Investigations conducted by the European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF) (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Ingeborg Gräßle, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - C6-0228/2006 -.
Ingeborg Gräßle
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, good things come to those who wait. As rapporteur I am presenting 92 amendments to you today for the revision of the OLAF regulation, with the request that you approve them. This is the first reform of the Anti-Fraud Office since it was established and affects what lies at the very heart of the office, in other words the regulation that controls the essential activities of OLAF.
The European Parliament has given itself two years to revise this regulation, because OLAF issues always represent dangerous territory for us. I am proud of the fact that we in the European Parliament and in the Committee on Budgetary Control were genuinely able to agree and that we remain in agreement. We have not fallen out about the details or generally got into a muddle, as the Council often does. We agree on the objective of the reform which is to create a more efficient office that can carry out its important tasks more effectively.
We stand by the office. We want it to remain in place and we also want it to be able to carry out its tasks. I would like to thank all the employees of OLAF, including the Director General, for their work and to assure them that we need their work. I would also like to thank all my fellow Members, the shadow rapporteurs, the consultants and the committee secretariat and, of course, my own employees who have shown such commitment to this issue. I would like to thank all of you for your wide-ranging support for this work, because this support will represent a success for this Parliament and it is also necessary for its success.
We have worked together to produce a logical development of the already obsolete draft text produced by the Commission and to enhance it with some genuinely innovative elements, such as the Review Adviser for complaints. This will allow us to prevent OLAF from being brought to a standstill and disabled by internal disputes. We have made it our priority to improve the way in which the Member States fight against fraud.
Members of the Council, who are noticeable by your absence once again today, we want to force you to take notice and we will force you to take notice. We want the fight against fraud to be a subject that we share. We do not want to hold a monologue. We want to have a dialogue. Once a year we want to have a joint meeting to discuss the major issues relating to the fight against fraud and the problems in the Member States.
We want to improve the legal protection for those involved in proceedings and to guarantee this protection throughout the entire OLAF investigation. For this reason, we have handed over the entire responsibility to OLAF, its judges and its prosecutors. We want to ensure that the results of OLAF investigations will stand up in court. We want to ensure that national law is taken into account right from the beginning of investigations and that the evidence is obtained under the terms of national law.
We believe it is highly regrettable that some Member States, such as Luxembourg, have never brought an OLAF investigation to court. Any citizens of Luxembourg who are making dishonest use of EU funds have a good chance of getting away scot-free. This has a disastrous impact on respect for the law and this is why we are placing such a great emphasis on equal treatment for everyone affected by an OLAF investigation. EU officials must not be treated differently from other citizens and ordinary citizens must not be treated differently from EU officials.
The Commission would be well advised not even to appear to be attempting to do this. Commissioner, I am on the warpath about this subject. I know that you will reject this point later as unacceptable and that you will insist on this. I think that is a pity! The Parliament will definitely not expose you to the temptation of sweeping the findings of investigations involving EU employees under the Commission's carpet.
We must now convince the Council. The Council is not prepared to negotiate with us over this regulation, but instead aims to consolidate the three legal foundations of OLAF. This means that we are wasting a lot of time over an uncertain outcome and we are missing the opportunity to do what is feasible now, to improve the working conditions of the office and to protect the office from criticism concerning those involved in the proceedings.
We would like the Council to allow us to take those steps which we can take together now. Instead of taking the third step before the first step, we should begin at the beginning. As rapporteur, I am prepared to come to an agreement with the Czech presidency over an early second reading. Where there is a will, there is also a way and I am sure that we can find a joint solution.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Ms Gräßle for her energetic drive in this matter and the Committee on Budgetary Control for forcefully carrying through the debate. The Commission appreciates the considerable work of the rapporteur, who was instrumental in taking up this proposal, pending since 2006. A first proposal had already been made in 2004.
Times have changed since 2004 and 2006. The largest part of OLAF's work now is not with the institutions but with external parties, conducting anti-fraud investigations throughout Europe and indeed throughout the world, wherever EU funds are spent. It has great success in this work, as is widely recognised.
What remains is a schizophrenic situation, if you allow that analytical term: on the one hand OLAF is a 'normal' Commission directorate general, for which the Commission has full responsibility; on the other hand, it is an investigative function, fully independent in its operations, but for which the Commission is also held responsible. Where are the limitations, and where are the limits of independence and accountability in such a set-up?
It is our view that with the necessary independence from outside interference of a credible anti-fraud service comes the need for a clear and strong governance set-up. Clear rules for investigations and strong accountability arrangements are the mirror of operational independence.
There are basically only two options: OLAF as part of the Commission, but with clear allocation and separation of responsibility, or make OLAF entirely independent from any EU institution and ensure separate strong oversight and accountability.
The guiding principles behind the Commission's 2006 proposal were to strengthen the existing OLAF legal framework: a clearer governance set-up for OLAF; reinforced accountability and oversight; reinforced protection of persons under investigation and a reinforced framework for investigations and their follow-up.
On that basis, the Commission can fully support the amendments proposed in the draft report you are voting on today that are in line with the broad objectives of reform, and can thank you for those developed further.
On the other hand, the Commission made it very clear throughout the drafting process that some amendments cannot be taken into account in the current situation, simply because OLAF's present status as a Commission directorate-general does not legally permit such changes.
This includes, for example: OLAF concluding independent cooperation agreements; OLAF's independent appearance before the European Court of Justice; or the European Parliament and the Council deciding on OLAF directorate-general appointments.
The Commission also made clear that it cannot accept a limited number of proposals which, in their current wording, would depart from the governance improvements envisaged or would remove safeguards contained in the current Regulation.
This covers, for example, the scope of the governance framework, the procedural rights of persons concerned or a more effective follow-up of minor cases.
However, the Commission took careful note that, in parallel to the discussion of the current reform proposal, both the European Parliament and the Council repeatedly, and in a particularly insistent manner, stressed their preference for further simplification and consolidation of the entire complex of anti-fraud legislation. The upcoming Czech presidency asked the Commission to present a concept paper on that in time for a working-level discussion scheduled during the latter part of its mandate.
The Commission is therefore striving to present the requested broad reflection paper in early 2009, based on past experience with the existing anti-fraud set-up and the input from the current reform discussion, as well as any other useful elements, as sketched out above. The European Parliament will be fully involved in that.
Let me conclude by stressing again that the Commission is thankful for the support from the European Parliament. The Commission is not shying away from openly saying where, in our view, the limits are, but the Commission has been, and will remain, ready to discuss in a spirit of full transparency and cooperation all issues necessary to designing a strong and credible framework for the future of OLAF and a successful fight against fraud.
Paul Rübig
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr Bösch. He was one of the people who made it possible for OLAF to be established and he was very far-sighted in his view that a body of this kind obviously provides a guarantee for the reputation of European institutions. This is what we need on the international stage. We need a clear, transparent institution which is accessible to European citizens, which clarifies the situation with regard to the disinformation that generally comes from outside Europe and runs contrary to European interests and, from the other perspective, intervenes in cases of abuse and ensures that abuses are eliminated.
For this reason, it is also important that the supervisory committee ensures OLAF's independence and, in particular, that the office of the Director General can in future be guaranteed by the Court of Justice. This will allow OLAF to carry out its work independently and objectively. It is also important that the rights of people who are summonsed or charged by OLAF are clearly demonstrated and this applies also to this House. It is also necessary for the rights of these people to be guaranteed in the European Parliament. Of course, it is also important to collaborate with third countries and with other institutions in the Member States, in particular with courts of auditors at national and regional level, in such a way that the funds provided by Europe are used for their intended purpose and in the best possible way.
I would also like to congratulate Mrs Gräßle on the competence and strength of will with which she is ensuring the success of this highly complex dossier. I wish her every success and hope that it will soon be implemented.
Herbert Bösch
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, thank you, Mr Rübig, for your praise. We really should be rather proud. It was this committee - and I would like to remind you about someone else as well - it was the Committee for Budgetary Control of this Parliament under the chairmanship of our esteemed fellow Member Diemut Theato who made use of the window of opportunity in the spring of 1999 to create the Anti-Fraud Office. We should also remember what the basic principles were. These included, of course, independent investigations and also the fact that OLAF was always regarded as a provisional solution. We are waiting until we have a European prosecutor and then OLAF will no longer be what it is today. For this reason, we have always emphasised the importance of a powerful supervisory committee and of a high level of independence. Some time ago we held a seminar on this subject which confirmed that the independence of OLAF was not, in fact, at risk.
This is also a compliment to the Commission. I have a great deal of understanding for what Mr Kallas has said. With this hybrid function that is partially independent and partially dependent, it is not easy to implement something like this and, therefore, I am very curious to see what will be included in a consultation paper. Of course it is unacceptable that some of the guarantors of OLAF's independence, in other words the Council, are not taking part in this debate. The system cannot work in this way. If you are unable to create an independent body, then you can only guarantee independence by ensuring that as many people as possible are tensioning the net, with everyone pulling a bit from different sides. Otherwise, OLAF will suddenly find itself hanging from only one thread and will no longer be independent. The three bodies which must pull on the net and retain a critical distance from OLAF, because not everything that OLAF does is wonderful, are the Council, the Commission and Parliament. If we ignore these principles, then OLAF's success will be jeopardised. I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work and hope that we make progress in good time, as the previous speaker has said.
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Kallas, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur warmly. She has put in a huge amount of hard work, which is a rare occurrence these days.
OLAF is a very special body within the EU: an independent anti-corruption agency which is the envy of other international organisations. It was this Parliament - as explained by Mr Bösch and Mr Rübig - which, following bad experiences with OLAF's predecessor, insisted on the independence of the new Anti-Fraud Office. We should remember that, at the time, OLAF was only allocated or linked to the Commission for practical reasons.
Unfortunately, for many people the memories of the scandals of 1999 have already faded, along with any respect for the necessary independence of an anti-corruption authority. From today's perspective, the existing safeguards are no longer sufficient to protect OLAF from the exertion of influence and, above all, from increasing blockades. Let us be clear about one thing right from the start: OLAF is there to combat fraud. It is a body which ensures that taxpayers' money is used appropriately. Therefore there are five points which we are supporting by means of this report to promote OLAF's independence:
Firstly, the right of the General Director to intervene in cases heard by the European Court of Justice. This right ensures that OLAF can consistently defend the results of its investigations. The second important guarantee is the right of the supervisory committee, the Commission or another body to bring a case before the European Court of Justice if OLAF's independence is jeopardised. This sharp sword is necessary because warnings from the supervisory committee have simply been ignored in the past.
Thirdly, OLAF's independence is also guaranteed by its obligation to bring before the courts the facts of a case which could constitute the elements of a crime.
The fourth point is the importance of the skills and strength of character of the people responsible. Fifthly, I am pleased that the Director General of OLAF is being reappointed. Experience and performance are both important here.
We should try to avoid denigrating OLAF. The experiences of other anti-corruption authorities show that this does not help anyone. However, I do agree fully with Mr Bösch that the Council must be involved. No French or Czech explanation for this is forthcoming. They are not even present and in the end the system simply cannot work like this.
Ryszard Czarnecki
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, our debate occurs on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the establishment of OLAF. The European Anti-Fraud Office rose from the ruins of Jacques Santerre's compromised European Commission, accused of corruption and nepotism. Life has shown that OLAF is essential for the efficient functioning of EU administration; at the same time, its existence and operation send a signal to EU Member States, reminding them that European Union bodies are under constant supervision, control and examination. OLAF's work raises the prestige of European institutions in its own right.
The current, well advanced, project is intended to strengthen OLAF's role by first, streamlining its working conditions, second, improving the quality of its operations and third, as noted by previous speakers, strengthening its independence - may I at this point thank the rapporteur. The work has been going on for almost four years. It was initiated by the European Commission, mindful of the unfortunate experiences of nine years ago, when it was forced to resign. The document specifying the new OLAF framework was the subject of consultations with the Council of the European Union, the Court of Auditors and the Data Protection Ombudsman; in addition, importantly, a public hearing was held - in other words, public opinion was consulted. The proposals of the public hearing and of the Court's special report resulted in significant amendments to the original proposals of four years ago. For instance, it proved necessary to spell out the particulars of cooperation between OLAF and EU Member States and with the European Union's institutions, bodies and organisations.
A key issue is to achieve real strengthening of OLAF's independence. Its personnel must be able to operate in conditions of total independence. Where OLAF needs to investigate the allocation of EU funds, whether intended for Member States or for external assistance, the involvement of interested third countries and international organisations must be ensured. To streamline its operations, OLAF must be guaranteed immediate and automatic access to European Union fund management data bases, as well as all data bases and important information, by the relevant EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. This would go against the formerly entrenched practice whereby the same institutions sealed themselves off tightly against all controls.
Member States cannot regard OLAF as an enemy or a redundant institution. Every EU state should nominate a body to cooperate with OLAF on a day-to-day basis. As is well known, not all our 27 Member States have created specialist national-level services to coordinate combating financial abuses involving EU funds. We need close cooperation between OLAF and Europol, as well as OLAF and Eurojust.
OLAF must also act transparently in the matter of its investigative procedures and guarantees, verification of the lawfulness of its investigations and appeal procedures for those already suspect or soon to become suspect. Where procedures involving Member States are concerned, the audits could be carried out by representatives of the relevant Member States. Representatives of judicial authorities, and in fact those involved in OLAF structures, could participate. This is the main thrust of the amendments.
At the same time, I oppose the imposition of excessive sanctions on European institution officials guilty of unauthorised disclosure of information about specific offices and potentially corrupt practices. The case of a colleague, Mr van Buitenen, today an MEP but formerly a European Commission official, suggests that in the past those who were victimised were not those guilty of abuses but those who drew attention to those abuses, pursued and disclosed them. Let this experience serve as a warning also when we come to specific provisions relating to penalties and sanctions to be imposed on whistleblowers.
Finally, the citizens of Member States frequently overzealously identify corruption and abuse with European institutions. To counteract this tendency, we need greater transparency in the operation of EU bodies, and certainly better information about investigations and the methods used by the European Union to combat corruption. It is a big mistake to conceal such information under the pretext that its disclosure will damage the prestige of the EU. Quite the contrary, we must publicise such matters, to make the citizens and taxpayers of European Union Member States aware that we do not sweep theft shamefully under the carpet.
Bart Staes
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an exercise in making legislation in the framework of the codecision procedure. This means cooperation between Parliament and the Council, the latter of which, indeed, appears to be absent. Let us be honest. The French Presidency is not in the slightest bit interested. This also explains their absence. I do hope Mrs Gräßle will reach agreement at first reading with the Czech Presidency, but somehow I do not think this will happen. The Chechens will not display much in the way of decisiveness either.
In addition to the five points which Mr Chatzimarkakis listed and which I fully endorse, I should like to list another ten points which we in the Committee on Budgetary Control deem important in the cooperation with Mrs Gräßle and which we, in fact, consider absolutely essential.
First of all, we are in favour of improved cooperation between OLAF and Eurojust when it comes to exchanging information on cross-border crimes between more than two Member States. The cooperation agreement between OLAF, Eurojust and Europol is of huge importance.
Secondly, we would like to see the role and the duties of the Director-General of OLAF, the anti-fraud office, better described. That way, we can also call him to account.
Thirdly, we would like to see the tasks of the OLAF staff better described. A requirement should be introduced to make investigations last less than 12 months and extend them by a maximum of 6 months. If an investigation lasts over 18 months, then feedback should be given to the supervisory committee.
Fourthly, the rights of the defence must be clearly reinforced. Fifthly, journalists' sources must enjoy specific guaranteed protection. Sixthly, we need clearer agreements about the role and relationship between OLAF and the European Parliament and the Committee on Budgetary Control.
Seventhly, we need clear rules about the openness of information intended for the general public. Eighthly, the role of the supervisory committee, including in terms of staff and the composition of the committee itself, must be reinforced. They should be experts, appointed for five years, with investigative experience in the judicial world.
Ninthly, we need a better procedure for the appointment of the Director-General. Tenthly, the role of whistle blowers and of people under investigation must be better protected.
Erik Meijer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, the EU's money streams are prone to fraud. Since a huge chunk of its outgoings are related to the common agricultural policy and regional funds, the Union is becoming nothing but a middleman. As a result, responsibility is shared with others who consider the pledged funds as their own. Collecting funds centrally to subsequently share them out to interested parties or projects in municipalities or provinces renders control more difficult.
This week, we invited the Council to agree that more funds should be given for school fruit. An arrangement of this kind is useful for the children's health, but this is best organised on a small scale at local level rather than the most large-scale level we know in Europe. We may be able to reduce the risk of fraud considerably by focusing money streams on budget support or levelling contributions for the poorer regions, with the only criterion that the residents of those areas must be given every opportunity of staying in their regions of origin to live and work. If we remove discrepancies in income, create jobs and provide good facilities, much of the labour migration will become unnecessary. This will also reduce the ensuing problems.
We have not reached that stage yet. As long as the outgoings remain prone to fraud, extensive checks and fraud control will need to remain in place. A high level of funding and staffing are not enough: The anti-fraud office OLAF can only function properly if it can be completely independent and critical in respect of the Commission and Council. When the present Director was appointed, the recommendation by an independent selection panel that put forward the seven most suitable candidates was put aside. The Commission considered the present Director to be its favourite candidate from the outset. He is also rumoured to want to exert too much influence over the selection of his staff, making them too dependent on him. None of this does anything to boost confidence in the seriousness of fraud control. Many voters consider this chaotic Europe as a fraud paradise.
Moreover, it appears that whistleblowers cannot pass on their suspicions related to fraud to OLAF in a safe manner. If their roles leak, they can be dismissed for violating secrecy by way of penalty. Moreover, all too often, we wait until the press drags a scandal into the public arena and the statute of limitations has run out on offences. Also, there is not enough provision for hearing both sides of the argument. Too many investigations are delayed or stopped before a satisfactory outcome has been reached.
The Gräßle report makes the first small steps in the right direction. It could lead to more autonomy for OLAF, to less control of the working method by the European Commission and to better protection for those involved. My group supports these first steps, but we do not labour under the illusion that they will solve the problem. The supervisory committee will need to be strengthened further and codecision about amending this Regulation No 1073/1999 must not be delayed or stopped.
Nils Lundgren
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, there have been countless scandals as a result of corruption, fraud and irregularities throughout the EU's history. Public trust in the EU is low. In Sweden, we measure the Swedish people's trust in various institutions each year. At the top we find, for example, the health care service, the police and the royal family, and lower down come the politicians, trade unions and the evening papers. At the very bottom are the European Commission and the European Parliament. This pattern is consistent.
Thus, the EU needs an effective anti-fraud authority. But we have had bad experiences of OLAF, including a lack of independence, a lack of transparency, secret lobbying in connection with the appointment of the director general and the Supervisory Committee.
Our rapporteur, Mrs Gräßle, has put a lot of work into guaranteeing independence, transparency and strict observation of the rules. I call on the House to give its full support to Mrs Gräßle's proposal. It is an important first step on the EU's long path, if possible, to win the trust of its citizens.
Allow me to finish by making a particularly strong plea in favour of an amendment that I myself have put forward. This requires all EU bodies to respect journalists' sources.
After the scandalous Tillack affair, where the actions of the OLAF leadership warrant sharp criticism, this reform is absolutely necessary. In the end it was the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg that fully acquitted Tillack last year. Neither OLAF, the European Parliament nor the European Court of Justice accepted their responsibility.
Philip Claeys
(NL) Madam President, it is very important for the European Union to have an efficient and well-developed anti-fraud office, all the more so given how much budgets are increasing and foreign aid growing, without it always being possible to monitor effectively whether the deployed means are spent wisely. I think that public opinion, the tax payer in other words, often questions this, with good reason.
This report contains a large number of sound proposals and I for one will be endorsing it, even though I believe that more thought should be given to OLAF's independence. OLAF is a Directorate-General of the European Commission, and the political responsibility rests with the Vice-President of the Commission. Operationally and in terms of research, the office is independent, but this hybrid status is potentially problematic, to say the least. I am convinced that independent status could only reinforce the office's clout.
Antonio De Blasio
Madam President, I would like to congratulate Dr Gräßle. Our rapporteur tried to reconcile all the parties and by doing this she could identify current problems, could find practical solutions and could find compromise.
At present things are not too satisfactory. We see the Court of Auditors refusal to sign off the EU's account for the 14th time in a row due to the number of irregularities and fraud cases which involve EU money. It is high time to support a tougher approach tackling the misuse of EU funds. Since the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's office is postponed, it is high time to move forward in the fight against fraud by strengthening the independence of the European Anti-fraud Office and by strengthening the investigative power of OLAF.
There is an important point in the Gräßle report: strengthening cooperation with the Member States. Although the regulation states that all national and international partners must provide all the cooperation necessary, there is no detailed legal basis for such cooperation. The number of obstacles even increases when we come to cross-border anti-fraud cooperation. There is a great need, therefore, for the amended regulation which comprises a better cooperation management between OLAF and the competent authorities of the Member States. The only institution which really has the means to protect the financial interest of the EU is the European Parliament. If we do not stand up for the fight against corruption and fraud, there is no one to replace us.
Finally, I would like to raise an interesting point. While the European countries are among the so-called 'cleanest countries' in the 2008 Global Corruption Perception Index, according to recent studies these wealthy countries like to show preference for using illegal means, for example bribery, in their outside overseas businesses. I agree with all those who find these double standards unacceptable.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) Madam President, I want to start by congratulating Mrs Gräßle and in particular thanking her for her openness to suggestions and proposals. I can say that - and I congratulate you on this - you successfully led a dynamic work team to achieve the best possible results. Congratulations, Mrs Gräßle!
I believe that the most important element in this text, which my Group at least also fought for and on which Mrs Gräßle's attention was focused, is the guarantee that the rights of citizens under investigation will be protected.
The principles of presumption of innocence, privacy and confidentiality, the procedural guarantees and also the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union will from now on be the key points of this procedural code for OLAF investigations. We want this to be published as soon as possible and to be sent - in fact it must be sent - to the Review Adviser appointed for this purpose so that a response can be given to citizens' complaints within 30 working days.
The role of the Supervisory Committee has also been reinforced. This must protect the independence of OLAF through regular monitoring of the implementation of its investigative function. In addition, and this is something I must highlight and which I assume Mrs Gräßle will also highlight, it can appear before the Court of Justice, as can the Director General, who can also bring the institutions before the Court of Justice. This was something that the rapporteur was keen to ensure. In this way, the role of the Director General of OLAF will also be more protected and have greater safeguards.
The role of the European Parliament in the institutional conciliation procedure is also reinforced. I believe that this is an important and innovative element. Although we would have preferred not to increase the extension periods, because two years still seems to us to be too long, we understand that investigations can be difficult and complex. However, we hope that the Commission - and here I must also thank Mr Kallas for his openness and for the support that he gave us - after the four-year period when the report on the regulation's implementation should be presented to us, will be able to tell us how we can improve this point of reducing the investigation periods as far as possible.
We are still hoping for a European Public Prosecutor, a desire that we share with the rapporteur. Thank you, Mrs Gräßle!
Paul van Buitenen
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, I am filled with sadness. At Mrs Gräßle's proposal, OLAF is unwittingly being accorded additional powers, while OLAF itself is not subject to adequate supervision. In 1999, the then Committee of Wise Men predicted that, as an internal Commission office, OLAF would refuse to work with a powerless supervisory committee. The effects are clear for everyone to see. Unhindered by accountability and control, OLAF's management, and particularly its Director-General, has slipped up time and again. Staged staff selection, violation of the rights of the defence, concealment of evidence and submission of criminal dossiers with lapsed prosecution deadlines. The pièce de résistance is OLAF's own dreamed up charge of bribery against a journalist who was too well informed for OLAF's liking. In fact, OLAF even managed to secure a house search, at which point the journalist's belongings were confiscated. OLAF subsequently lied about the full facts to the Commission, Parliament, the law courts, the ombudsman and the public prosecutors in Belgium and Germany for years. In fact, OLAF has sent its own researchers out with false information. How far can they take this?
The Commission is aware of this, and says this has to stop, but claims it is not authorised to act. This is precisely why the Commission has withdrawn this proposal. As you already indicated, it was made with the best of intentions. Our increasing insight into current abuses, though, make it necessary for a different supervisory body to monitor OLAF, and one of the options indicated by yourself is coming to an end. The solution is an independent OLAF which operates independently of the Commission and under competent supervision, that is not appointed by politicians but by public prosecutors of the Member States, until such time as a European public prosecution is formed.
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) Madam President, the fact that the European Union has such a poor public image unfortunately has a great deal to do with OLAF. I agree with the previous speaker that OLAF is neither fish nor fowl and it takes a characteristically arbitrary approach. OLAF employees have been coming to me and telling me how depressing things are, that two types of measurements are used and that no clear standards are set. One OLAF employee even compared OLAF's practices with those of the secret police, in other words, an undemocratic institution. The occasion was, of course, once again the so-called Galvin report, the internal report in which many of the practices of Members of the European Parliament are disclosed which, if OLAF were to use the same standards, would have led to large-scale investigations, including one of Herbert Bösch, who refers to himself as the father of OLAF.
What is happening in this case to the German Members among others? What is happening to many other Members? Instead of taking the correct approach and doing what was done in my case, in other words, saying that we are acting on our own initiative, where there is clear suspicion of fraud, for example tax evasion or illegal party funding, OLAF sits back and does nothing. Of course, this also has a lot to do with the personal approach of the current Director General. This is a challenge for you, Commissioner. What is happening here is not worthy of a democracy. In my case, they made up technical errors and searched and searched. In the end there was no truth in the accusations, which was embarrassing for OLAF.
However, in cases where there may be some truth in the suspicions of fraud, they do nothing and simply look the other way. For this reason, I am of the opinion that many EU officials work in the same way as OLAF and that an EU officialdom of this kind can no longer be supported, that many EU officials should be brought before a court and that we need true democracy at a European level at last, with separation of powers, and not an OLAF like the one we currently have!
Herbert Bösch
(DE) Madam President, I would like to clarify that Mr Martin, who is just coming in, has stated in one of his points, that OLAF should have investigated Mr Bösch. That should not be allowed. It would mean that there is a suspicion of fraud in this case, because I know that OLAF can only carry out investigations in the case of suspected fraud.
I would ask the Bureau to resolve this issue. I reject the accusation. This sort of thing simply should not be allowed! I hope that appropriate measures are taken against Mr Martin. Without any evidence, he has stated that OLAF should have taken proceedings against Mr Bösch and other German fellow Members. This should not happen and I expect measures to be taken in this case.
(Applause)
Markus Pieper
(DE) Madam President, the Member States, Europol and Eurojust will now have to concern themselves on a regular basis with OLAF's findings.
The information provided by the European Anti-Fraud Office will pass directly to the police and to the justice system and will be binding. As a member of the Committee on Regional Development, I warmly welcome this reform. OLAF must make use of its new powers, because the structural funds are a major problem for us. The number of irregularities has increased dramatically and the amount of damages rose from EUR 43 million in 1998 to EUR 828 million in 2007. This increase is not acceptable. Therefore, it is good that we are improving the controls and the prosecution process. However, we must also press more strongly for the Member States to publish the names of their subsidy recipients.
We should also explain one of the causes of the abuse. I am of the opinion that we put too little emphasis on the responsibility of the regions when we allocate the funds. For this reason, we must increase the mandatory joint financing by the regions and the project promoters and we must offer more loan-based programmes. If the recipients of the funding can identify more closely with the potential lasting success of their projects, there will be less abuse and less work for OLAF.
Christopher Heaton-Harris
Madam President, before I make my point, I would just like to make a comment to my colleague, Mr Martin. Whilst he has some very valid points to make, in his scattergun approach he should not try and take out an honest, decent and good man like Mr Bösch, who in my experience of his chairmanship of the Committee on Budgetary Control - even though we might disagree on many points - is exactly what I have described him as.
My concern with OLAF's problem is that it has a huge conflict of interests going on. It is not necessarily OLAF itself, but the strange relationship whereby it is part of the Commission, even though it is occasionally called upon to investigate that body. That is why I am concerned that OLAF, which was born following the 1999 'Wise Men's' report - and that report called for it to be independent of the Commission - spends less and less of its time investigating internal Commission matters. Certainly some of its other investigations are very sexy and exciting, but I am not convinced that Mrs Gräßle's report addresses the problems of OLAF's independence in this way.
Finally, I am concerned that there is another level of conflict of interests. Should OLAF members of staff be allowed to have relatives working in parts of the EU institutions that they might be investigating? Indeed, should we not - this Parliament that has banned spouses from working for MEPs - now extend this call to say that only one family member should work in any of the EU institutions to prevent such future conflicts of interests?
Paul Rübig
(DE) Madam President, I believe that it is particularly important for OLAF to make a distinction between disinformation, which in some cases is controlled from outside Europe, and the bureaucratic treaties which are often 50 to 60 pages long and the manuals of over 600 pages, where, of course, the most errors occur.
We should explain here that clear and simple regulations are much easier to follow than complex and comprehensive ones. This is why I am specifically calling on the Council to improve the basic conditions as quickly as possible. We need OLAF for transparency and justice in Europe.
Siim Kallas
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I am grateful for all the remarks, which reflect very clearly the controversial nature of this topic.
As Ms Gräßle mentioned, this proposal started in 2004, when times were completely different.
I like the expression 'there is a conflict of interests'. There is a clear institutional conflict of interests between independence and accountability. We must continue to work and have this debate. Whatever will happen cannot happen without collaboration between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on how to solve this conflict of interests. As I have said, there are not many, but some, possibilities. Most of you clearly support the idea of greater independence, which also means greater accountability. Let us find out what is possible. There are certain clear limits within the Commission. It is very clear that the directorate general cannot go independently to the courts: it is not possible within the legal framework.
A very important point mentioned by many of you was the right to go to the Member States. Again, it is the Commission that takes action in the Member States, and there are clear limits to the extent of involvement by the Commission which is acceptable to Member States. The Commission is accountable here and to the public for OLAF's activities, so we would be very happy to have a more independent OLAF, which could go independently to the courts and be independently accountable, with a separate discharge. We would welcome all these things and also very clear supervision both of the investigations and of the content of those investigations.
At present we do not have a public prosecutor. This is what we await, but while we are waiting we must find some other solutions. Let us continue this work. As I said, we will formulate a concept paper on the basis of this discussion. I am looking forward to fruitful debates with the honourable Members and the rapporteurs on this issue.
Ingeborg Gräßle
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate. I believe that the Commissioner has now realised how important the independence of OLAF is to this Parliament. I would also like this debate to be included in the discussions which we will now be holding. I would like to request that we start these discussions gradually, that we exchange ideas about the amendments and that we do not reach the position of saying 'that is not possible'. This is the will of Parliament. We are part of the codecision-making procedure and we will require the EU Commission to take part in the procedure as well. We are supporting you. We want you to retain your influence on OLAF, but you must exert your influence in the right place and provide OLAF with more support than was previously the case.
We are only partially satisfied and that is also the result of the work of the EU Commission. There are many subjects on the table which need very serious discussion. I am ready for this and I am looking forward to the debate. However, I would like there to be a sort of loosening-up exercise at the start of the debate for the Commission, because there is no point in us even sitting down together if everything that you have presented today is already cast in concrete and set in stone. We must talk very seriously together about what is possible and also what is not possible.
I would like to reject two points. One is the distorted image of OLAF which some fellow Members are painting on the basis of their own small-minded self-interest. It is a distorted image which has nothing to do with reality. I would like to make sure that OLAF is aware that this image does not represent the majority opinion of the House. We believe that OLAF is doing an important job and this also applies in the case of Mr Martin. It was not the case that there was no truth in the story. However, it was true that the Austrian state prosecutor's office did not want to follow up on the results of OLAF's investigation. That happens frequently.
You, Mr Martin, must also speak the truth in this House. This applies to you too. I would like to say to Mr van Buitenen that I very much regret that you did not accept the offers of cooperation. We have spoken together twice, but I do not believe that you can look at OLAF on the basis of individual cases. Something always goes wrong in organisations, but looking at the whole organisation on the basis of these individual cases does not give the right picture. I have tried not to do this. I would like to make this very clear. On a personal level, I hold you in high esteem and I have read all your books. However, I believe that there are different ways of working and in politics we always run the risk of coming to the wrong conclusion by focusing on individual cases.
I believe that the report in front of us is a good one.
Hans-Peter Martin
(DE) Madam President, I refer to Articles 145 and 149 on personal statements, which allows me three minutes. What is happening here is simply outrageous. OLAF is making something out of nothing and making an accusation against me on the basis of its own investigations. This had a huge impact on our election success in 2006. A year later the state prosecutor decided that there may have been a few small technical errors, but that they did not under any circumstances justify an investigation of any kind. No proceedings were taken and the whole thing was abandoned. Nothing happened at all.
What Mrs Gräßle has said here is slander. It is a continuing attempt to destroy my reputation. This is exactly how OLAF exploits the situation. If OLAF comes to a conclusion, but the Member States do nothing, then the person is still guilty. That is a complete scandal! Where are the double standards in this scandal, Mrs Gräßle? The double standards lie in the fact that where there are genuinely suspicious circumstances relating to Members of this Parliament, relating to other Members, no investigation is carried out and nothing at all is done. This is undermining democracy in Europe. This is because a secret tool which is under political control is being used to speak out and to act against troublesome opponents and then attempts are made to make something out of this and genuinely false statements are made, despite the fact that government institutions - and I have a high opinion of the relatively independent Austrian judicial system - say that there is no truth in it. This is a slap in the face for every voter and a slap in the face for Europe's credibility. If you are elected with 14% of the vote and then you are humiliated like this and incorrect facts are passed on repeatedly, this ruins what was previously regarded as a fair and integrative system. You are damaging Europe and destroying democracy, Mrs Gräßle!
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.


1. Sri Lanka: follow-up of the UN report (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Sri Lanka.
Paul Murphy
author. - Mr President, in the brutal war of the Sri Lanka Government against the Tamil minority, at least 40 000 Tamils were killed within the space of a few weeks and hundreds of thousands were detained in open air prison camps. The UN report at long last publicly acknowledges the crimes that were committed against the Tamil people. Unfortunately, there should be no illusions that the report will change the conditions of Tamils in Sri Lanka.
The day after its publication, it was reported that the UN Secretary-General would only launch an international investigation if the Sri Lankan Government agrees or an international forum such as the UN Foreign Security Council calls for an inquiry. Given the nature of the Sri Lankan Government, it is obvious that it will not allow any international investigation. It highlights once again the need to campaign for a genuinely independent inquiry into the war crimes and for the Rajapaksa regime to be held responsible.
On 18 May, there will be protests around the world organised by many groups, including the Tamil Solidarity Campaign, to mark the second anniversary of this bloody war. A united struggle of Sinhalese and Tamil people is still needed to defeat this regime and fight for the right of self-determination for the Tamil-speaking people.
Geoffrey Van Orden
author. - Mr President, we only have to hear those opening remarks to understand why I very much regret that we are having this debate today. It is being promoted by extremist elements in the Tamil diaspora, the same people who have helped sustain the LTTE terrorist campaign over many years through political activity, and often from the proceeds of crime.
Of course, the final stages of the LTTE campaign were awful. The UN's Darusman report, which is the immediate pretext for this debate, states clearly that in those final stages, the LTTE used the civilian population as human shields, intensified the forcible recruitment of civilians, including children, into its ranks, executed civilians who attempted to escape the conflict zone and deployed artillery in proximity to displaced civilians and civilian installations such as hospitals. This does not excuse the shelling of civilian targets, but it does put it into context and shows where the blame lies.
Instead of trying to bring together the peoples of Sri Lanka, there are those who seek to continue a campaign of hatred and division. They see this Darusman report as a weapon in this campaign, and just want to put the Sri Lankan Government in the dock.
This approach is malicious and counter-productive. The government of Sri Lanka and the Commission have set up the LLRC to investigate human rights allegations. Let us do all that we can to support them and the peoples of Sri Lanka, instead of attacking them.
Véronique De Keyser
Mr President, from the very first words, you have all understood that the debate would be quite lively and that there would be two views.
I should say that my group aligns itself neither with one side nor with the other, but simply with the side of justice and of reconciliation. I believe that there can be no reconciliation, in those countries, like Sri Lanka, but there are certainly many others, which have experienced atrocious wars, unless justice is done.
Well, what does this United Nations report to which Mr Van Orden refers do? It simply restates the facts and calls for there to be a mechanism for international justice, which one knows must be approved by the government. That is the very least. How would you like there to be reconciliation of a people? It is on both sides, Mr Van Orden. It is not only on the Tamil side. There have been crimes on both sides. Both sides are responsible. It is by both sides that justice must be done.
The report also states, and I apologise for this, that the reconciliation commission that has just been mentioned did not have an investigative element of a sufficiently high standard. Finally, I fear that a national organ of justice will not finally result in a clarification of the facts. That is why, quite simply and in the name of all those who have suffered on both sides, I say that this House can only support this report in order to shed more light and have more justice. That is the only message that I should like to pass on today. I shall not have used up all my allotted time, but that is the essential message for this House.
Thomas Mann
Mr President, in February, I went to Sri Lanka with the Delegation for Relations with South Asia. Whilst there, we witnessed the enormous efforts to overcome the consequences of a 25-year civil war. The European Union, the United Nations and NGOs are providing help, from the clearing of landmines by the HALO Trust through to the resettlement of the Tamils in their former home. We call on the government there to respond positively to the recommendations of the UN's panel of experts, which highlighted war crimes and crimes against humanity on the parts of both the Sinhalese and the LTTE.
It is encouraging that the government has set up a commission to deal with reconciliation, establish legal jurisdiction, solve language problems and deal with former front-line soldiers. The consistent willingness to cooperate, the will to integrate minorities and the assurance of maintaining international legal norms form the basis for the development of a country that, without violence and terror, has a real future.
We emphatically call on the EU's High Representative to support efforts of this kind.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
author. - Mr President, the conflict in Sri Lanka may be over, but many questions remain unanswered. An end to a conflict does not necessarily mean that the conflict is over in people's minds.
Victory is not the same as peace. It takes time, effort and especially commitment and strong will to overcome the scars of a conflict. Reconciliation is imperative. Justice is vital for a new beginning. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Government should immediately start investigations on the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.
Both sides need to be investigated. International conventions to which Sri Lanka is a party require investigations on the alleged violations and the prosecution of those who are responsible. Only by means of an open and honest investigation and through justice can the Sri Lankan people heal the wounds of a long and difficult conflict and continue their lives in peace.
The ALDE Group applauds UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's report and initiative on Sri Lanka. We fully support the UN recommendations.
Heidi Hautala
author. - Mr President, on 23 May 2009, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and the President of Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa, signed a joint statement in which Sri Lanka agreed to guarantee accountability for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war which ended in May 2009.
After this agreement was not honoured by the Sri Lankan Government, the UN Secretary-General appointed a panel of experts to advise him on modalities for an accountability process. The report, which was published very recently, made credible allegations that both government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam failed to respect the norms of international law. The report stressed the need for accountability on both sides.
The Sri Lankan Government has dismissed the panel's report, calling it illegal and biased. I believe that it is an objective reason for further investigations. At a time when the creditable and legitimate work of international human rights bodies is being discredited, it is for this House to step up and defend international law. War crimes must never go unpunished, no matter where they occur.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
Mr President, the civil war in Sri Lanka lasted 25 years and ended with the defeat of the Tamil Tigers. The last stages of the war were especially bloody and thousands died in its last few months.
According to the new report by the UN, it is very likely that the Tamil Tigers and government troops will be found guilty of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights committed in the final stages of the conflict. The Tamil Tigers are suspected of shooting civilians trying to flee. The government killed civilians in shellfire. These are both serious crimes and they cannot be ignored. That is why it is important that the UN can carry out an impartial and open investigation into the matter.
Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan Government has been unwilling to allow the investigation to go ahead without its approval, unless the UN Member States unanimously insist. It is extremely important that Sri Lanka adopts a constructive attitude and is willing to cooperate. A sense of responsibility is vital for the reconciliation process. The EU must support efforts to strengthen Sri Lanka's sense of responsibility.
Ana Gomes
The conclusions of the Darusman report for the United Nations (UN) point to the massacre of tens of thousands of civilians, war crimes and crimes against humanity, alongside other terrible humanitarian law violations, committed by both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan Government.
Carrying out an independent investigation and bringing those responsible to justice is not a political choice but an obligation under international law. The Reconciliation Commission established by the government does not meet basic requirements for independence. Therefore, the international community - specifically the European Union and the UN Security Council - must offer their unconditional support for the report's recommendations and take urgent steps towards the creation of an independent international mechanism to monitor the Sri Lankan Government's actions, ensure that crimes committed on both sides are investigated, and seek justice for the Sri Lankan people.
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica
Mr President, I wish to support this resolution on human rights violations and war crimes committed in Sri Lanka.
It is crucial, in addition to expressing our solidarity with the victims and condemning the violence, and given the concerns regarding the judiciary's lack of independence, to promote a serious, impartial, transparent investigation to be undertaken by an independent body so that the people responsible on both sides of the conflict can be identified and punished.
Impunity for war crimes must end if we want to prevent them from being repeated in the future. In Sri Lanka, the civilian population was bombed, among other atrocities.
Seventy-four years ago in my own country, Franco's troops bombed the town of Guernica, killing more than half of the population, an episode famously depicted by Picasso. Ever since, Guernica has been a universal symbol for peace and resistance.
However, it is everyone's wish to make progress towards reconciliation. We must therefore encourage, help and also push the Sri Lankan Government to continue these prosecutions so that true peace and justice can be attained.
Karima Delli
Mr President, the United Nations report, published on 11 April, throws light on the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed in Sri Lanka in the conflict between the government forces of Mr Rajapaksa and the Tamil Tiger independence movement. The clashes in May and June 2009 gave rise to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and thousands of civilians lost their lives. We cannot accept the impunity of those responsible and of the authors of these crimes. The government of Mr Rajapaksa has done everything in its power to prevent publication of the UN report and it even contests its conclusions.
In Sri Lanka, the press is muzzled, and journalists are subject to intimidation and arbitrary detention. The main opposition Internet information site has had its access blocked by the judicial authorities, while access to refugee camps is still currently extremely restricted, including for the United Nations. The Tamil minority is the victim of a genocide that dare not speak its name. We must urgently send European Parliament observers to the north of Sri Lanka to see what is really happening there and reassert the principle of the self-determination of peoples.
(The speaker agreed to take two blue card questions under Rule 149(8))
Charles Tannock
Mr President: I heard it directly in French and the word used was 'génocide', which means 'genocide', and that has a particular significance in international law.
If such were the intent of the Sri Lankan Government, how come they have just released 200 000 Tamils who were prisoners? It is absurd to accuse the Sri Lankan Government of genocide. I would hope that the Member would retract that statement.
Karima Delli
(FR) Mr Tannock, I used that word by way of a metaphor, above all, to label the phenomenon. However, I have made it clear that it was not the name. The facts have to be established. In any case, what is happening to the Tamil minority cannot be shrugged off as a simply anodyne act.
Geoffrey Van Orden
Mr President, the previous speaker mentioned that she is calling for some sort of commission to go to Sri Lanka to look at what is going on on the ground there. Could I just remind her that the South Asia delegation has just been to Sri Lanka - and I see several members of that delegation in the Chamber. Indeed, my colleague, Mr Mann, referred to the visit there: the previous speaker is obviously not listening to what is going on in this debate. People have been to Sri Lanka. They know Sri Lanka and they know what is going on. I do not know where Ms Delli is getting all this nonsense from.
Karima Delli
(FR) You are right, we have already sent a mission and I acknowledge the formidable character of that mission, seeing that you worked on it. However, we can also exert pressure, which means that we must absolutely repeat this type of operation.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, Sri Lanka is a ravaged land. The civil war officially ended nearly two years ago, and we know in what conditions it took place. In that country, the United Nations failed badly. The reports from non-governmental organisations are damning. Thousands of civilians were killed between January and May 2009. Atrocities were committed by both camps, but it seems to be accepted that the pro-government forces knowingly shelled zones where they had encouraged the civilian population to take refuge.
Since that time, the Sri Lankan Government has been manoeuvring to exonerate itself and impede access to justice by those who must be called, at the very least, victims of war crimes. It has not ceased to try and underestimate the number of civilians present in the war zone while it has even deprived them of all humanitarian aid, including food, water and healthcare. The Tamil Tigers have their share of the responsibility for these horrors. They conscripted child soldiers and used the civilian population as a human shield, but that does not in any way alleviate the responsibility of the governmental authorities on the spot. It justifies nothing.
The UN waited for a long time before denouncing the situation in that country. What is worse, the Sri Lankan Government has multiplied its machinations to prevent the publication of the latest report in particular and to have its conclusions rejected. We can only welcome the report of 11 April. The resolution before us today is going in the right direction. For my part, I should have liked it to go even further. It is high time that international justice did its work, in Sri Lanka as elsewhere.
Jaroslav Paška
Mr President, the long-running military conflict between the government forces and the armed groups of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which has had very cruel consequences for the civilian population living in the conflict zones, came to an end in 2009. After the end of the war, the Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, promised to investigate all suspected violations of military law and international humanitarian law during the military conflict.
The UN report published in April this year states that both sides in the conflict carried out military operations without taking steps to protect the rights and lives of civilians. Despite this, the responsible bodies in Sri Lanka have not held to account the people responsible for serious violations of humanitarian law, two years after the end of the war. The judicial authorities are, in many cases, inactive, and we therefore need to support through our resolution UN efforts to uphold the law and establish accountability for the killing and torture of thousands of civilians during the vicious fighting between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and government forces in Sri Lanka.
Filip Kaczmarek
(PL) Mr President, the dramatic events in Sri Lanka which are described in the UN report show what kind of problems can be caused by armed conflict. What took place there is further proof that solving differences by violence and force of arms generates other colossal problems. In Europe, there has, for centuries, been reflection about the concept of a just war. What is particularly painful is the fact that in the modern world, even a war which is theoretically just inevitably entails the suffering of innocent and unjustified victims. This happens irrespective of how we define a just war.
In the case of Sri Lanka, growing amounts of data show that the war was not a just one for either side. The victor is not always right, although they always try to prove they are right. If there is really to be a reconciliation, as the Sri Lankan Government has declared, then the basis of such a reconciliation must be the truth about what happened during the struggle with the Tamil Tigers. There will be no genuine reconciliation without exposing the war crimes which were committed, irrespective of which side it was that committed them. There will be no reconciliation if the sides consider their own sins to be taboo and do not allow them to be mentioned.
Claude Moraes
Mr President, many in this Chamber have been involved in the politics of Sri Lanka, and indeed the politics of the diaspora of Sri Lanka and of the Tamil community.
What we are discussing today is a report by the Secretary-General's panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka. I have not heard anyone in the Chamber as yet cast doubts on the intrinsic integrity of that report.
I have read the report and I have spoken to many about the report on both sides. If we are saying that we should leave the report on the table, and we should not have investigations into what happened between January and May, and indeed not open the door to investigate many allegations on both sides, what is the point of a report of this nature?
Indeed, I find it compelling that one diaspora organisation of the Tamil community, the Global Tamil Forum, has said that credible allegations against the LTTE - and they have made this very prominent - should also be investigated.
We have a report which ought to have a follow-up, and I speak firmly in favour of the need for a genuine process of accountability which would bring truth, justice and reconciliation to Sri Lanka following what will be a painful investigation, but an investigation which must happen.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
Mr President, it is appalling that during the protracted military conflict in Sri Lanka that ended in 2009, nearly 100 000 people were killed, including tens of thousands of civilians, most of whom died in the final phase of the conflict. The international community should demand a robust international investigation into credible reports of atrocities committed on both sides.
It is a pity that countries like China and Russia opposed discussion of the issue in the United Nations Security Council and the UN Secretary-General taking more robust action to investigate the crimes committed. The UN Panel of Experts clearly indicated that both the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil rebels committed serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, possibly amounting in some cases to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So I fully support the immediate establishment of an international justice mechanism as proposed by the UN report.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, it is apparent from the UN report that in the final bloody months of the civil war in Sri Lanka, which went on for 25 years, thousands of civilians died in artillery fire from government troops. The UN also said that Tamil rebels had used more than 300 000 civilians as human shields and shot civilians trying to escape. Both sides therefore seriously contravened human rights and international laws in a war situation.
It is important now that reconciliation talks get under way, so that an impartial and independent investigation into war crimes can be carried out by the UN. Parliament's resolution is wellbalanced in its wording and will encourage the parties to achieve reconciliation and build peace.
George Sabin Cutaş
(RO) Mr President, the conclusions from the UN report published on 25 April 2011 level serious accusations concerning the numerous violations of human rights and norms of international law, both by the Sri Lankan Government and by the rebel forces defeated in the civil conflict which lasted well over 28 years. Indeed, the report states that government forces killed tens of thousands of civilians by bombing populated areas, hospitals and even humanitarian aid centres belonging to the UN. On the other hand, the rebel forces used numerous civilians as human shields, with those who tried to escape the conflict zone being shot on the spot. Like other speakers before me, I think that an independent international mechanism needs to be created to investigate the war crimes in this country, as well as the other serious human rights violations. An impartial, transparent investigation is required, which will shed light on who is responsible for these crimes that have shocked the international community.
Graham Watson
Mr President, this well-researched report shows us - in addition to all its conclusions - that, once again, the first casualty of war is truth.
What it fails to do is to outline the policies needed to heal the hurts of that nation. Too many countries for too long turned a blind eye to what was going on. The right policies are needed now, through a concerted effort by the international community, to seek release and justice for all of those who have been so terribly affected.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Mr President, Mr Watson is quite right in saying that the first casualty of any war, and specifically this one, is truth.
Obviously, we also have to admit that the civilian population is a victim in this kind of conflict, and the UN panel has shown clearly that there are responsibilities on both sides: mainly that of the government but also that of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and both need to be investigated.
What we are saying is that a proper inquiry is very unlikely if the investigating commission comes from the government. What we are asking for is an independent commission to investigate these allegations, identified by the UN panel, of war crimes and crimes against humanity. If we do not understand the need for this, we will not have a solution, because peace will come only when justice arrives; justice is possible only on the basis of truth; and truth will come only if we have an independent investigation.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, finally, Sri Lanka is enjoying peace after a quarter of a century of terrorist insurgency, and the UN report on the Sri Lankan army's defeat of the Tamil Tigers is heavy on criticism and light on substantive, proven facts.
The approach taken in the report seems to be undermining the efforts now undertaken by the government of Sri Lanka to promote truth and understanding, not least through the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and the government actually having released more than 200 000 detained Tamil prisoners.
Of course, any deliberate atrocities against civilians by the military must be punished. I agree with that, but there is no clear evidence that this was deliberate government policy. I would like to remind the House that the LTTE refused a supervised international surrender offer and preferred instead to choose a bloodbath as their kind of exit strategy, which was appalling.
The consequences now of the international community's ambivalence towards Sri Lanka are clear: a loss of influence and an inability to shape developments. Meanwhile, China has stepped into the breach and become Sri Lanka's closest friend and defender at the UN. I hardly need remind colleagues here of China's approach to human rights.
László Andor
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on 25 April 2011, the United Nations made public the advisory report of the panel of experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General on accountability in relation to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. The panel found credible allegations which, if proven, would indicate that serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed by the Sri Lankan military and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The panel also makes a series of recommendations to the UN Secretary-General and to the government of Sri Lanka which, in the panel's words, will serve as the framework for an ongoing and constructive engagement between the Secretary-General and the government of Sri Lanka on accountability. Recommendations include the launch of genuine investigations by the government of Sri Lanka and the establishment of an independent international mechanism by the UN Secretary-General.
The UN has stated that the UN Secretary-General is carefully reviewing the reports, conclusions and recommendations, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has urged the Sri Lankan Government to quickly carry out the measures suggested by the panel and ensure justice.
The government of Sri Lanka, on its side, has rejected the report in the strongest terms. Earlier this week, High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a declaration on behalf of the EU reiterating the EU view that an independent process to address these extremely serious allegations should contribute to strengthening the process of reconciliation and ensuring lasting peace and security in Sri Lanka.
The High Representative has stressed that the issue of accountability should be seen as an essential part of the process of national reconciliation. The EU therefore hopes that the government of Sri Lanka will recognise the constructive objectives of the report, and encourages it to engage with the UN Secretary-General on its contents.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Michèle Striffler
The conflict between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ended in May 2009 and resulted in more than 90 000 deaths. Numerous Sri Lankans who had been displaced by the violence in their country have returned to their homes following the end of hostilities. However, there are still 75 000 refugees who continue to lead difficult lives in camps in Tamil Nadu, India. Sri Lanka has a double challenge to overcome. It has to recover from a long-lasting crisis. The United Nations' experts' report, made public on 25 April, found the allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights credible. In the interests of justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, it is essential to set up an impartial, transparent and independent enquiry. It also has to prepare for the various natural disasters, such as flooding, landslides, cyclones and also drought, to which the country is exposed.


2. Pakistan
President
The next item is four motions for resolutions on Pakistan.
David Martin
author. - Mr President, let me start by expressing my sympathy to the victims of the horrific bomb attack in Karachi. Our thoughts go out to all of those who were affected by that dramatic action.
Pakistan is a nation which we in Europe should care deeply about. It is a great trading nation, it is an exporter of people, not least to this continent, and it is a vital ally in the fight against terrorism. It is a matter, therefore, of great sadness that, in its 60-year history, Pakistan has failed to become a true democracy; but, on the other hand, we should be encouraged by the fact that it has not become a theocracy or even a permanent military dictatorship. Once again in Pakistan, the window is opening for democracy.
We await the outcome of the court ruling on the legality of the President's election. We call on President Musharraf to accept the outcome if it goes against him, but I also call on people in Pakistan and throughout the world to accept the ruling of the Court if it rules in favour of the President. I think it is the only basis on which we can move forward in the country.
In relation to the election in January, I hope that the Government will pursue and continue to prepare for that election, and will make it possible for Ms Benazir Bhutto to campaign in a secure fashion. In saying that, I know we imply that the Government was behind the bombing; I do not believe that, but we need to make sure that the security of all the candidates is guaranteed and the Government does its best to protect Ms Benazir Bhutto. I also believe that Mr Sharif should be allowed to return to the country and campaign if he so wishes, and again have his security guaranteed.
The military should stand back during the whole period of the election campaign, and I hope, before January - and, indeed, before campaigning begins - that the President will get himself out of uniform and turn his country into a true civilian government. That is the best hope for the future of Pakistan, and it is the best hope for relations between Europe and Pakistan: that we get a democratically elected parliament in January, with the President out of uniform, in 'civvies'.
Eva-Britt Svensson
author. - (SV) Thank you Mr President. First of all, I must say with a heavy heart that month after month here in Parliament we have to decide on different resolutions because such large parts of the world around us fail to respect civil liberties and rights and violate fundamental human rights. I must say this because I think it is so terrible that it just goes on and on. We talk about it here in Parliament, we talk about it in so many different contexts, and still it goes on.
As regards Pakistan, which is the subject of the resolution we are now discussing, I want to say that the GUE/NGL Group supports the resolution in its entirety. The resolution makes a large number of very justified demands on the government in Pakistan. We in the world around it cannot keep silent about the influence and decision-making power of the military regime in all areas of society. Power must be transferred to a civilian democratic government. We must support all voluntary organisations, everyone working for democratic liberties and rights. I particularly want to stress the importance of paragraph 16 of the resolution. In that point Parliament expresses its great concern at the fact that a large proportion of Pakistani women are not able to participate in the democratic process. People are being oppressed in Pakistan by the military regime on the grounds of religion, but we must not forget the oppression to which a large proportion of Pakistani women are exposed. Our Group wishes strongly to support the entire resolution. Thank you.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
author. - (ES) Mr President, I also wish to say that despite the fact that logically the main responsibility for resolving the situation lies with the Pakistani authorities, that should not allow us forget that the European Union has, and we member countries above all, we Member States, have an enormous responsibility at least not to aggravate the situation.
It is related to the practice, which is also incomprehensible because of its incompatibility with the will to resolve the situation, of continuing to export or seeking to export arms to Pakistan.
To give but three examples: in 2006 the Government of the United Kingdom authorised the export of 15 000 rifles to the region, including Pakistan; France continues to seek to sell Pakistan missiles and radars to build a combat aircraft which Pakistan is allegedly developing with China; and Germany has also been responsible for exporting significant quantities of munitions, arms and other types of military equipment.
I believe that to that end the desire to resolve the situation in Pakistan is incompatible with supplying it under those policies. I therefore suggest and ask my colleagues to support the amendment seeking the suspension of all types of exports of arms and military equipment until such time as it can be guaranteed that they will not be used to violate human rights.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, last week's suicide bomb blast in Karachi reminded us of just how perilously close Pakistan has come to anarchy. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Pakistan becoming a rogue state controlled by Islamist fanatics is, quite frankly, terrifying.
I am not especially a fan of Benazir Bhutto, whose period in office as Prime Minister was marked by widespread corruption, but, ultimately, a democratic and secular-leaning government under civilian control is always preferable to a military dictatorship, compromised in this case by its links to Islamist parties and the Afghan Taliban. President Musharraf is supposed to be our ally in the war on terror; sometimes I wonder how committed he is to rooting out terrorism in his own country.
Hopefully, Ms Bhutto's return to Pakistan may be a fillip for human rights now. One major concern is the ongoing repression of religious minorities, including Christians, Hindus and Ahmadi Muslims. If she is to be taken seriously as a progressive leader of a more modern Pakistan, she must make sure that Pakistan respects its international obligations under human rights conventions.
But, while Pakistan faces many challenges, we should recognise that some progress is being made in some areas. The economy continues to grow, and Pakistan has also engaged in confidence-building measures with India with regard to the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir.
One question which remains totally unanswered is how, legally, the Pakistani Government, in spite of a Supreme Court judgment permitting former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to return from exile to Pakistan, deported him immediately to Saudi Arabia. How, in international law, can a government deport one of its own citizens? Nawaz Sharif may yet have a vital role to play in re-establishing multiparty civilian democratic politics in Pakistan.
Bernd Posselt
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, we must take a very discerning view of Pakistan. It is a large and important country with a troubled history. The State of Pakistan was artificially created as a home for the Muslim inhabitants of India, and it therefore has an Islamic identity, which is something we cannot now hold against it. That was more or less its original raison d'être.
This does not mean that we should not battle against Islamic extremism, and indeed the Pakistanis themselves are devoting considerable efforts to that very struggle. Pakistan was an important ally in the face of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, in dealings with Communist China, and in the context of long-running Soviet attempts to gain influence in India. It was an important strategic factor for the West.
On the other hand, it goes without saying that Pakistan has internal difficulties, of which we must be aware: a complex and heterogeneous population structure in ethnic and religious terms, widespread poverty and, of course, the need to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. We must clearly lend the country a very great deal of support in establishing free elections and a stronger independent judiciary, and must encourage the military command to hand over power gradually to elected politicians. Above all, as Charles Tannock said, we must encourage Pakistan to keep pursuing the confidence-building process with neighbouring India.
In this respect there have been encouraging signs, and the purpose of a balanced policy on Pakistan is to reinforce those signs while expressing any necessary criticism.
Sarah Ludford
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the Pakistani people do not deserve military dictatorship, violence and lawlessness. Therefore, one of key articles in this resolution is the one which reaffirms our solidarity with the people of Pakistan, who share the objectives of democratic governance and transparent, accountable rule, and who act with courage and determination in the face of terrorist and criminal violence.
That is, of course, why we put the stress on the need for a return to democracy and civilian government with free and fair elections in January as being the only way to answer the challenges of Pakistani society.
At the same time, we also stress the need to remove the militarisation of Pakistani society and deplore the failure of President Musharraf to stand down as army chief, as he promised he would. The rule of law is extremely uneven in Pakistan. There have been some encouraging developments at times, but these are also accompanied by some very repressive judgments. This falls particularly hard on minorities, religious and otherwise, as well as on women. We rightly call for improvement in that area.
This as well, of course, as deploring the suicide bombing and the 140 victims and 500 injured last week. I fear that these could become a pretext for restricting political activity, because already there has been an announcement by the Government that political parties will only be allowed to hold meetings in well-secured parks and public grounds rather than organise processions. One could see how that might be made a pretext.
Finally, one of the more close-to-home reasons for my wanting Pakistan to fight both extremism and militarisation, and to return to the rule of law, is the impact on British people of Pakistani origin, with the calls, for instance, for profiling or for visa requirements for the United States. It would remove that threat to people like my constituents if Pakistan were to be a democratic society.
Ryszard Czarnecki
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, today on the television yet another bulletin about yet another attack in Pakistan, about fatalities. This, too, is a never-ending story. Why do we spend time on this, especially as we are acting on behalf of European taxpayers? We should remember that the European Union sends significant amounts of money to Pakistan for health care, for the eradication of poverty and for education. For this reason we have a right to be interested in what is happening in that country, which is, in part, supported by money from our electors.
I would like to draw your attention to issues that have not been discussed here. First of all to the fact that religious minorities are persecuted and discriminated against in Pakistan. This applies to Christians, but also to Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. I believe that it is worth focusing on this issue. It is something that disappears from view in the light of these attacks and tragic deaths, but it is a constant feature.
I would also like to point out, and this issue has already been raised, that there is discrimination against women. There are special hudud decrees for this purpose. This too should be condemned and I am pleased that we are doing so quite independently of our political divisions.
Koenraad Dillen
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (NL) Mr President, we have, of course, all expressed our horror at the shocking attacks in Pakistan last week, which, as the previous speaker said, are a never-ending story.
That should not, however, prevent us from pointing out the essential fact that Pakistan is of course a military dictatorship, that in the official Pakistan there are large-scale violations of human rights and the leader is still above the law. Pakistan is also, however, a strict Islamic state in which there is no place for people of other faiths or religious minorities and, as has been said, the country has nuclear weapons.
Perhaps - but perhaps this cannot be said - Islamabad is in fact a greater threat than Teheran. I do not know. I also have a slight feeling of déjà vu with Pakistan, because just as in other Islamic countries, for instance Algeria at the time, military dictatorships or regimes where the army plays a dominant role prevent Islamic fundamentalists from taking power. Unfortunately, more democracy often means more Islamic fundamentalism and, paradoxically, less democracy. This is a dilemma that we cannot solve just like that.
Marios Matsakis
Mr President, the murderous attack on unsuspecting supporters welcoming back Ms Benazir Bhutto in Karachi on 18 October has been another callous terrorist act against the prospects of bringing about democratic change in Pakistan.
The international community watched in horror as more innocent civilians were sacrificed in a nation where the dictatorial regime of General Musharraf is dragging the country into a state of fear and breakdown of law and order. This brutal individual, with his corrupt governing group of associates, is a cancerous infliction on the people of Pakistan. Regrettably, he is still in power, largely because he is supported by the West, especially the USA, but certainly also by one or two EU Member States.
The time has now come when the West must immediately pull the carpet from under Mr Musharraf's feet and provide support, not for him, but for the democratic reform forces in Pakistan.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as Pakistan prepares for important parliamentary elections, the situation is, as we all know, very difficult and preoccupying, and I, also, like many of you, have to express that I was deeply shocked by the heinous bomb attack and assassination attempt in Karachi, when Ms Benazir Bhutto returned to the country last week, and also by the terrible loss of life, which has affected so many innocent people. We would like to extend our full sympathy to the families of the victims, and we also appeal to the Pakistani authorities to bring those responsible to justice.
This attack on a peaceful gathering has clearly demonstrated, once again, all the dangers of terrorism and fundamentalism to the people of Pakistan. Ms Bhutto was right in describing this horrible event as a blow against democracy, particularly in the present electoral context of the country.
Parliament's wish to express solidarity with the people of Pakistan is both very relevant and timely. We in Europe should encourage a more open, democratic society and, of course, a strong civil society in Pakistan.
It is also of fundamental importance that the elections should then provide maximum democratic legitimacy to the incoming assemblies, and the vote must be democratic, transparent and giving equal opportunities to all the political contestants.
As you are well aware, it is one of those countries where we might envisage a possible election observation mission. In this context, my services carried out an exploratory mission in June, and they identified, I have to say, important shortcomings in the framework and the conditions for elections, including concerns about the independence of the Election Commission, the completeness and the accuracy of the voter register, restrictive candidature provisions, as well as lack of transparency in the results process.
However, with urgent political will, there is still time to improve a number of these problematic areas and, therefore, I have not yet taken a full decision on whether we will deploy a fully-fledged election observation mission. I really have to see the aforementioned elements.
I believe that the majority of people in Pakistan would like to see a moderate, stable and democratic Pakistan, and we should support them in achieving this aim. We are doing a lot, for instance, on the trade side, in order to help people to get out of poverty, but we also do a lot on the education side, in order not to have pupils and young children being educated in the madrasahs and being educated towards extremism and fundamentalism. But we should also support this because it is of crucial importance, as has been said, for the whole region, including neighbouring countries like important Afghanistan.
Therefore, we have every reason to stay engaged. This is what we are trying to do and, therefore, this debate is a very timely one.
President
The debate is closed.
We will vote on this subject shortly, after the debates.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Eija-Riitta Korhola
in writing. - (FI) Mr President, I would like first to thank everyone for their support in making Pakistan the subject of a written resolution. A show of popularity for democratic forces and a clear emphasis on human rights, and not an army, are the biggest barriers to the rise to power of radical groups. That is why these are things which now require our support, as do religious minorities.
Experience of human rights work shows that freedom of religion is an important indicator of the situation with respect to human rights; it is a kind of litmus test. The problems are visible first in the status of religious groups and as flaws in the system of freedom of speech and right of assembly. There is a correlation between the state of play of democracy and the status of minorities: wherever the opportunities the people have to participate are poor, minorities also suffer.
We might say that Pakistan's particular problem is the misuse of the law on blasphemy with regard to religious minorities. There should be a system of the protection of religious values, not active persecution of people of other faiths. Although the law is not targeted at any particular religious groups in terms of its content, the everyday reality is otherwise. Death sentences are handed down mainly in respect of minorities. Legal reform is crucial.
Only democracy will make this possible. The unfortunate decision by Musharraf to keep his position as army chief has had an impact on Pakistan's social development these last few years, and has weakened it. The gradual militarisation of society has been regrettable.
On the other hand, we express our support for Pakistan in its fight against Talibanisation. We feel solidarity with those Pakistanis who are affected by last week's devastating bomb attack.
Last month I had the chance to familiarise myself personally with the political situation in Pakistan. I had the honour of meeting representatives of different political parties, senators and members of parliament. I especially want to mention, however, the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, whose important work as the representative of many minority groups deserves the attention and support of the outside world.