative with
room for negotiation
Pro-choice
Progressive with
some restrictions
Pro-choice
Shadow Rapporteur for GUE,
Member of EPWG
Shadow Rapporteur for Greens,
Member of EPWG
Chairperson of S&D Group & DEVE
Coordinator, Member of EPWG
Member of EPWG
Progressive with
some restrictions
Pro-Choice
Lobbyist from Euro-Fam
Anti-choice
UNFPA representative
European Commission representative
Political Advisor to the EPP
Political Advisor to the ALDE
Political Advisor to the Greens/EFA and
GUE
Political Advisor to the ECR
Political Advisor to the S&D
Member of the Secretariat
Member of the Secretariat
Pro-choice
Neutral
Anti-Choice
Pro-choice
Pro-choice
Pro-choice
Anti-Choice
Pro-choice
Neutral
Neutral
1
EPP – European Peoples Party (Conservatives); S&D – Group of Progressive Socialists and Democrats; ALDE –
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; Greens/EFA – Greens/European Free Alliance; GUE – Confederal
Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left; ECR – European Conservatives and Reformists Group
22
16. Bibliography
For Further Reading:
 Negotiation Techniques
R. Fisher & W. Ury: “Getting to yes: how to negotiate agreement without giving in”, Hutchinson, 1983.
An executive summary outlining the most important negotiation techniques can be found at:

http://www.negotiations.com/book-reviews/getting-to-yes
 European Parliament
There is a lot of useful information on the European Parliament’s website: www.europarl.europa.eu.


Political Groups in the European Parliament
The Group of the European Peoples Party (EPP)
(http://www.eppgroup.eu/home/en/default.asp?lg1=en)

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D)
(http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/gpes/index.jsp?request_locale=EN)

Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
(http://www.alde.eu/en)

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA)
(http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/rubrik/6/6270.htm)

European Conservatives and Reformist Group (ECR)
(the ECR does not yet have a website)

Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left
(http://www.guengl.eu/showPage.jsp?ID=31&DID=null&ISSUE=0&M=-1&Y=1&GALLERY=null&SEARCH=0)
 Political Group’s Manifesto’s
For those of you, who are interested, a look into the group manifesto’s prior to the June 2009
Elections to the European Parliament might be helpful.

The Group of the European Peoples Party (EPP)
(http://www.epp.eu/dbimages/pdf/EN-ELECTION-DOC-FINAL_copy_2.pdf)

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D)
(http://www.pes.org/downloads/PES_manifesto_2009-EN.pdf

Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
(http://www.eldr.org/images/upload/adopted_manifesto_english.pdf)

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA)
(http://europeangreens.eu/menu/egp-manifesto

European Conservatives and Reformist Group (ECR)
The ECR did not have an election manifesto since the group only formed after the elections.
For more information, it might be useful to check the UK Conservatives website
(http://www.conservatives.com) since the UK delegation is amongst the largest in the group.

Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left
(http://www.european-left.org/english/news/electoral_platform)



Women Deliver & Population Council Site for facts and figures on all aspects of SRHR
http://www.womendeliver.org/facts/index.htm
http://www.popcouncil.org/rh/program.html
 Link to the Amsterdam Declaration of the “World Congress of Families”
The Congress was held in Amsterdam in August 2009. It gives participants’ some ideas of the wording
and ideas, anti-choice supporters use to defend their approach.

http://www.worldcongress.nl/en/declaration-of-amsterdam
23
17. Amendments’ template
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2009
 






 
2014
17.3.2009
B6-xx/1
Amendment 1
Carl Schlyter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
B6-xx/2009
Kader Arif
on behalf of the Committee on International Trade
on the stepping stone Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and
Central Africa
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Motion for a resolution
Amendment
Or. en
24