Mr. Stavros Lambrinidis:

I have two political advisers and an assistant, Ms Dirosa, but I also have all of the human rights staff of the External Action Service, EAS, a dedicated and excellent conglomeration of people who work in collaboration with me. My position is a strange animal. I am not a part of the EAS or the Commission. I am a politician - mine was a political appointment - overflying the institutions and being required to inspire them to work with me, as opposed to having the institutional right to force them. I also have the opportunity to be inspired by them. This type of expansive staff is precisely how I like having it.

The issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, LGBTI, rights was raised. We have LGBTI guidelines in addition to guidelines on freedom of religion and belief. We also have a toolkit for LGBTI rights that advises our delegations around the world on how to deal with these issues. We are upgrading them to guidelines that will be published some time this year.

In many instances, we speak with countries about their new constitutions. We cannot tell them what to do. Sometimes, they are sensitive about not being seen to be instructed by Europeans in how to act in their domestic affairs, as some people might present it in that way instead of as a dialogue, which is the truth. Often, we can use the expertise of the Council of Europe, the Venice convention and such bodies within the broader European family, including particular EU member states or institutions, in advising countries on what provisions in other constitutions exist as regards particular topics, for example, non-discrimination against women.

We are not helping them to rediscover the wheel on their own, but to consider an area of existing options. We have been successful in some cases and not in others, but we have tried.

I will make two comments on taxes. A major issue of human rights relates to inequalities, including economic inequality and the exclusion of poor people from the social and political fabrics of countries, which becomes a vicious circle. These inequalities are increasing around the world in the face of financial crises. In many countries experiencing rapid growth, a careful examination of the statistics shows that the growth is not experienced by everyone equally. This is a human rights concern, as it touches upon economic and social rights. One cannot build a good health system if most of the money going to a government gets funnelled away in corruption or into a few pockets instead of being used for the general good. This is precisely the type of issue on which some people in a country do not like us to focus. They care about the EU examining issues that would burn them primarily in their daily lives.

This point gives me the opportunity to discuss the issue of corporate social responsibility, which touches a little on the Deputy's question. I encourage members to look at our websites. The EU is developing three sets of pilot guidelines for the application of corporate social responsibility agreements - the Professor John Ruggie report published by the UN, for those who might remember - at EU level. These guidelines have to do with oil and gas, the extractive industries that the Deputy mentioned, the IT sector and the employment-recruitment sector. These guidelines will be open to consultation and it might be worthwhile for this Parliament to consider, discuss and make suggestions on them if it is interested in doing so.

I referred to the issue of refugees. The question of when to stop aid is a major human rights discussion. We have a "more for more" policy in our neighbourhood policy. If someone is good on human rights, we give more. We do not necessarily have a "less for less" policy, although some assert that we should. In other words, if someone is not good on human rights, remove aid.

We also have separate human rights clauses in every political association agreement we make. We are bridging them with free trade agreements, etc. One of the 97 actions in the action plan indicates that the EU must develop criteria for the application of these human rights clauses. It is important that we have these clauses and convince countries interacting with us that, if there is a persistent and serious violation of human rights, there will be consequences. It is also important that we determine the circumstances under which these clauses will be triggered. They have been triggered a few times already. If I am not mistaken, they are triggered in most coups d'état.

In the coming months, I intend to focus on bringing together the institutions, NGOs and others that deal with this area to brainstorm and to suggest to the European Council ways in which we can make the application of the human rights clauses more effective. One wonders about what happens when, after violations have been recognised by everyone, it is still business as usual. Does this not send out the wrong message? I agree that it does and, therefore, we have developed the guidelines.

I thank the Vice Chairman for his patience and hospitality. I look forward to doing this again.