EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014

Delegation for relations with India

REPORT ON THE

13th EU-INDIA INTERPARLIAMENTARY MEETING DELHI AND HYDERABAD 25-30 APRIL 2010

FdR 817753 PE 442.258 Summary

Eight members of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with India, chaired by Graham Watson (ALDE, UK), travelled to New Delhi and Hyderabad between 25 and 30 April 2010. This followed a preparatory visit to New Delhi by Mr Watson on 14 and 15 March 2010. The programme included meetings with parliamentarians; members of the government; and representatives of civil society and think tanks. It also included visits to EU-funded projects, research institutes and businesses.

The delegation sought to contribute to raising the profile in India of the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular. It was apparent that the Indian counterparts tended to think of the EU as a trade bloc and did not appreciate the enhanced political powers that it had accrued in recent years, particularly in the post- Lisbon era. There was also a tendency for New Delhi to place emphasis on its bilateral relationships with member states, rather than the EU as a whole.

In the course of the visit MEPs aimed to heighten the Indian side's awareness of the wider competences of the European Parliament and to breathe new life into the EU- India interparliamentary relationship. They reiterated the invitation from President Buzek to Lok Sabha Speaker Kumar proposing that the heads of the two legislatures co-chair an interparliamentary meeting in advance of the EU-India summit in October 2010.

The Indian side were particularly keen on cooperation with the European Union in the field of counter-terrorism and security. There was resentment that the EU appeared to give undue emphasis to its relationship with Pakistan and there was strong criticism of the role played by their western neighbour in South Asia. The Indians feared that Islamabad was accommodating the Taliban and that there were elements in the intelligence services which were close to Islamic extremists. The European Parliament side argued that Pakistan was a democratic country which played a key role in the region and all sides needed to cooperate with it to promote regional security.

Extensive discussions took place on the EU-India Free Trade Agreement that is currently being negotiated and which the two sides hope to conclude by the end of 2010. There was a sharp divergence of views on whether issues such as child labour and sustainable development should be included in the agreement. The Indian side rejected the inclusion of such elements and argued for an agreement that was restricted to trade issues.

The EP delegation stressed that the EU side was not seeking to impose new standards but rather to make reference to those that already existed and which needed to be implemented. The crucial role of the European Parliament in the ratification of the FTA was underlined and - in particular - the fact that it would not support an agreement that did not include environmental and social safeguards. It was apparent from a meeting with a coalition of NGOs that there was opposition to an FTA in India, as there was a belief that it would have harmful affects on the vulnerable

FdR 817753 2 PE 442.258 sectors of society. Both sides agreed that "creative thinking" would be required to overcome this major obstacle to an accord.

There was common ground on the great potential for EU-India cooperation in the development of technologies using renewable energy, such as solar thermal and solar photovoltaic power. The Indian side maintained that the developed world was responsible for global warming and that India and other developing countries had a right to raise the standard of living of their populations. The low per capita levels of energy consumption in India were also underlined. Nevertheless, there appeared to be growing recognition on the Indian side that it needed to be part of the solution to climate change and could not simply shift all the responsibility onto the developed world.

During the visit to Andhra Pradesh the MEPs went to two EU-funded projects which provided an opportunity to witness at first hand how development funding is being used. In general the MEPs were impressed with what they saw and welcomed the opportunity to engage at first hand with the project beneficiaries. Of particular significance was the visit to a project to provide education to former child workers. The visit coincided with the coming into force of legislation to abolish the practice of child labour.

Among other subjects raised was the case of the Sakharov Prize winner Taslima Nasrin, who has been living in exile in India because of threats to her life in her native Bangladesh. There have been reports that her visa to stay in India will not be extended after August 2010. The delegation will continue to monitor her case.

The Speaker, Mrs Kumar, undertook to establish a Lok Sabha Friendship Group for relations with the EU in the near future. In addition to the invitation by President Buzek, there are also hopes that a delegation from the Lok Sabha can travel to Brussels or Strasbourg for an interparliamentary meeting before the end of 2010.

Mr van Dalen made a number of specific suggestions for involving the European Parliament delegation in the future consideration by the Parliament of the EU-India Free Trade Agreement: these will be discussed in the course of the delegation's work.

Background

The visit to New Delhi and Hyderabad by eight members of the European Parliament delegation for relations with India aimed to develop and strengthen the relationship between the European Parliament and the Lok Sabha. There is a common perception in India that the EU is merely a trade bloc and there is a lack of general understanding of the workings of the Union and in particular the enhanced powers it has in the post- Lisbon era. The increased competences of the European Parliament were particularly relevant in discussions on the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (see below) as the agreement of the Parliament will be necessary for the ratification of the agreement.

The 2005 EU-India Joint Action Plan underlined the need for the relations between the two legislatures to be reinforced. A significant step was taken by the creation in 2007 of a separate EP Delegation for relations with India. However, no counterpart

FdR 817753 3 PE 442.258 group has been re-established in the Lok Sabha since the Indian general elections in May/June 2009. The last full interparliamentary meeting took place in 2005, although there have been a number of working group visits since that date.

On 10 October 2009 President Buzek had written to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha proposing that they co-chair an interparliamentary meeting in advance of the EU- India summit in Brussels in October 2010. To date there has been no reply to this letter.

Following a visit to New Delhi by the Bureau of the EP Delegation in March 2010 it had been decided that the visit by MEPs should focus on areas where there were clear benefits for India and the EU to cooperate, notably climate change and the development of renewable energy; security and counter terrorism; and trade. The visit coincided with the ninth negotiating round on the EU-India Free Trade Agreement, which it is hoped to conclude by the end of 2010.

The visit took place from 25 to 30 April 2010 at the express wish of the Indian side as this week coincided with the sitting of the Lok Sabha. Authorisation was granted by the Conference of Presidents on 4 March 2010.

Sunday 25 April 2010

Visit to Humayun's Tomb - a "statement of secularism" by Dr. Navina Jafa, Expert on Heritage Showcasing

The delegation visit began with a tour of the tomb of the Mughal Emperor, Humayun. The tomb dates from 1562 and is a UNESCO classified World Heritage Site.

Roundtable on "Afghanistan and Pakistan Policies: European and Indian interests" organised by the National Maritime Foundation

The organisers of the roundtable were Commodore Uday Bhaskar, former Deputy Director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses and the Foundation for Progressive European Studies (FEPS)

The National Maritime Foundation is a high level think tank with the principal goal of promoting a common platform for debate on maritime security. However, it also examines other security issues, including the situation in the South Asia region. Many of the leading members are former senior naval officers.

The following points were made in the discussion by the Indian side (N.B. these views were not necessarily held by all the speakers).

 There was great concern about the expansion of terrorism and religious radicalism, both in the South Asia region and globally. There was a real danger of terrorists gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

FdR 817753 4 PE 442.258  There were worries that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would leave Afghanistan before it had completed its work. Indeed, majority Indian public opinion believed that Washington would "cut and run", as the Obama administration gradually succumbed to anti-war sentiment within the USA.

 President Obama had continued his predecessor's policy of "hyphenation": i.e. lumping together India and Pakistan as part of the solution to Afghanistan. This was not welcomed by India, which resented any parity of treatment. Islamabad needed to be pushed harder to promote a real settlement of the problem.

 There was a danger for Washington in alienating President Karzai, without having any real alternative. It was unwise to place too much emphasis on the corruption in the Karzai administration, as constant criticism was leading the Afghan leader to build up links with Iran.

 The EU - and the international community in general - was unclear about whether it was in the business of state building or nation building in Afghanistan. The Indian government adhered to a Hobbesian view of diplomacy, with emphasis on the balance of power, whereas the EU followed a Kantian line of giving precedence to constitutions and shared values.

 The Taliban "could not outsmart ISAF but it might outlast it". However, if the Taliban were to take over Afghanistan they would be taking over a state in ruins.

 Pakistan was roundly condemned by a large number of speakers for the disruptive role it played in the region - in Kashmir as well as Afghanistan.

 There were real concerns about the "Talibanisation" of Pakistan and the prospect of the Taliban taking over the country and controlling a state with a sophisticated nuclear structure. In order to counter this, the Pakistan government needed to reduce the role played by religion within the state.

 The "Islamisation" of the Pakistan military had started under President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and accelerated under General Zia-Ul-Haq when junior officers had been recruited from Islamic families. This generation was now reaching the most senior positions in the military.

 It was essential to concentrate more on the social and economic development of Afghanistan. India could play a vital role by boosting its trade links with its near neighbour and providing a market for Afghan farmers so that they grew crops other than opium.

 The success or failure of ISAF would also be a success or failure for the EU, which had to determine whether it wanted to be a true global player. At present it was an economic power but not a military power. One speaker described himself as a "euro sceptic" with regard to the EU's political and

FdR 817753 5 PE 442.258 military role and dismissed the EUPOL police mission in Afghanistan as ineffective Another speaker argued that the "EU did not take itself seriously, so why should others take it seriously".

Members outlined the considerable activity being undertaken by the EU to support economic and social development in Afghanistan. They stressed that the resolution of the situation required a balance of military action where appropriate, along with social and economic development.

They emphasised the considerable boost given by the Treaty of Lisbon to the EU's external presence and the increased powers that the Treaty gave to the European Parliament. They also made reference to the role played by public opinion in Europe and the anti-war sentiment held by many people.

Members stressed that the EU had begun as an economic project, which had increasingly taken on a more political character. They underlined the great achievements of the Union in bringing peace to a continent that had been wracked by war throughout its history. They rejected the charge that Europe did not take itself seriously, while recognising that it might have lost "some of its romance".

Monday 26 April 2010

Breakfast briefing with H.E. Danièle Smadja, Head of the EU Delegation

During the meeting the following points were made:

 India is not very interested in development support from the EU as its total income from aid is less than 1% of GDP. The EU was concentrating its development assistance on promoting the Millennium Development Goals and was focussing on education and health.

 India has signed, but not yet ratified, the United Nations Convention on Torture and mistreatment in prisons and police stations is rife. On 8 April 2010 the government approved a proposal to introduce a 'Prevention of Torture' Bill.

 Corruption in government is a major issue, although Prime Minister Singh is personally untainted.

 It is important to be aware of India's cultural heritage when addressing the issue of human rights. It will take decades before the general population is convinced of the importance of full respect for human rights. India tended to be highly sensitive about any criticism of its human rights record.

 India is expanding rapidly and GDP growth, which slipped to 7% in 2009, might rise to 9% in 2011. It has 17% of the world's population, but only 2% of the world's GDP and 1.6% of world trade. 60% of the population is directly or indirectly involved in agriculture.

FdR 817753 6 PE 442.258  EU trade with India reached EUR 77 billion in 2008, which represents an increase in absolute terms, although it is also a decline in relative terms compared to India's other trading partners. The EU is also the most important contributor of Foreign Direct Investment with a figure of EUR 16 billion.

 The ninth round of negotiations on the EU-India Free Trade Agreement was starting that week. Although the political will to achieve a deal existed in India, significant problems remained, one issue being the EU's insistence on a Sustainable Development Chapter in the agreement.

 China is perceived by India as a major military and economic threat. New Delhi has lodged a larger number of anti-dumping procedures against China than any other country. There were also worries about Chinese activity in Nepal and its support for the Maoists.

 Pakistan provoked deep emotions and India was still scarred by the traumatic memories of partition. There was a tendency to think that the EU was pro-Pakistan. There were many who wanted to withdraw the unilateral gesture that India had made by giving Pakistan Most Favoured Nation status in trade.

 The EU is "not an easy animal to present" as India is more comfortable in dealing with member states and does not really understand the workings of the Union. Nevertheless, it does recognise that something has changed post-Lisbon and this should be reinforced by the visit of Baroness Ashton on 22 May 2010 (Mr Solana only came once to India during his period in office). The visit of the EP delegation was also an opportunity to showcase the EU.

 New Delhi wants to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is not impressed by the inability of the EU' to help them achieve this aim. The EU has also been unable to offer India the prospect of sharing information on terrorist activity.

 India does, nonetheless, see the EU as an important trade partner and was keen to work with it on other issues such as counter-terrorism, energy security and climate change. There were also an increasing number of people to people exchanges, including an expansion of the Erasmus Mundus programme and a film festival.

 There were major concerns about environmental degradation in India, including diminishing water levels and reduced numbers of tigers and leopards. Increased car ownership was leading to greater carbon emissions and the use of pesticides was leading to high levels of chemicals in the soil. There was only limited implementation of environmental laws, although the population was becoming more aware of the stakes involved.

 The government was spending around 2% of GDP on climate change adaptation strategies. It aimed to achieve 15% of savings in energy by

FdR 817753 7 PE 442.258 2015 through the use of more effective appliances. Before May 2009 the Indian government had tended to blame global warming on the West and considered that the developed world was responsible for dealing with the problem. More recently, New Delhi had come round to wanting to be part of the solution.

Round table discussion on "India's economic situation and EU-India trade relations" Chambers of Commerce and think tanks .  The EP delegation underlined the importance of promoting bilateral trade and the significant room for expansion of this trade with India having only a 2% share in the EU market. There were concerns over the obstacles to trade and it was noted that in 2008 the World Bank had ranked India 120th out of 178 countries for ease of doing business. The argument that India was a difficult country in which to invest was taken up by a number of other members.

 The European Parliament strongly favoured a Free Trade Agreement but was insisting on certain environmental and social safeguards, including on child labour. Members stressed that they wanted to work with India to determine how this issue might be resolved. The EU side also underlined that any agreement should not result in a lower level of social protection or have a detrimental effect on the environment.

 The increased powers of the European Parliament in trade-related matters following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty were emphasised on a number of occasions.

 Members stressed that the EU had no problem with legitimate generic medicines but was strongly opposed to counterfeit drugs.

 Members emphasised that the EU was determined to play a leading role in the reduction of carbon emissions, which could sometimes result in detrimental effects on its businesses in Europe.

The Indian side made the following points:

 Inflation stood at around 10% and was mainly having an impact on food items. It was necessary to have agricultural growth of at least 4% per annum; otherwise it would be difficult to maintain price stability for foodstuffs.

 India was lagging significantly behind China in trade. India's exchange rate - in contrast to that of China - had varied greatly in recent years. China had enjoyed a head-start as it had opened up its economy many years before India. The artificially low level of the Chinese currency caused distortions in trade flows and gave it unfair advantages over India. However it was surprising to hear the USA criticise China when it was running such a massive deficit.

FdR 817753 8 PE 442.258  Reference was made to the removal of barriers to trade since the opening up of the Indian economy in 1991. India had, to date, concentrated on trade in goods but there was much scope for expanding trade in services.

 Any attempts to respond to child labour by means of sanctions were doomed to failure. It was necessary to provide incentives to farmers not to put children to work. Regrettably many families depended on the income of children. If child labour were to be ended overnight it would force girls into prostitution and the boys into begging. If the EU were to insist on a social chapter it would "kill the discussions".

 Indian speakers contended that there had been no mention of a social chapter to the Free Trade Agreement when the process was set underway in 2006 and it had been clear at that time that any agreement would deal exclusively with trade matters.

 There was recognition of the high level of transaction costs for doing business in India but it was stressed that India was a federal country and that many decisions were taken by the 28 state legislatures.

 The huge difference in size between small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the EU and in India was underlined. SMEs in the EU often had an annual turnover of between $10 and $20 million, while in India the equivalent businesses had turnovers of less than $1 million, making it harder to reach out to a global market.

Press point with the Chair and Vice Chair

Mr Watson stated that the EU had tended to concentrate on building relations with "authoritarian China to the detriment of its relationship with democratic India". The EU and India had many areas of common interest such as the fight against climate change, the development of renewable energy, and cooperation in the field of counter terrorism. The support of India in the search for a settlement in Afghanistan was also vital.

He stressed the importance of concluding the EU-India Free Trade Agreement, while recognising that each side had its "red lines". The issues of contention - he hoped - could be resolved through dialogue. He underlined that the EU had no problem with generic drugs but that it did have a problem with counterfeiting.

Working lunch with representatives of German political foundations

Represented at the meeting were representatives of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

Among the points made in the meeting were the following:

FdR 817753 9 PE 442.258  The Naxalites were a cross between "Robin Hood and Pol Pot". They were active in an area of India inhabited by 400 million people. Many of these people lived in extreme poverty and were a fertile breeding ground for the Naxalites. The police forces were hampered by the inadequate coordination across state borders.

 There was a major problem of a large ageing population which did not have any pensions. At the same time, between 60 and 80 million young people were joining the labour market every year. India could be termed as a "rich country with a lot of poor people".

 The rule of law was in an "abysmal" state in some areas, particularly in the fields of policing and the judiciary. Legislation governing the police force dated from 1861 during the colonial era. 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha had a criminal record, including 68 who had committed serious offences. The "ticket" system was common, whereby parliamentary seats were passed down through the generations. Nevertheless democracy was functioning and the constitution gave people an opportunity to express their views through the ballot box and a free press.

 India represents 75% of the land, 75% of the population and 75% of the economic power in South Asia. There was concern about both small and large neighbours and the threat they posed to India's stability. A high level of smuggling took place on the border with Pakistan. Planning was underway to create a National Counter terrorism Centre to respond to the international terrorist threat.

Meeting with Mr Sharad Pawar, President of the National Congress Party, Minister of Agriculture

Mr Pawar gave members an overview of the current state of agriculture in India and his government's role in helping neighbouring countries. He stressed in particular the problems caused by high population density in rural areas. He referred to the major priority that was given by his government to ensuring adequate water supplies and the concerns over the high level of inflation, resulting in increases in food prices of up to 18% per annum. The products consumed by vegetarians had risen in price by up to 35% per annum.

The Minister underlined Delhi's desire to make progress on the negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement, while stressing that the two sides should not get diverted by non- trade issues. He noted that India accounted for 20% of the world's population and had a key role to play in tackling climate change. Finally he gave an outline of his government's policy of economic liberalisation since 1991.

Mr Watson, referring to the experience of the EU, recognised the concern over the rise in food prices and its effect on inflation. He welcomed the Indian government's policy of ensuring that people had enough food. He underlined the wide range of

FdR 817753 10 PE 442.258 fields in which India and the EU could cooperate, making special reference to the 2005 Joint Action Plan and the EU's Science and Technology Programme.

In the course of the discussion there was also mention of GMOs, bio fuels and the Doha round of trade talks.

Meeting with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Honourable Ms Meira Kumar

Ms Kumar outlined the importance of the EU-India relationship, which had evolved in recent years from being mainly trade based to one that covered all areas of shared interest. She underlined in particular the value of the annual summits. She stressed the close links between the two sides that had been strengthened by history and were now reinforced by the presence of the Indian diaspora in Europe and other people to people contacts.

Mr Watson echoed the sentiments expressed by Mrs Kumar. He outlined the growing importance of the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular. He recognised that the EU had tended to neglect India in the past and stressed the need for the two sides to work together to tackle global challenges such as climate change and security. It was also necessary to finalise the Free Trade Agreement and to increase people to people contacts.

He then referred to the letter from President Buzek to Ms Kumar inviting her to co- chair a meeting of parliamentarians in Brussels in advance of the EU-India summit in October 2010. He also reinforced the message that the European Parliament was looking forward to the establishment of a formal EU-India Friendship Group in the Lok Sabha as a counterpart of the European Parliament's Delegation for relations with India.

Ms Kumar noted Mr Buzek's request and stressed that her Secretary General would be looking for a "mutually convenient date". She also underlined that they wee currently working on the establishment of a number of Friendship Groups, including one for the EU.

The Speaker also agreed that it would be beneficial for both sides to have liberalised tariffs, although her government could not accept a trade agreement which brought in clauses on extraneous issues such as sustainable development and climate change. There was, however, great potential for working together to respond to the threats of terrorism. She stressed that there was much common ground on tackling climate change, while also noting that her government was seeking to promote economic development and to eradicate poverty,

Among the comments made by the MEPs was a call for the establishment of a "Committee of Experts" to prepare ideas which the politicians could then discuss. Ms Kaur agreed to ask the Ministry of Exernal Affairs to look into this possibility. Reference was made to the European Arrest Warrant and its heightened importance in the post 9/11 world, notably by giving a definition of "terrorism".

FdR 817753 11 PE 442.258 In the evening the delegation attended a dinner reception hosted by the Ambassador of the European Union to India, H.E. Ms Danièle Smadja.

Tuesday 27 April 2010

Meeting with representatives of the Forum Against Free Trade Agreements,

The meeting took place at the specific request of the Forum Against Free Trade Agreements. The Forum was formed by trade unions, peoples' movements, farmers' organisations and civil society organisations to "campaign against the impact of Free Trade Agreements on Labour and Livelihood rights of people in India".

Mr Watson opened the meeting by noting that the EU made up 17% of India's trade and India made up 2.3% of the EU's total trade. He stressed that the EU would have preferred to have achieved a trade agreement through the Doha Round, rather than negotiating a series of bilateral accords.

The Forum's speakers made the following points:

 They were disappointed with the European Parliament's resolution of March 2009 which had not provided a sufficient analysis of what impact the FTA would have. Emphasising corporate social responsibility was not sufficient and there should be a full assessment of the effects of any FTA on human rights.

 There had been an absence of transparency in the negotiations and the organisations around the table - which represented the people affected - had not been consulted about the effects of the FTA. The draft text should be made available to civil society so that it could make its comments.

 Up to 65% of farmers in India were working on small or marginal farms and 50% were heavily indebted - these vulnerable people would suffer from a free trade agreement. The average farm in India was a mere 0.73 hectares and it was impossible for rural workers to compete with the EU.

 In 1995 India had been 95% self sufficient and it was now - as a result of trade liberalisation - heavily dependent on imports. Many cotton farmers were committing suicide as they could not compete with the huge amount of cotton imports.

 There was a high rate of malnutrition and hunger in India and it was not acceptable to export food at such a time when so many people were suffering.

 Only 6% of the workforce was organised and much of the labour market was deregulated. The labour inspectorate had seen its powers diluted, especially since the policy of economic liberalisation had been in place, and employment rights were particularly precarious in the special economic zones.

FdR 817753 12 PE 442.258  Although India had enjoyed economic growth of between 7 and 8% per annum, there had been no concomitant increase in employment opportunities - indeed, there had been "growth but no development" with growing salary differentials and a reduction in social security.

 The FTA threatened access for the vulnerable to medicines and life saving drugs. Indeed it could represent a "death sentence" for many people who were dependent on the cheap drugs produced by domestic pharmaceutical companies.

 In conclusion the speakers stressed that they could not accept the basic framework of the agreement. A "social chapter" in isolation would not be enough.

The MEPs underlined that the European Parliament would be insisting on a social chapter to the agreement and that "creative thinking" was required to reach a settlement that was acceptable to all sides. The EU was fully committed to sustainable development and ensuring that communities were not harmed. An expansion of trade could help promote prosperity. The draft FTA also included a clause stipulating that the agreement should not lead to reduced access to drugs or medicine.

They argued that the NGOs should be pressing the Indian government on the issues and calling it to account for inadequate enforcement of its employment and environmental legislation. The authorities should also be put under pressure to reform the tax system so that the huge disparities in income were reduced.

Meeting with Mrs Preneet Kaur, Minister of State for External Affairs

Ms Kaur took up the themes of many interlocutors by underlining the importance of EU-India economic and political ties and recognising the importance of the Lisbon Treaty and the new powers that it gave to the Union. She looked forward to visa facilitation as it was important to boost people to people contacts.

The Minister underlined the importance of the EU-India FTA and stressed that insistence on a social chapter should not be permitted to hamper the agreement. She stressed that India welcomed Foreign Direct Investment, although there were differences between the states in the country.

In response to questions from MEPs, Ms Kaur argued that sanctions were not the way to resolve the issue of Iranian nuclear development. Her government believed that this was an issue that could be settled through dialogue and she stressed that Iran had a right to develop its nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes.

Ms Kaur underlined that India needed to develop and to tackle the high level of poverty. Nevertheless it was aware of its responsibilities in tackling climate change and had already stated that it would cap emissions.

FdR 817753 13 PE 442.258 The situation of the Sakharov Prize winner, Taslima Nasrin, was raised by the delegation. (Ms Nasrin has been living in Delhi, in exile from her native Bangladesh and has expressed concern that her visa will not be renewed in August 2010). Ms Kaur noted these concerns and stated that Ms Nasrin had had a number of extensions to her visa and has been provided with security protection by the Indian government.

Working lunch with Indian MPs, hosted by the India-European Union Forum for Parliamentarians (IEUFP).

Mr Watson and Ambassador Smadja opened the meeting by reiterating many of the themes concerning the importance of EU-India cooperation in the fields of trade; renewable energies and the environment; security and counter terrorism; and tackling organised crime.

The Indian speakers argued that much of the terrorist activity in the South Asia region originated in Pakistan, as many members of the security apparatus sympathised with Islamic extremists. Reference was made by one speaker to the threat of terrorism in Kashmir and the role played by Pakistan in that region. It was noted too that there had been no terrorism in Iraq before the invasion in 2003. The EU needed to focus more on the victims of terrorism and not appeasing those who had given direct or indirect support to the perpetrators.

The EU was insisting on including the issues of labour standards and carbon emissions in the EU-India Free Trade Treaty. These were non-tariff barriers to trade and - under the WTO framework - labour standards were dealt with by the International Labour Organisation

The European Parliament side outlined developments concerning the European Arrest Warrant and the problems of money laundering. It was noted that there were problems in sharing intelligence between member states because there was sometimes a lack of trust.

India's concerns about terrorism and its relationship with Pakistan were acknowledged, nonetheless it was emphasised that it was important to work with Islamabad. One visible area of cooperation might be a parliamentary forum between the two neighbours. It was also essential to ensure full respect for human rights, while being tough on terrorism.

The MEPs stressed that they were answerable to their electors and could not accept a Free Trade Agreement that did not include clauses on labour standards and climate change. It was not a question of introducing new elements but of seeking to ensure proper adherence to pre-existing standards. There had been a lot of misunderstanding about the EU's position, for example on the issue of medicines. Members also reiterated that there were no proposals to restrict access to medicines.

Round table with the Parliamentary Forum on Global Warming and Climate Change (cross-party Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Group),

FdR 817753 14 PE 442.258 The Chair, Mr Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy opened the meeting by noting that the Parliamentary Forum on Global Warming and Climate Change was one of the most active groups in the Indian Parliament. It was very keen to develop relations with partners to address the global challenge of climate change.

Mr Watson outlined EU activity to date, noting that it had adopted a Common Policy on Energy and Climate Change in 2005 and that in July 2009 the leaders of the EU and the G8 had announced their objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050.

He also outlined the Roadmap 2050 initiative of the European Climate Foundation, which sets out an analysis of pathways to achieve a low-carbon economy in Europe. Roadmap 2050 anticipates that Europe could achieve this target by the maximum deployment of technologies which are already in commercial use or in the late development stage. This could be done while maintaining the same level of reliability as the existing energy system and without a fundamental lifestyle change.

Other members underlined that there was a clear will in the EU to address the common problem of climate change and that it must learn from the relative failures of the past. The EU had been largely sidelined at the Copenhagen summit, where far more should have been achieved. Although the EU welcomed India's adherence to the Kyoto Protocol there was a need to go further.

MEPs reiterated the need for the EU and India to work in partnership on the common threat of climate change and to work together to develop the necessary technologies.

Indian speakers stressed that there was a very low per capita consumption of energy in India: i.e. one twentieth of the US level, one quarter of the global level and one half of China's level. The Indian population needed access to affordable technology to ensure balanced development based on differentiated obligations. India had been unhappy at the inadequate results from the Copenhagen summit where the developed countries had not played a positive role.

Over two thirds of the Indian population were dependent on agriculture and were very vulnerable to climate change. There was increasing recognition of the need for water recycling and for integrated water policies and one recent initiative was farming of sea water. India was a federal country with 28 states and development was not always cohesive and the issue of global warming was sometimes seen as the concern of an elite.

A minority view was expressed on the Indian side arguing that climate change was a natural process that was not caused by industrial emissions. The threat of climate change was being used by the developed world to put pressure on developing countries. The MEPs recognised that this view was also held by some members of the European Parliament, however they stressed that it was not safe to do nothing.

The Indian MPs proposed an inter-parliamentary working group to examine the issues discussed. Mr Watson agreed that such a group could help to ensure that the governments on both sides adhered to the commitments that they had made. He also pointed to the cooperation with India that was already taking place such as the Energy

FdR 817753 15 PE 442.258 Panel, working groups, cooperation funding and calls for research proposals. He stressed the need to mobilise the international funding set aside for developing countries in order for them to be able to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Following the meeting the delegation toured the Parliament and witnessed a debate in the Lok Sabha. In the evening Mr Watson hosted a reception for Indian parliamentarians, representatives of civil society and think tanks.

Wednesday 28 April 2010

The delegation travelled to Hyderabad in the morning of Wednesday 28 April. As a result of the delayed flight the subsequent meetings were shortened.

On arrival in Hyderabad the MEPs attended a lunch hosted by the Speakers of the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. This was followed by tour of the Assembly.

Meeting with H.E. Mr E. S. L. Narasimhan, Governor of Andhra Pradesh

The Governor gave an overview of Andhra Pradesh state and stressed the challenges faced by the rural population. He informed the delegation that he was appointed by the President for a period of five years and could be dismissed during that period. His role was to aid and advise the state government and to act as a "father figure", although his advice was not binding.

He then gave an overall assessment of national and international issues, including the problem of illegal immigration into India, state sponsored terrorism and the global financial crisis.

Mr Watson raised the possibility of sharing of intelligence on terror networks and also cooperation in the field of renewable energies. Other members stressed the importance of exchanges in the field of science, technology and education. Mr Narasimhan agreed that there was great potential for the EU and India to cooperate in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. Mr Narasimhan asked Mr Watson for help in translating into Italian a pamphlet he had written in English about Sonia Gandhi.

Following the formal meeting Mr Narasimhan invited the delegation to a reception at which there was further discussion of the subjects raised.

Meeting with H.E. Mr Konijeti Rosaiah, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh

The Chief Minister stated that he had been in office since September 2009, having previously held the post of Minister of Finance. He described the state of Andhra Pradesh, noting that it had 23 districts and had been established in 1956. It was the fourth largest state in India in terms of size and fifth largest in terms of population.

FdR 817753 16 PE 442.258 Andhra Pradesh is historically known as the "Rice Bowl of India" with rice making up more than 77% of its crop. Other major products included high class granite, textiles and shoes. The high technology industries that had been established in Hyderabad were now extending their operations throughout the state.

Mr Rosaiah also gave details of his government's activities to empower women, including special employment programmes, support for self-help groups, and giving the ownership of state-built housing to women.

Following the meeting with the Chief Minister Mr Watson and other members of the delegation made a short statement to the press, emphasising the importance of the EU- India Free Trade Agreement.

Meeting with Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, President of the Lok Satta Party

Dr Narayan explained the standpoints of his party, which had originally started as an NGO campaigning against corruption. He noted that candidates at elections spent up to 100 times the maximum expenditure permitted by the law, in order to buy votes. Most parliamentarians were the sons or daughters of politicians and inherited their seats from their parents.

The Lok Satta party had not had a real opportunity to make a great impact and he was the only member of it to have been elected to the 294 seat state Legislative Assembly. This situation could change if proportional representation were to be introduced and he hoped that the situation in the United Kingdom after the upcoming election would be a showcase for the advantages of a system based on Proportional Representation.

He recognised that elections were free and that there was a strong constitutional authority overseeing the process. Many individuals - including the Prime Minister - were not corrupt; however they did not take adequate steps to stamp out this scourge. Dr Narayan saw the middle classes as playing a key role in changing the political culture, regrettably most members of that group did not feel a sense of obligation to fight corruption and unfortunately many people had "given up". Changes of the state government had also not resulted in any fundamental change. There might be hope however in the younger generations, with 73% of Indians below the age of 35 years and 40% below the age of 18 years.

Dr Narayan was also critical of the corruption in the media and the production of news programmes that were bankrolled by particular political groups.

Working dinner with Civil Society Organisations in charge of EU Projects (DEVCO), hosted by Mr Watson

The list of participants is attached to this report. All the organisations are in receipt of EU funding. In the course of the dinner each participant gave a brief outline of his or her organisation's activity.

FdR 817753 17 PE 442.258 The main beneficiaries of the funding granted to the projects were from potentially vulnerable sectors such as women's groups, child workers, the homeless, members of tribal groups, self-help groups, workers on small farms, low caste groups, and victims of torture and police brutality.

In response to some comments concerning over-complicated EC administrative procedures, Mr Watson noted that there was a widespread perception among voters in the EU that spending on development projects had not been properly monitored. As a consequence a framework of controls had been put into place and this could delay the disbursement of the funds.

In general the speakers were very appreciative of the assistance from the EU. Mr Watson concluded the formal part of the dinner by praising the speakers and declaring that he felt "humbled and immensely privileged" at what he had heard.

Thursday 29 April 2010

Visit to Nalgonda district to visit EU-funded development cooperation projects

Meeting with panchayat and Oxfam weavers project

The delegation travelled to the village of Narayanpur in the district of Nalgonda. The members were welcomed by the leaders of the "panchayat" or local assembly.

The venue visited was part of the wider project "Improved livelihoods for cotton farmers, weavers and garment makers". The full project runs from 2008 to 2011 with an EU contribution of EUR 750,000 and is carried out by Oxfam through eight local partners. The project aims to support cotton farmers and to teach new skills, enabling them to create their own designs and sell directly to national and international markets.

The handloom sector in India is a $60 billion industry and market demand has not diminished, despite the problems faced by weavers. The handloom industry is particularly significant as it is environmentally friendly, using no pollutants. The project covers 20 families in that particular village. It seeks in particular to emancipate women who had been accustomed to living in seclusion in the past. Women make up more than 50% of the participants in the processes of the project.

The members met with the weavers and observed the working environment.

Visit to project "Elimination of Child Labour through universalisation of elementary education"

The implementation partners of the project were the Stichting Hivos (Netherlands) and the M. Venkatarangaiya Foundation (MVF). The contribution from the EU is EUR1.5 million and the project ran from 2007 to 2009. The project is now concluded and a final report is awaited. The aim was to ensure that all children up to the age of 14 received an education.

FdR 817753 18 PE 442.258 In a well organised ceremony the delegation met with many of the children who had benefited from the project. They heard personal testimonies from a number of children, including a boy who had been a domestic labourer in Hyderabad and who was now doing an undergraduate degree. There were banners with slogans including the following: "Any child out of school is a child labourer"; "There must be total abolition of all forms of child labour"; "All labour is hazardous and harms the overall growth and development of the child".

The members of the village community had independently taken the initiative of putting pressure on schools to be responsive to the needs of poor children. In addition there had been demonstrations outside the houses of people employing child labour. The concept of "child labour free zones" was also being developed. In previous years the village community had not been aware of the laws on child labour and the project had also played the role of informing them about legislation on the issue.

The most recent development on the national level was the coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act on 1 April 2010. This made it a binding obligation on all levels of government to ensure that every child between six and fourteen years of age received an education. At the same time the 86th Constitutional Amendment, making education a fundamental right, also came into force.

In the evening the delegation attended a dinner hosted by Mr Madhu Goud Yaskhi, MP, Chair of the India-EU Forum of Parliamentarians (IEUFP)

Friday 30 April 2010

Visit to Infosys Technologies

Infosys Technologies was started by seven people in 1981 with $250. It now has revenues of over $4 billion. The delegation was informed that it "defines, designs and delivers technology-enabled business solutions" and is a "global leader in the "next generation" of IT"

Infosys has over 50 offices in India and seven other countries (including the United Kingdom, Poland and the Czech Republic) and has over 105,000 employees of whom 35% are women. Every year an additional 20,000 employees are taken on.

Around 10,000 members of the workforce - of whom 4,000 are based in the EU - service European clients who provide 23% of the company's income, compared to 65% form the USA. The company generally recruits local employees and has experienced significant problems in obtaining visas for its members of staff whom it wishes to relocate abroad. (It took, for example, six months to obtain a visa to work in Spain).

The company had benefited greatly from the liberalisation and opening up of the Indian economy in the years after 1991. Currently over 200 of the Fortune 500 companies outsource their software maintenance and development to India.

FdR 817753 19 PE 442.258 Its top ten customers provide 35% of its business and it has around 200 clients in total.

Infosys was the first company to use stock options and the majority of its shares are owned by its employees. 20% of the company is owned by its founders. It was the first Indian company to be quoted on the US stock exchange.

Language is a major issue for the company and it tends to concentrate on business with English speaking countries. There is also a problem encouraging its employees to relocate to countries where English is not the dominant language. India has the second largest pool of English speaking employees in the world, although China now has more people learning English. However, China is currently not perceived as a threat.

The global financial and economic crisis had not affected the company to any great extent. It would be happy to be involved with the EU in joint projects and looked forward to the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement.

Visit to International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

In a briefing session MEPs were given the following outline of the work of ICRISAT.

ICRISAT conducts research into five highly nutritious crops - chickpea, pigeon pea, pearl millet, sorghum and groundnut. These crops are drought resistant and can therefore be cultivated in the semi-arid regions which cover 55 countries of sub- Saharan Africa and Asia and are inhabited by 800 million people.

ICRISAT's headquarters are in Patancheru near Hyderabad. It also has six locations in sub-Saharan Africa. It is supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CGIAR was established in 1971 and works to reduce hunger and malnutrition. It is estimated that, without its work, world food production would be 4.5% lower and that developing countries would produce 7 to 8% less food. In addition, world grain prices would be 18 to 21% higher and up to 15 million more children would suffer from malnutrition. ICRISAT also receives some core funding from the European Commission.

ICRISAT seeks to assist in the adaption necessitated by climate change in semi-arid regions. In the short to medium term it works to reduce the vulnerability of farmer and in the longer term it develops crops which can be cultivated in a warmer climate.

In response to their questions the MEPs were informed that ICRISAT was a research institute and not a development institute. It worked in partnership with the public and private sector, using their expertise in areas such as the development of markets. ICRISAT did not work directly on solar energy but did have a project in Africa examining how solar energy might help irrigation systems.

FdR 817753 20 PE 442.258 The issue of GMOs was raised by several MEPs and the view of ICRISAT was that they did not turn down any technology if it could help to produce food. GMO technology had some advantages and there had been work in this field.

In conclusion the speakers from ICRISAT stressed that climate change might lead to major changes in the crops that could be grown. There was mapping of which areas would be semi-arid in the future and crops were already "climate change ready". It was nevertheless a delicate balance as pearl millet, for instance, could be grown at a temperature of 45 degrees but not at 46 degrees centigrade.

The MEPs noted that the European Parliament was examining how effectively funding was being used to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). There was a strong focus on renewable energy, including solar thermal and photo voltaic energy which was particularly appropriate to India and the agriculture sector.

*****

Annexes : Final programme List of Participants

FdR 817753 21 PE 442.258 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014

Delegation for relations with India

13th EU-INDIA INTERPARLIAMENTARY MEETING DELHI AND HYDERABAD 25-30 APRIL 2010

FINAL PROGRAMME

Saturday 24 April 2010 and Sunday 25 April 2010

Individual arrivals of Members and staff in Delhi and transfer to

Shangri-La Hotel 19, Ashoka Road, Connaught Place New Delhi tel. 91 11 411 961 50 fax 91 11 411 961 03

Saturday 24 April 2010

10.00 Meeting with the EU Delegation and hotel management [secretariat only] Venue : Shangri-La Hotel

Sunday 25 April 2010 - Delhi

16.30 DEPARTURE FROM HOTEL FOR

17.00 Study visit to Humayun's Tomb (World Heritage site) by Dr. Navina Jafa

18.00 TRANSFER TO THE India International Centre

FdR 817753 22 PE 442.258 18.30 Roundtable on "Afghanistan and Pakistan Policies: European and Indian interests" organised by the National Maritime Foundation [C.ommodore Uday Bhaskar, Deputy Director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi) and the Foundation for Progressive European Studies (FEPS)]. [See attached participants list]

followed by

Dinner hosted by the National Maritime Foundation

22.30 TRANSFER TO HOTEL

Monday 26 April 2010 - Delhi

08.30 Breakfast meeting with EU Delegation Venue : Shangri-La Hotel - Vyas Room

10.30 Round table discussion on " India's economic situation and EU-India trade relations" Chambers of Commerce and think tanks [see attached participants list] Venue : Shangri-La Hotel - Ganga Room

12.30 Press point with the Chair and the Vice-Chair Venue : Shangri-La Hotel - Yamuna Room

13.00 Buffet lunch with representatives of German political foundations, hosted by Mr Graham Watson, Chairman of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with India Topic: India's political and social landscape

 Dr Peter Gey, Resident Representative of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation  Dr Beatrice Gorawantschy, Resident Representative of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation  Michael Köberlein, Director, Heinrich Böll Foundation  Ms Katrin Banach, Friedrich Naumann Foundation

Venue: Shangri-La Hotel - Vyas Room

16.15 Transfer to the Ministry of Agriculture

16.30 Meeting with Mr Sharad Pawar, President of the National Congress Party, Minister of Agriculture Venue : Ministry of Agriculture

17.15 Transfer to the Lok Sabha

17.30 Meeting with the Honourable Speaker, Ms Meira Kumar

FdR 817753 23 PE 442.258 18.30 Visit of the Parliament Library Museum

18.45 Transfer to the hotel

19.45 Transfer to the Instituto Cervantes

20.00 Dinner reception hosted by H.E. Ms Danièle Smadja, Ambassador, Head of the Delegation of the European Union to India Venue : Instituto Cervantes 48 Hanuman Road New Delhi 110001

22.30 Transfer to hotel

Tuesday 27 April 2010 - Delhi

08.00 Transfer to the EU Delegation

08.30 Meeting with representatives of the Forum Against Free Trade Agreements, (a network of peoples movement, farmers organisations, trade unions and civil society organisations in India) Venue: EU Delegation 65, Golf Links

10.15 Transfer to the hotel

10.45 Transfer to the Ministry of External Affairs

11.15 Meeting with Mrs Preneet Kaur, Minister of State for External Affairs Venue : Ministry of External Affairs

12.15 City tour: India Gate, Connaught Place

13.00-14.30 Working lunch with Indian MPs, hosted by the India-European Union Forum for Parliamentarians. [see attached programme sketch] Topic: Enhancing India-EU Defence and Security Cooperation Venue: Banquet Hall, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce Federation House

15.00 Transfer to the hotel

15.15 Transfer to the Lok Sabha

FdR 817753 24 PE 442.258 15.30 Round table with the Parliamentary Forum on Global Warming and Climate Change (cross-party Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Group), Chair : Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, MP (Rajya Sabha), BJP Venue: Parliament Library Building, room 74

17.30 Visit to Central Hall, Members’ Reading Room

18.00 Attend Lok Sabha debate

19.00 RETURN TO HOTEL

20.00 Reception hosted by Mr Graham Watson, Chairman of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with India Venue : Shangri La Hotel - Ganga Room

Wednesday 28 April 2010 - Hyderabad

07.00 Departure from the hotel to the airport

09.25 Departure for Hyderabad on flight 9W 7009

11.30 Arrival in Hyderabad and transfer to

Hotel Taj Krishna Road No. 1, Banjara Hills Hyderabad tel. 91 40 666 623 23 fax 91 40 666 633 66

13.45 TRANSFER FROM THE HOTEL

14.00 Lunch hosted by the Honourable Speakers of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly followed by tour of Legislative Assembly

15.45 Transfer to Raj Bhavan // Andhra Pradesh Secretariat

16.00 Call on H.E. Mr E. S. L. Narasimhan, Governor of Andhra Pradesh

16.30 Call on H.E. Mr Konijeti Rosaiah, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Venue : C Block Andhra Pradesh State Secretariat

17.15 Press point, Exterior of Andhra Pradesh State Secretariat

17.15 Transfer to the hotel

17.30 Meeting with Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, President of the Lok Satta Party

FdR 817753 25 PE 442.258 Topic: Political culture in India; local political situation in Andhra Pradesh Venue: Taj Krishna Hotel - The Golden Room

19.00 Working dinner with Civil Society Organisations in charge of EU Projects (DEVCO), hosted by Mr Graham Watson, Chairman of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with India [see attached participants list]

Venue: Taj Krishna Hotel - The Garden Room

Thursday 29 April 2010 - Hyderabad

08.00 Departure from hotel to Narayanpur Vilage

10.00 Meeting with leaders of District Panchayat

10.30-12.00 Meeting with weavers (Oxfam Project)

12.00-14.30 TRAVEL TO VK PADU VILLAGE

14.30-15.45 Meeting with Panchayat Raj Institution (Panchayat Head and Ward Members + members of village women and youth groups + Ex-Child Labour)

15.45 RETURN TO HYDERABAD

18.45 Arrival at hotel

19.30 TRANSFER TO JUBILEE HALL

20.00 Reception hosted by Mr Madhu Goud Yaskhi, MP Lok Sabha, Indian National Congress, Chair of the India-EU Forum of Parliamentarians (IEUFP), with Members of the Andhra Pradesh Local Assembly Venue: Jubilee Hall, Public Gardens, Hyderabad

22.00 TRANSFER TO HOTEL

Friday 30 April 2010 - Hyderabad

07.45 DEPARTURE FROM THE HOTEL

08.15 Visit of the Hyderabad Development Centre of Infosys [business consulting and strategic IT service outsourcing company servicing Global 2000 businesses]. Breakfast hosted by Infosys, with a presentation by Mr Ravi Kumar S, Head of the Infosys Development Centre in Hyderabad

10.30 DEPARTURE FOR ICRISAT

FdR 817753 26 PE 442.258 11.45 Visit to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Briefing by Dr Dave Hoisington, Deputy Director General- Research followed by lunch hosted by ICRISAT

14.00 TRANSFER TO HOTEL

18.30 Bus to Hyderabad airport for flights and onward connections

FdR 817753 27 PE 442.258 Participants list Round table discussion on Afghanistan and Pakistan policies National Maritime Foundation Delhi, 25 April - 18.30 hrs

1. C. Uday Bhaskar, Secretary, National Maritime Foundation (NMF)

2. K. C. Singh, former Secretary Ministry of External Affairs and Ambassador to Tehran and UAE

3. Prof. C. Raja Mohan, Indian Express and India’s leading expert on Foreign Policy

4. Alok Bansal, security analyst, Executive Director of the NMF and writer (book on Baluchistan)

5. Dr. K. Subrahmanyam, security expert and former Director, Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis

6. Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Cabinet Minister, diplomat, author, now Congress MP, Rajya Sabha

7. Saurabh Kumar, retired diplomat

8. Afsir Karim, General (retrd.), terrorism expert

9. Dr. B. S. Malik, Lieutenant General (Retd.) and former Chief of Staff, Western Command; President of the Centre for Studies in International Relations and Development (CSIRD) & Control Arms Foundation of India (CAFI)

10. Surendra Nihal Singh, former Editor of The Statesman, Indian Expres, Indian Post and the Khaleej Times (Dubai); writer on foreign affairs

From the National Maritime Foundation:

11. Abhijit Singh, Deputy Director, NMF 12. Raja Menon Amira (Retrd.) and Distinguished Fellow, NMF; former Member of National Security Advisory Board 13. Shishir Upadhyaya, Naval Officer working on South-East Asia 14. Joshy Paul, Civilian Researcher working on North-East Asia 15. Zakir Husain Civilian Researcher working on GCC and West Asia 16. Shilpi Ganguly, Programme Associate, NMF 17. Indranil Banerjee, visiting Fellow, NMF, South Asia expert 18. Amit Singh, intern

FdR 817753 28 PE 442.258 Participants list Round table discussion with Chambers of Commerce and think tanks Delhi, 26 April - 10.30 hrs

______

1. Mr Anjan Roy, Economic Advisor, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)

2. Mr Pritam Banerjee, Head of International Division, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)

3. Mr D.S. Rawat, Secretary General, ASSOCHAM

4. Mr Pradeep Mehta, Secretary General ,Consumer Unity Trust Society (CUTS

5. Mr Bipul Chatterjee, Consumer Unity Trust Society (CUTS)

6. Mr Linu Mathew, Executive Director, entre for Trade and Development (CENTAD)

7. Mr Dipak Chatterjee, former Ambassador to the European Union

8. Mr Anil Bhardwaj, Secretary General, Federation of Indian Micro and Small and Medium Size Enterprises (FISME)

FdR 817753 29 PE 442.258 Participants list Meeting with representatives of the Forum Against FTAs, Tuesday 27 April, 8h30, New Delhi

1. R.A Mital, Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) 2. Kavaljit Singh, Madhyam 3. Sudharshen Rao, International Metal Workers' Federation (IMF) 4. Afsar Jafri, Focus on the Global South 5. Shefali Sharma, Third World Network (TWN) 6. Mamata Dash, National Forum For Forest People and Forest Workers (NFFPFW) 7. Dharmendra Kumar, India FDI Watch 8. Prathiba Shiva, Lawyers Collective 9. Vikas, Delhi Network of Positive People (DNP+) 10. G.Manicandan, Centre for Education and Communication (CEC) 11. Susana Barria, Intercultural Resources (ICR)

FdR 817753 30 PE 442.258 Luncheon Discussion “Enhancing India-EU Defence and Security Cooperation” with Indian MPs hosted by the India-EU Forum for Parliamentarians

Delhi, 27 April, 13.00hrs

1:00 PM Welcome Address by Mr. Madhu Yaskhi MP & Chairman, India-EU Forum of Parliamentarians (IEUFP)

1:05 PM Opening Remarks by Dr. Amit Mitra Secretary General, FICCI

1:10 PM Remarks by Ms Daniele Smadja Ambassador, Head of the EU Delegation to India

1:15 PM Mr Graham Watson Chair, EU Delegation for Relations with India

1:20 PM Session open for discussion over lunch

List of MPs

1. Madhu Yaskhi, Indian National Congress, Chairman, India-EU Forum of Parliamentarians 2. Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen 3. Khekiho Zhimomi, Nagaland People's Front 4. E.M.S. Natchiappan, Indian National Congress 5. Shantaram Naik, Indian National Congress 6. Chaudhary Lal Singh, Indian National Congress 7. Birendra Prasad Baishya, Asom Gana Parishad 8. Poonam Jat, Bharatiya Janata Party 9. Milind Deora, Indian National Congress 10. Mohd Hamdulla Sayeed, Indian National Congress 11. Francisco Sardinha, Indian National Congress 12. Ninong Ering, Indian National Congress 13. C M Chang, Nagaland People's Front

FdR 817753 31 PE 442.258 Participants list Working dinner with Civil Society Organisations in charge of EU Projects (DEVCO) Hyderabad, 28 April 2010 - 1900hrs

______

1. Mr. M.R.Vikram, Secretary Trustee of M.V.Foundation [Child Labour] 2. Mr. V. Nanda Gopal, Director, SAKSHI, Human Rights Watch A.P [Dalit Rights] 3. Mr. M. Seshagiri Rao, Lawyer and Secretary, Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL- AP) [Human Rights/ Impunity] 4. Ms. Lalita Iyer, Principal Correspondent, The Week [Social Activist] 5. Mr. K. R. Venugopal, Former Secretary to the PM of India and Special Rapporteur to NHRC [Independent Social Activist + Member NHRC's Core group on Rt to Food] 6. Mr. Gnana Prakasham, Executive Director, Centre for World Solidarity [Governance + Livelihoods] 7. Dr (Ms) Rukmini Rao, Director, Deccan Development Society [Women & Tribal Rights] 8. Dr. Nalini Gangadharan, Chairperson Trustee, CAP Foundation [Vocational Education & Training] 9. Mr.Arvind G Risbud, Executive Director, MYRADA [Vocational Education & Training] 10. Mr. Albert Joseph, Executive Director, FVTRS [Vocational Education & Training] 11. Ms Moutushi Sengupta, Programme Director- Oxfam India, [Livelihoods] 12. Mr. Shaik Anwar, Regional Manager, South India- Oxfam India [Livelihoods] 13. Dr. C.R. Naidu, Former senior police official + Co-Founder of Child and Police (CAP) Foundation [Tribal Issues, Governance] 14. Dr. (Ms.) D. Surya Kumari, Director, Centre for People’s Forestry (CPF) [Tribal + Women's Rights] 15. Ms. Vasanth Kannabiran, Director, ASMITA (Resource Centre for Women) [Human Rights + Women's Rights] 16. Prof. Kodandram, Osmania University (Political Science, Human Rights, Telangana Issue) 17. Ms Leena Joseph, head Mid Day Meal Scheme, Naandi Foundation [Child Rights, Education] 18. Dr G.N.S. Reddy, Director, BAIF [Livelihoods] 19. Dr Y.V. Malla Reddy, Director, Accion Fraterna Ecology Centre [Sustainable Agriculture Watershed Development]

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014

FdR 817753 32 PE 442.258 Delegation for relations with India

EU-INDIA INTERPARLIAMENTARY MEETING NEW DELHI & HYDERABAD, 25-30 APRIL 2010

PARTICIPANTS LIST

MEMBERS Mr Graham WATSON, Chair ALDE United Kingdom Ms Lena KOLARSKA-BOBIŃSKA, 2nd Vice-Chair EPP Poland

Mr Iuliu WINKLER EPP Romania Ms Joanna SKRZYDLEWSKA EPP Poland

Ms Elisa FERREIRA S&D Portugal Mr Jörg LEICHTFRIED S&D Austria

Mr Bill NEWTON DUNN ALDE United Kingdom

Mr Peter VAN DALEN ECR Netherlands

SECRETARIAT Mr Tim BODEN, Head of Secretariat Ms Emma MOLLET, Administrative Assistant Ms Montse GABAS, Administrative Assistant

POLITICAL GROUPS Mr Adriaan BASTIAANSEN, EPP Ms Ruth DE CESARE, S&D Ms Urša PONDELEK, ALDE Mr Jannes DE JONG, ECR

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Mr Richard WILKINSON

FdR 817753 33 PE 442.258