1. Pakistan - murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister for Minorities
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Pakistan - murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister for Minorities.
Jean Lambert
author. - Mr President, I think all of us have been very deeply shocked and appalled by the assassination of Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, not least because he is someone known to us in this Parliament: he has visited here, he has met many of us; but also because this is another highly symbolic killing, striking at someone who was looking for reconciliation and work across all minorities in Pakistan.
We should also add our condolences not only to his family, but also to all the families of those who have been killed in terrorist attacks in Pakistan. This week, we have seen two such attacks, which have killed and injured more people than, for example, the London bombings.
The whole population is suffering, and intimidation is undermining democracy in Pakistan. We are seeing a change in the demographics of certain constituencies, for example, Quetta, as intimidation works to force people out.
Our resolution is important in terms of wanting to continue and support the work, in terms of tolerance and mutual understanding. I would like to make the point that we need that in the European Union, too, where certain recent ministerial statements, in my view, have not helped that. So we expect leadership in Pakistan and in the European Union.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Mr President, despite the request made by the Pakistani Minister for Religious Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, for more protection after numerous threats, an assassin managed to murder him on 2 March. Our sympathies go out not only to his loved ones, but also to all Pakistanis who seek a more tolerant society. This is a real blow to Pakistan as well as to humanity as a whole.
Why did the Pakistani authorities deny the Minister's request for a bullet-proof official car, as well as his request that he select his own bodyguards that he trusted? By calling for reforms in the inhumane blasphemy laws, he was a human rights defender.
We equally want to pay tribute to the work of Naeem Sabir Jamaldini, the coordinator of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who was murdered on 1 March.
We need practical action such as investigations, including within the government. These have to take place in line with international standards because impunity has to end. The European Union should monitor the situation and try to fund civil society through the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Mr President, over the last 10 months, the European Parliament has adopted a total of three resolutions on religious freedom in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In May 2010, we talked about this subject here in Strasbourg in the company of the Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti. Today in Parliament, we are debating the circumstances of his death. The murder of a high-ranking state official, which took place on 2 March, means only one thing: in Pakistan, no one is safe from the radical Islamists. In danger are not only those who criticise the archaic law which prescribes a sentence of death for religious blasphemy, but also those who publicly stand up for the victims of intolerance, such as Mr Bhatti.
After 10 months, it can be seen that current European Union policy towards Pakistan is not bringing the intended effects. Therefore, I support the idea contained in our resolution of holding round-table meetings on the situation of minorities in Pakistan. I think the newly created European External Action Service must react clearly to events in Islamabad before more people become victims and before it is too late.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
Mr President, Shahbaz Bhatti and all his family are an astonishing example of what brave, principled, loyal people can achieve. He had only held office for six months when the Pakistani Parliament adopted a significant reform that guaranteed a 5% quota to the country's minorities in public positions. That was just one of the numerous democratic reforms which Bhatti pushed forward and of which the Pakistani Government should be very proud.
Most significant of all is perhaps the 'Interfaith Harmony Dialogue', which he began at local level, and which aimed to diffuse tensions and tackle the problems that give rise to terrorism. I saw in the idea the ingredients for the Nobel Peace Prize and I hope that the work to promote human rights and democracy in Pakistan will not cease, even though extremist elements gained a temporary victory when they disposed of the country's most strategic human rights activist. If dialogue succeeds in a country which is a centre of radical Islam, the positive effects will radiate everywhere in the world.
Only about a month ago, I met Mr Bhatti. We talked about his possible death. He was not naïve. He understood very well what bravery could lead to. I will die before too long, he said, but meanwhile I will try to change unjust legislation as much as I can. I will die, but the law will remain and it will affect the lives of millions.
(Applause)
Peter van Dalen
Mr President, I am afraid the situation in Pakistan is getting worse. Attack after attack seems to be taking place and the government seems to have lost the will to intervene. Last January, Governor Taseer was assassinated, and last week, the only Christian federal minister, Mr Bhatti, was assassinated, too. The European Union and Member States are maintaining contacts with Pakistan in many ways. Cooperation is afoot as regards Afghanistan, many hundreds of millions in aid are pouring into the country for education and reconstruction and efforts are being made to foster interfaith dialogue.
However, the time has come for us to put our foot down. The Pakistani education system must be reformed and the preaching of hatred for Christians to young children must be stopped. The aid for reconstruction after the flooding should be distributed fairly, and that includes to non-Muslims. That is not only in the interests of the West. If the Pakistani Government and the security services do not get the situation under control, the country will sink into the morass of extremism. There is very little time left to reverse that tide.
Rui Tavares
Mr President, there is often only so much we can achieve here in the European Parliament in our resolutions on urgent matters, but, in cases like these, where there are at least two issues concerning freedom of speech and religious freedom in countries like Pakistan, there at least two things we need to achieve to make our voice heard.
First of all, I should like to say to the defenders of tolerance in Pakistan and to the defenders of religious freedom in Pakistan that they are not alone. This is a very modest aim, but I believe that it is a first step towards some dignity and respect in the debate, and this message will reach those in Pakistan supporting religious freedom, so the first thing I should like to do is tell them that they are not alone.
The second thing I should like to do is make it very clear to the Pakistani Government that it cannot stop the extremists in Pakistan from thinking that they speak on behalf of everyone because this is the vicious circle countries often fall into when it comes to blasphemy laws, as is the case now in Pakistan, or as was the case, for example, in Indonesia. We are dealing with a minority of very vocal extremists who speak very loudly and who eventually start to believe that they are speaking on behalf of everyone because they manage to intimidate the rest of society. Consequently, in this case, if governments are not first in line to defend freedom in their own countries and fight against impunity, and if governments do not impose a bastion of dignity, the whole country will run the risk of being plagued by intolerance.
The Pakistani Government must therefore fully investigate Shahbaz Bhatti's murder and must carry out investigations until conclusions have been reached as it did in the case of the Governor of Punjab. What it certainly cannot do is allow the investigations to be corrupted by the kind of practices the police and the Pakistani secret services have been using in investigations, which have destroyed investigations, including even those relating to the murder of the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. It is therefore vital that the Pakistani Government ensures that the extremists do not take charge of public discourse and, for our part, that we maintain our solidarity with the defenders of tolerance in the country.
Mario Mauro
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Shahbaz Bhatti was killed in the name of so-called blasphemy laws by a group of fundamentalists who, as is happening more and more, used the name of God to promote their own schemes for power.
With this resolution, we want to applaud and thank Shahbaz Bhatti for the example he has set us over the years. I hope so painful a sacrifice serves as a warning to the governments of the European Union and to the High Representative for Foreign Policy so that specific actions can replace the few words that have been spoken with such a lack of force to date.
In fact, in recent months, the European Union, or rather the Council and the Commission, unlike Parliament, have wasted time discussing whether or not they should include the word 'Christian' in their weak condemnations, while Christians continue to be brutally slaughtered, often because they approached the West, even though there is nothing western about them. I therefore believe that the Commission and Council would do well to look to Parliament on this occasion.
Catherine Stihler
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, I, too, wanted to pay tribute to the courage and the work of Shahbaz Bhatti. I know many colleagues in this House have met him personally and his determination to work for minority communities in Pakistan, to hold up their rights, is an example to us all. The fact is that he put his life on the line; he knew that the threats were increasing, and his bravery should be recognised. He has lost his life and we in this House have lost a friend.
So what can we do? I think there are a number of important points in this resolution. Paragraph 13 about calling on the competent EU institutions to include the issue of religious tolerance in society is vitally important. I would also call on the Commission, in talks and in trade issues as well, to bring up the issue of human rights too. Paragraph 19 about the institutions and the government of Pakistan is also important, as is the call for recognition of democracy and human rights.
I think that, at the end of the day, we all would like to make sure our condolences are sent and I hope the President of Parliament will send a personal letter to Shahbaz Bhatti's mother. His funeral was last week and I think that is also important.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the murder of Mr Bhatti is the second murder of a high-profile Pakistani official in two months. The murders of both Mr Bhatti and Governor Salman Taseer must be investigated thoroughly and the perpetrators have to be brought to justice.
Apart from Mr Bhatti's murder, I would like to take up another burning human rights issue in Pakistan, namely, the situation of the Province of Balochistan. The Baloch minority continues to be persecuted and, according to Amnesty International, at least 90 Baloch activists - teachers, journalists and lawyers - have disappeared or have been murdered. Other people, such as aid workers, teachers, journalists and government officials, have also been subject to persecution and threats.
The European Parliament and the EU need to send a clear message to Pakistan and urge the Pakistani Government to do its best to avoid this kind of situation.
Nicole Kiil-Nielsen
Mr President, these assassinations are, of course, intolerable, but what is more intolerable is the climate of impunity that exists, despite the increase in attacks. Unfortunately, the citizens of Pakistan and the families of the victims cannot expect much from a judicial system that is blighted by corruption, intimidation and poorly-trained investigators and prosecutors. Investigations take years and are based on discriminatory laws. The criminal dimension of the judicial system, in particular, needs to be reformed and gain real credibility both nationally and internationally.
According to a poll carried out in universities by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, young Pakistanis believe that the credibility of the judicial system is more crucial for the survival of the country than military force or the parliamentary system.
The European Union must therefore use all the necessary instruments at its disposal to strengthen judicial cooperation with Pakistan.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, one by one in Pakistan, the voices of reform and progress are being extinguished. Shahbaz Bhatti knew he was in danger, both as a Christian in a country where religious intolerance is rife, and as Minister for Minorities who fearlessly denounced his country's draconian blasphemy laws. However, he refused to be cowed by the Islamist fanatics who threatened him with death.
Only two months earlier, the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, had been assassinated by his own bodyguards, but Bhatti was not even provided with bodyguards and, therefore, presented the easiest of targets to the heavily armed terrorists who cut him down on his way to a cabinet meeting.
Why was Mr Bhatti not shadowed by armed close protection officers? This is one of the many questions we must ask President Zardari. I hope he can answer. I hope the Vice-President/High Representative will press him to set more of an example in opposing the alarming radicalisation of Pakistani society.
Above all, this is a human tragedy. A man of great courage and principle has lost his life and we as democrats honour his name and salute his life's achievements today in this debate. We send our condolences to his loved ones in their hour of grief.
Jaroslav Paška
Mr President, the provisions of Islamic Sharia law literally state that anyone who offends Islam shall be condemned to death.
I do not know what actions may be considered an insult to Islam in the Islamic world, but cases of murdering defenders of human rights and religious freedoms in Pakistan, as well as in other Islamic countries, show us that some Islamic spiritual leaders regard our civilised values, which give people a broad freedom to decide, as a threat to their faith and do not hesitate to declare, in accordance with their law, a fatwa against anyone who openly promotes adherence to human rights and civic freedoms in their territory.
Shahbaz Bhatti, a minister in the Pakistani Government, Salman Taseer, Governor of the Province of Punjab, or Sabir Jamaldini, Coordinator of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, have become for us innocent victims of the fanatical application of Islamic law. The example of these victims is supposed to terrorise not only the Pakistani people from seeking greater freedom, but also the politicians running the country from reforming the political system, so that they will continue to respect a set of rules harking back to medieval times.
However, if we do not want to bring the reformist politicians in Islamic countries into conflict with their religious authorities, we should, in my opinion, strive to find a platform for constructive dialogue with Islamic spiritual leaders regarding the peaceful coexistence of civilisations ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, we are talking about the murder of a government minister and of a man who avowed his Christian roots and was a Catholic. We are talking about another murder in Pakistan which shows that, in fact, the authorities there are not in control of the situation, and this is a problem. We are not at this point saying that the President or government of Pakistan have shown ill will. Our charge is related to the fact that they are not even able to guarantee the security of people who are part of government structures but who profess a different faith from the rest of the country. This is the tragedy of this country, which, step by step, is becoming increasingly aggressive and full of hatred towards religions other than Islam. This is a real problem. I am certain we should speak out about this.
President
We now come to the catch-the-eye procedure.
Very many Members have indicated to me - and since some of the group chairs and deputy chairs are here, I will mention this now - that we need a bit more flexibility when it comes to these urgency debates when so many Members are clearly interested in a particular subject. I will now, to some degree, take into account to what extent Members are listed as speakers in later debates.
Michael Gahler
(DE) Mr President, a week before he was murdered, I spoke with Shahbaz Bhatti in his office in Islamabad and he was aware of the danger he was in. However, he was more concerned about his impression that, particularly in recent months, also in connection with the murder of Salman Taseer, the Punjab Governor, many people have shied away from the challenge of the extremists. Ministers, parliamentarians, journalists, lawyers, even human rights activists, who have always got involved before, no longer have the confidence to stand up against the challenge of these extremists.
I believe we must call on everyone in Pakistan to stand up against this intolerance, otherwise they will be swept aside together or individually. Sherry Rehman, that courageous politician who put forward amendments to the blasphemy law, is in particular danger. I therefore call on the Pakistani Parliament to protect her now by finally making the amendments to the blasphemy law that she proposed. That would clearly signal a united stand against extremism.
George Sabin Cutaş
(RO) Mr President, the murder of Pakistan's minorities minister, Mr Bhatti, comes in the midst of the whole controversy about amending the law which stipulated the death penalty for blasphemy in this country, an amendment which he supported. I think that the intolerance on which the laws on punishing blasphemy are based has also led to the appalling murders of leading figures who fought for the freedom of expression and belief in Pakistan. At the same time, the incident involving Mr Bhatti has been condemned by a large section of Pakistan's political establishment, in the media, and by people from a variety of ethnic origins and religious beliefs, which is a positive sign. It is therefore the duty of this country's government to prevent a recurrence of violent incidents based on intolerance and to continue its efforts to respect the democratic values enshrined in the Pakistani Constitution, the universal principles of human rights and the freedom of thought.
Constance Le Grip
(FR) Mr President, I, too, was deeply shaken by the cowardly assassination on 2 March 2011 of Mr Shahbaz Bhatti, the Christian Minister for Minorities in the government of Pakistan.
This terrorist assassination follows numerous other assassinations of courageous, tolerant Pakistanis who are passionate about human rights and defenders of the human rights of both men and women.
We once again urge the government of Pakistan to do everything possible to shed light on this cowardly assassination and to ensure that the protection of people threatened by fanatical religious extremists is truly effective. I am naturally thinking, first and foremost, but not only, of Mrs Sherry Rehman.
Once again, I vigorously call on all the competent institutions of the European Union to include in negotiations, with a view to preparing future cooperation agreements, including the cooperation agreement between the Union and Pakistan, a clause ensuring respect for religious freedom and human rights.
(Applause)
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
(PL) Mr President, once again, we are talking about the question of human rights violations in Pakistan, this time because of the recent murder of government minister Shahbaz Bhatti, who opposed the country's blasphemy legislation and defended the rights of religious minorities. He opposed intolerance and religious discrimination.
The European Parliament resolution on this brutal murder is our expression of opposition to the growing brutal religious extermination in Pakistan, but also unequivocally testifies that we are not leaving religious minorities, whose rights are very commonly violated, to fend for themselves. It is our duty to condemn acts of lawlessness which threaten the freedom and life of other people. Therefore, I would like to emphasise how important it is to support non-governmental organisations which fight for human rights in their efforts for greater democratisation in Pakistan and a cessation of the violence.
Johannes Hahn
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, in January, we deplored the murder of the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer.
A few weeks later, these acts of violence continued with the assassination on 2 March 2011 of Mr Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities in the government of Pakistan.
Vice-President Ashton strongly condemned the murder and expressed deep concern over the climate of intolerance and violence in Pakistan linked to the debate over the controversial blasphemy laws.
Mr Bhatti was the only Christian in the government of Pakistan and a well-known advocate of respect for human rights and religious freedom. He was one of the few voices left who dared to speak out and knew he was under threat after the murder of Salman Taseer. Yet this did not stop him from defending his rights which, after all, are enshrined in the Pakistani constitution.
Vice-President Ashton has called on the government of Pakistan to take its responsibilities and provide adequate protection for those in official functions or in civil society who are threatened.
The EU welcomes Prime Minister Jamali's declaration that the government will do its utmost to bring the culprits to justice. Our respect goes to Mr Jamali for attending Mr Bhatti's funeral.
The government must now live up to its commitments and bring to justice the perpetrators and instigators of such crimes. Mr Bhatti and Mr Taseer were outspoken critics of the blasphemy laws and at the forefront of efforts to amend them. However, in the climate prevailing after the Taseer murder, the amendments were withdrawn from parliament.
The blasphemy laws, which carry the death penalty, are incompatible with the common values we seek to promote in our relations with Pakistan. They have also led to miscarriages of justice and discrimination against religious minorities.
While we strongly support Pakistan's democratic government and will do what we can to assist it as it seeks to cope with an unprecedented wave of terrorist acts, its members should stand up for the principles they subscribe to. Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right; freedom of opinion and expression is intrinsically linked to it.
The Council has just adopted conclusions recalling the commitment of the EU to safeguard these fundamental rights and to step up efforts to promote and protect these rights everywhere and for everyone.
President
I have received six motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Krzysztof Lisek
I should like to offer my condolences to the family of the murdered Pakistani Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti. I hope the perpetrators of this crime will quickly be apprehended and duly punished. This brutal incident, the victim of which was a high-ranking state official fighting for equal rights for minorities in Pakistan, is further evidence of how difficult the situation is in that country. Unfortunately, our current policy has not brought the expected results. In view of this, the European Union must take specific steps which will help to increase respect for the letter of the law and democracy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In my opinion, a significant intensification of our work, by organising and holding annual EU-Pakistan meetings on the situation of minorities in Pakistan with the involvement of the European Parliament, can bring tangible benefits. In accordance with the text of the resolution we have adopted today, I fully endorse the financial support being given on our part to organisations which defend human rights and which are fighting the blasphemy laws. I hope we will be able to increase the scale of that support. I hope, too, that we will be able, with the help of suitable diplomatic instruments, to persuade the government of Pakistan to respect the provisions enshrined in the democracy and human rights clause of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Monica Luisa Macovei
in writing. - Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister for Minorities in Pakistan, sought to reform the country's blasphemy laws and he was killed. The Pakistani Taliban reportedly took responsibility for the murder and pronounced the same fate for any further critics of the blasphemy laws. It is time for strong action to protect the reformers and human rights defenders who are risking their lives for freedom. I call upon the Council and the European External Action Service to ensure the protection of the other human rights defenders at risk in Pakistan and the effective and timely investigation of Minister Shahbaz Bhatti's assassination. The perpetrators must be brought to justice and the response of the government must be firm in order to have a deterrent effect.
Kristiina Ojuland
in writing. - To lose one advocate of freedom of religion is a misfortune; to lose two is downright carelessness. When we discussed the murder of Governor Salman Taseer, I warned about the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan. Less than two months later, another tragedy has come to pass. The Taliban Movement in Punjab has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Minister Shahbaz Bhatti. His request for the use of a bullet-proof car had been denied by the Pakistani authorities. Such negligence by the authorities makes them an accomplice to the killing. I would like to hope that the European Union will address the murders of those high-ranking officials in Pakistan with the authorities there and call on them to repeal the blasphemy laws that have caused the escalation of religious violence.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
Two months ago in plenary, and it was also during a debate on human rights, we condemned the attack on the Governor of the Province of Punjab, Salman Taseer. The subject of discussion was the same as the one we are talking about today - attempts at reforming the controversial blasphemy legislation. The two tragic events are closely related to each other, because the victims had worked together on behalf of national minorities in Pakistan, including religious minorities, and in defence of those who have fallen victim to the ideology of intolerance spread by the Taliban.
Unfortunately, the Western world can only look on at the advancing radicalisation of attitudes in the country, where not even a decade ago, Benazir Bhutto was introducing democratic reforms. Pakistan is sinking into chaos - the Taliban are terrorising the country and with increasing frequency are carrying out attacks like the one which took place in Punjab on 8 March, for example, in which 25 people were killed.
Reports have now appeared of the next person whom the extremists have sentenced to death - Member of the Pakistani Parliament, former journalist and defender of women's rights, religious minorities and freedom of speech, Sherry Rehman. It was she who submitted to the Pakistani Parliament a draft of amendments to legislation on punishments for blasphemy. At the next part-session, will we be condemning an attack made on her?


Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - C6-0202/2007 -.
Manuel Lobo Antunes
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, on 27 June this year the Commission presented a proposal, based on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, which aims to improve and adapt Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the status and funding of political parties at European level.
This proposal was followed by a report which evaluated the application of the Regulation. The corresponding resolution was adopted by the European Parliament on 23 March 2006. The Commission's proposal introduces a new element: the possibility of funding European political foundations bearing in mind that these have an important role to play in underpinning and promoting the activities and objectives of the political parties at European level.
Since the political foundations are closely affiliated with the European political parties, it is proposed that they must submit their application for funding through the political party at European level with which they are linked, under the same legal basis as applies to the latter's funding, in other words under Article 191 of the EC Treaty.
I know that the political parties represented in this House are forming or have already formed foundations at European level. The Council looks favourably on the possibility of providing Community financial support for the activities of these foundations under very clear rules which will allow, among other aspects, a clear distinction to be made between the areas of intervention of the parties which must be complementary and not overlapping.
The second main aim of the Commission's proposal is to revise the financial provisions which govern the funding of political parties at European level in light of the experience acquired in the meantime. To this end, the Commission proposes, among other measures, two derogations from the no-profit rule laid down in Article 109 of the Financial Regulation. The first measure involves the possibility of carrying over up to 25% of annual total income from one year to the first quarter of the following year to enable the parties to better respond to changing political circumstances and priorities. The second measure aims to allow political parties at European level to build financial reserves by saving income generated by the parties themselves in excess of a new reduced minimum co-funding level of 15%.
I must also highlight that it is proposed to establish clearly that appropriations received from the EU budget may also be used for the financing of campaigns conducted by the political parties at European level in the context of European Parliament elections, provided that this does not constitute a direct or indirect financing of national political parties or their candidates.
In the Council, the proposal was initially assessed three times by the General Affairs Group, in September and October of this year, and was generally favourably received by the delegations. However, some delegations expressed concerns about the proposed legal basis and the derogations from budgetary discipline.
An opinion was requested on these issues from the Legal Service of the Council. The latter considered that the derogations from the no-profit rule laid down in Article 109(2) of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 could only be enshrined in a separate regulation based on Article 279 of the EC Treaty and intended to introduce these derogations into the Financial Regulation itself by amending it. This opinion led to the proposal being split into two legal acts and the consultation of the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors.
On 17 October 2007, therefore recently, Coreper II debated for the first time a compromise text presented by the Portuguese Presidency and the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council. A week later, on 24 October 2007, Coreper II reached agreement on two points: firstly, the splitting of the proposal into two legal acts, one regulation based on Article 279 of the EC Treaty containing the provisions amending the Financial Regulation and one regulation containing the other provisions of the proposal based on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, and secondly, consultation of the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors on the amendment of Article 109 of Regulation No 1605/2002 in accordance with Article 279 of the EC Treaty. This consultation occurred immediately.
The two compromise texts resulting from the split were assessed by the General Affairs Group on 9 November 2007, therefore very recently. As a result, I am very pleased to announce that the General Affairs Group, which met last Friday, has confirmed the existence of broad agreement among the national delegations on the issues covered by the two regulations resulting from the split.
In essence, I would repeat that there is no significant disagreement between the three institutions. The Commission, Parliament and the Council all agree on the essentials with regard to European political foundations and the amendment of the provisions governing the functioning of European political parties. The legal basis issue was, and is, strictly a legal issue and it was not, and is not, the Council's intention to prevent agreement between the three institutions.
I can confirm, on behalf of the Council, that we want the two regulations resulting from the split to be adopted by the end of this year so that they can enter into force on 1 January 2008. To this end, I propose that Parliament postpones the vote on your opinion planned for this week so that, by means of the appropriate contacts, we can reach agreement at first reading on the regulation based on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, under the codecision procedure.
In that event, a Parliament opinion on the amendment of the Financial Regulation should be adopted as soon as possible. We have also asked the Court of Auditors to act promptly. We have little time but, in our opinion, there is enough time to adopt the two regulations under the conditions required by Parliament, the Commission and the Council.
Margot Wallström
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, from the period of reflection we learnt that there is a clear demand and opportunity for measures to reinforce and expand the political dialogue. I have always said that if we want to create a European public sphere, then we also need to create more of a European political culture, and this particular issue is absolutely crucial to doing so.
Certainly, there is no single magic solution to bridge the gap between European politics and our citizens and there is no simple way to meet the democratic aspirations of citizens and their desire to be more actively involved. These aspirations must be promoted by a very wide range of initiatives with common purposes to ensure the broadest possible participation of citizens, including, not least, young people, and, I would add women, in the democratic life of the Union.
The activities of European political parties, together with the creation of European political foundations, is part and parcel of building this real European public sphere, where different opinions can challenge each other and the citizens can better understand the challenges at stake and make informed choices. Political debate and political controversy are part of democracy and we hope that this will also help to increase the turnout for the European Parliament elections.
I am happy to say that the Commission and Parliament have always agreed on this issue. The Commission was able to respond quickly to Parliament's request and our proposal was also strongly supported by Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
On 25 October, I stated before this House my concerns that Coreper had decide to follow a route which departed from that of the Commission and Parliament, and these concerns were shared by Members, including President Pöttering and Mr Leinen. But I also expressed my hope that the key objective of the Council, Parliament and the Commission would continue to be the same: the approval of the substance of our proposal before the end of this year.
Three weeks later, and having heard what the Presidency stated, I can only welcome the recent developments and express my satisfaction that we are on a common route again. The Council has been listening and the working group last Friday unanimously confirmed the full substance of our proposal. This means that we can now move on. But, even though the agreement reached in Council is an important step forward and very positive news, this is not yet the end of the process. We need to finalise the details in order to allow for a speedy adoption and entry into force of this regulation.
Even if the splitting of our proposal does not ultimately affect its substance, it entails a separate, more complicated legislative procedure and an opinion from the Court of Auditors, which, I hope, will be delivered in time. The schedule is very challenging and tight.
I would like to thank Mr Leinen for his committed work on this file, and all the other Members involved. I also want to thank President Pöttering, the Conference of Presidents and the political groups, who played an important role in preparing the ground for an agreement on this issue. So, Madam President, President of the Council, Mr Leinen,
(PT) We can move forward together.
Jo Leinen
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, President-in-Office, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the new Lisbon Treaty is the guiding vision for parliamentary democracy at EU level. For parliamentary democracy, you need political parties. You need political parties to represent the interests of society and offer citizens a variety of candidates and manifestos to choose from at elections. In all our 27 Member States, we have parties which stand in the national elections; what we need to do now is to enable these European parties to perform their democratic work at the European level as well.
We want to ensure that in advance of the European elections too, there is a range of active political families for our citizens to choose from, which are capable of mobilising the electorate and telling voters where they are planning to take them. We want citizens to be able to decide on the nature of the Europe that they are voting for and give them a real choice. The first Regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties, which we adopted back in 2004, was a resounding success. We now have ten political families which have registered, and this demonstrates the breadth of the political spectrum in the European Union. This revision of the Regulation is now designed to inject some flexibility into these democratic structures and expand them at the same time.
In most of our countries, we have not only political parties but also political foundations. These are vehicles for deeper analyses of social trends and are also a forum for debate which extends beyond the party membership. These foundations have proved their worth in many countries. They do good work and so it is all the more necessary to create the opportunity to conduct this debate, this discourse, about Europe at European level too, across national borders. I therefore welcome the fact that this instrument, which is additional to the political parties themselves, has also received Council's blessing.
Ladies and gentlemen, no political party's agenda is built around the financial year. It responds to political events, and so political parties must be treated differently from other associations. That is the purpose of this new Regulation: to inject some flexibility into financial management. We have three objectives here: firstly, we want the possibility of extending the financial year by three months on the expenditure side to enable parties to respond to political events. Secondly, we do not want parties to have to spend all their cash at the end of the year. We would like them to be able to use their own resources, membership contributions and donations to accumulate reserves which can be spent in response to key events in politics and especially, of course, on the European elections.
Finally, in order to assist the smaller political families in particular but also to get the European political foundations up and running, we need different arrangements regarding the proportion of grants and own resources. We envisage setting own resources at 15% and subsidies at 85% in the new Regulation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Council has decided to divide the legal basis. We argued that this was not necessary. Unfortunately, this will result in a loss of transparency, because citizens will now need to look in two places for the legal basis for this new Regulation. However, we do not wish to prolong the disagreement over legal issues. That would simply drag out the process and distract attention from the real objective of this Regulation. In the interests of the European political parties and their preparations for the 2009 European election campaign, we ought to concentrate on issues of substance and conclude this matter before the end of the year. I am very pleased to hear that the substance of this Regulation has met with widespread agreement. I think we should now do everything possible in order to wrap up this important piece of legislation under the Portuguese Presidency so that we have a legal basis for political foundations and a basis for more flexible financial management in the 2008 budget year. Transitional arrangements for this will be required from the Council, as we originally proposed in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to thank you for taking the initiative on behalf of the Commission. I am grateful, too, to the Portuguese Presidency for its genuine commitment to this issue, and to Mr Leitão, with whom I did a great deal of work. I would also like to thank the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mrs Guy-Quint and Mrs Mathieu, for their valuable input in their reports, which introduces more transparency and more control over the allocation of these resources. We are well on track, and I hope we will get a result by the end of the year.
Véronique Mathieu
Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in presenting my opinion on budgetary control I highlighted the four requirements that seem essential to me: improving the control mechanisms and thereby increasing the powers of the internal and external auditors and of the authorising officer; setting up a complementary checking procedure; making a clear separation between the financial resources of the political parties and those of the foundations; and finally, clarifying the rules on the funding of campaigns for European elections.
I am glad that the Council is accepting the famous 25% rule that Ingeborg Gräßle proposed last year, which the Council had rejected. We fully understand that the agreement given this year contained a significantly derogatory element that related to this report.
However, a certain hesitancy as to the legal basis of the report leads us to doubt the outcome of the vote at the conclusion of this sitting, which is regrettable.
Parliament was very quick in drawing up this report and in delivering the opinions. It would be a pity if the Council's decision to split the report into two parts means that we lose time. We would therefore like to see it adopted quickly before the end of the year. Thank you.
Ingo Friedrich
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, first of all, may I express my sincere congratulations and thanks to Mr Jo Leinen, the rapporteur, for doing a very good job. This report is one which my Group can fully support and we also endorse the amendments. The report turns political parties at European level, and the new instrument of political foundations, into effective tools to increase participation by Europe's citizens and boost Europe's democratic legitimacy.
The referenda in France and the Netherlands showed that it is important to rebuild the trust of citizens, including via the political parties and the foundations. It is also true that the financial rules need to be adapted to the rapidly changing needs of the political parties. Transparency, of course, must be safeguarded as well. That is why the European Parliament will be providing information on the funding disbursed to parties and foundations every financial year, and this will be available on our website.
Another good innovation is that the role of political parties in the context of the European elections is finally recognised. Only if Europe's parties can be actively involved in elections to the European Parliament will they become genuine players of the European polis and contribute to the formation of a European consciousness, thereby helping to overcome the democratic deficit which exists.
Another important component is the promotion of political foundations. Their work in the field of political information and education complements what the political parties do. These foundations have a special role to play in deepening the educational process and enhancing knowledge about the European Union, thus reducing the distance between citizens and the European Union.
I am convinced that foundations can boost the active participation of citizens in European political life, and they can also play an important role in the training of tomorrow's politicians. The legalistic thinking of the Council is rather hard to fathom, but as Helmut Kohl always said, the most important thing is the outcome. That is why I am in favour of this report, and I would like to thank everyone concerned for their commitment and cooperation.
Richard Corbett
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, my Group supports this proposal, and thinks this is a practical set of adjustments to the current legislation and that it is actually useful that European political parties should have the ability to do research and so on through their foundations and have the flexibility to carry money over from one year to the next and so on.
There was the issue of the legal base: Parliament and the Commission agreed, and the Council disagreed with us on that. But it is the substance that is more important than the legal base, and I dare even say that it is better to have legal certainty than to face a challenge later on this matter in the courts. So we are happy with that and we are happy to seek first-reading agreements with the Council by postponing the vote.
Let me just add though that, for the reasons the rapporteur himself said, the European political parties are important because they express the political choices we face as a European Union. The media too often focuses only on the Council, and especially the European Council, as if it is some sort of gladiatorial combat between countries. Did Britain win today or did the French? Did the Germans make a deal with the Italians? Yet when those very same subjects come to this Parliament, you rarely see all the Members from one country voting one way and all the Members of another country voting another way, because we are making political choices - policy choices. Do we want higher environmental standards but at greater cost, or not? There will be people in every country on both sides of the argument, and the same with most of the choices we face. Political groups and political parties highlight the fact that it is political, policy choices we are making in our Union, not a combat between one national viewpoint and another national viewpoint.
That is why they need to be strengthened in their work; that will help citizens have a grasp for the sort of issues that we are dealing with; that will make our Union work better.
Andrew Duff
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I should like to thank the Council Presidency for the progress that it is making in approaching an agreement at first reading. I trust that the Court of Auditors will be able to stir itself with unexpected alacrity to bring its opinion before us.
Fertile political thought is a necessary ingredient of a pluralistic, lively parliamentary democracy and this will be encouraged and stimulated by the measure before us to establish party-political foundations. It will encourage party politics to grow at European level and nascent European political parties to grow in self-confidence and to get stuck into campaigns in a purposeful way.
I have to say that we have been pirouetting around the problem of political parties for several years because, of course, they are prospective rivals and competitors for the old national political parties, which, I sometimes think, will be the final citadel defended in the interests of national sovereignty. So we should proceed fast to develop platforms at European level to support and promote post-national politics which truly reflect the paradigms of the 21st century.
Janusz Wojciechowski
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, I welcome the work currently under way on sensible regulation of the funding of political parties at European level. It is very necessary and I commend Mr Leinen on his report.
We are also confronted with a broader problem, however. This concerns the consequences of the funding of political parties on the quality of democracy both at Union level and at the level of individual Member States.
For legal reasons, the party I represent was denied budget funding for some time during an election period. I know how very difficult it is to face a political opposition that has money when you have none. One of the largest political parties in Poland almost ceased to exist recently, threatened by the withdrawal of subsidies due to minor financial errors.
Money is important, but it should not be the only factor determining the nature of the political scene, as is sometimes the case. Clearly, this is a matter for a separate debate that should be held in this House. After all, democracy cannot be dependent on funding alone.
Andreas Mölzer
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (DE) Madam President, the citizens' interest in the EU is still modest, to say the least, and this is due, among other things, to its intransparent structures, incomprehensible decisions, and a lack of media interest.
Europe's existing political parties have made little impact in terms of reducing this deficit, and it is not at all clear that they are actually a suitable vehicle by which to fulfil the citizens' desire for more codetermination. That, in my view, can only be achieved through more direct democracy. Repackaging the cosmetically enhanced EU Constitution as incomprehensibly as possible after a deal done behind closed doors and avoiding referenda is also certainly detrimental to the envisaged and much-vaunted objective of generating enthusiasm for the EU among the citizens.
In light of these circumstances, European parties and their associated foundations are highly unlike to boost EU-phoria among citizens, but if they manage to improve debate at European level and communication with citizens, and represent their interests, too, we will at least have achieved something. However, their financing must be clear and transparent and, in my view, this must include auditing by independent bodies.
Roger Helmer
Madam President, let us be clear about Mr Leinen's report: it is not about democracy, it is about propaganda, it is about using the taxes collected from our reluctant citizens to drive forward a European project about which they are increasingly uneasy. The Danes voted against Maastricht, the Irish voted against Nice, the Swedes against the euro, the French and Dutch against the Constitution, yet their taxes will be used to promote integration.
Today in this Chamber, President Sarkozy spoke of European democracy, but across our diverse Member States the common public opinion necessary for representative democracy does not exist. Democracy at European level is a fraud and a delusion. By reserving funding for pan-European parties, Mr Leinen explicitly excludes Euro-sceptic parties which do not seek pan-European status, so taxpayers' money will be channelled to integrationist parties and denied to others. In a Europe that talks about democracy, this is a crime against the people.
Íñigo Méndez de Vigo
(ES) Madam President, today the President of France spoke to the House about the need for dialogue and debate. I think that is what we all learnt during the period of reflection, as Vice-President Wallström said.
For dialogue and debate, however, we need instruments, and some of the most important and indeed essential instruments - although not the only instruments - are political parties. European political parties, like national political parties, shape the will of a people. That must also be their role in the representative institutions in Europe.
Talking about political parties at European level without talking about funding would be pointless. We must look at how those political parties, so necessary for shaping the people's will, are funded. I think that the most important issue in relation to political parties at European level - and also at national level, but it is the European level that is of interest to us here - is that financing ought to be responsible, clear and transparent. That is what is important to the taxpayers: that their money is well spent and that there are institutions that take responsibility for the way in which their money is used.
I believe that the people of Europe, although they may have some doubts or hesitations over the direction Europe ought to take, have no doubt that their future lies in Europe. Here in Parliament, I always hear even those who are most opposed to European ideas claiming that they are European and are not against Europe.
To go back to what I was saying at the start, and quote Mr Sarkozy once again: debate is necessary, and for there to be debate we must create the instruments needed to organise it.
I therefore welcome the report by Mr Leinen, which takes on board the Commission proposal, and I also thank you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my good friend Mr Lobo Antunes, for your proposal to us.
The European People's Party will not discuss the basis here. If the regulation needs to be divided in two to find a solution that is acceptable to all, then so be it. You can count on our support.
Costas Botopoulos
- (EL) Madam President, I am glad that another fellow Member will be listening to the discussion, particularly on this issue, in our beautiful language.
It seems to me that we could use political parties here, which are valuable tools. Alas, we are keeping these valuable tools hidden away in our institutional cupboard where they are in danger of getting rusty. Most if not all of us are agreed on the democratic role that political parties should play in Europe, but I think we should also agree that they have not been playing this role as yet. This is because today's parties, as several speakers have said, are not really political parties. They are loose confederations of parties, as Dimitris Tsatsos, my teacher and rapporteur at the time, said in his report as long ago as 1996. We have no real political parties, and this discussion is a good opportunity for us to see if we can establish real political parties at EU level.
I have two comments on specific topics in the report under discussion. The report makes two significant advances. As we have said, it does not solve all the political problems, but there are two major advances. One is that now we recognise how the political institutions operate, an element of thought comes into our discussion. A vital element of ideological ferment has been introduced. One of the very problems of democracy in the EU is precisely that we do not engage in rigorous and serious political thought, and these institutes can supply this need.
The second major advance is transparency. This is especially evident in the transparency rules laid down for the parties themselves, but above all, I would say, with the new Article 9(b) on the transparency rules for Parliament itself.
Let me conclude with a brief comment on the issue of the fragmentation of the legal basis. I understand that there are technical problems here. Personally, I regret this fragmentation. The point is, if we all agree that from an economic point of view independence and transparency are integral parts of the political mechanism itself, would a single legal mechanism not be far more powerful?
Roberto Musacchio
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am favourably disposed towards this resolution in that it assists the democratic life of Europe.
The Group of the European Left, which is about to hold its second congress, have always said that globalisation, and also this Europe of ours, has seen a coming-together of markets, business interests and red-tape, while democracy has lagged behind. That is all well and good for strong powers, but not for those of us who believe in a different type of society catering for the needs of its weakest members.
This was the role of mass parties in the past. Today there is a fresh challenge, namely to establish parties capable of coping with new levels of conflict and decision-making; parties which rebuild democratic participation and a democratic role for Parliament, outside the system of broad coalitions and intergovernmental cooperation that stifles democratic debate. There is of course a need for transparency in the use of funds, but politics cannot be the sole prerogative of the rich.
Javier Moreno Sánchez
(ES) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Leinen. Mr Leinen is one of the fathers of this Regulation and a tireless defender of political parties, with whom I have shared the odd battle to secure agreements, one might say.
Ladies and gentlemen, this proposal could not and cannot be the prisoner of battles between the legal services of the Community institutions. We must reach an agreement sooner rather than later because, if we fail to do so, the only victims in this conflict will be the political parties, who play a vital role in bringing the EU nearer to the citizens and encouraging them to get involved in politics so that they feel part of a common political project and a political future.
The parties also represent the transnational dimension of the EU's process of political integration. This report shows Parliament's flexibility and operational capacity. This House cannot be accused of failing to cooperate to reach an agreement at first reading before the end of 2007.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to set out three ideas, three basic improvements to this project, which we welcome and which will ensure the development of the parties and the foundations.
The first is the vital role of European political parties in elections to the European Parliament, reflected in the possibility of using the financial allocation for European election campaigns.
The second is the independent management of European political parties, with the transfer of annual reserves, and the possibility of creating reserves from own resources over several years.
Thirdly and finally, encouraging political foundations on a European scale enhances the activity of the European political parties. The foundations are a vital instrument for extending the action of the political parties and strengthening links to citizens, and they will play a major role in terms of information, debate and political training.
Esko Seppänen
(FI) Madam President, our Group is divided on this. I represent those who do not believe that the Europarties make for greater democracy. They are parties of parties and with them power gets further away from the people. They deliver centralised policies decided by the big parties in the big countries.
They can use Europarty funds to spread centralised propaganda in the European elections at national level. They receive Europarty funds to promote European awareness among the people. The aim of centralised power is to make people adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards it - to make them submissive.
A new agent of propaganda is now being proposed in the shape of a legal basis for special European foundations, reducing the extent to which the Europarties are self-funded and allowing them to escape compliance with the Financial Regulations to which others are obliged to conform. Some in our Group say no to all this.
Jens-Peter Bonde
(DA) Madam President, I am not an anti-federalist. I believe that federalism is a good form of government in Germany, Canada, Switzerland and the USA. However, it requires a people, and there is still not a European people that is prepared for a European democracy. Since I was first elected, participation in elections has fallen from 63% to 46% most recently. Next time this figure will probably fall below 40%. The European media are very few in number and small. They live off artificial subsidies. There are no common parties with members who have signed themselves up, who voluntarily pay their membership fees and who are involved in the creation of election programmes. The parties are controlled by the national parties and financed by the taxpayers. They now want more money and the opportunity to use it in national elections. This distorts equal competition, is unfair and is probably unlawful because it is in breach of the principle of equality.
Party support is being managed by members of the largest parties; my party has lost its subsidies because an individual signature is required from one of our members, even though not all the members of other parties have signed for their membership individually. We are being treated differently, yet there is no critical press that raises cases involving discrimination. I would gladly vote for subsidies for European political parties if the electorate wanted a European democracy. Begin by giving the elected people's representatives power over the legislative process, and take the power away from the government officials and lobbyists, so that the electorate can make a difference by turning out on election day and voting for a different party. Create living parties with direct membership and voluntary membership fees, so that we can then arrange the public aid which the electorate deems reasonable and which is not discriminatory. Currently, we hardly have the support of the electorate for any further pressure on the citizens' purse.
Manuel Lobo Antunes
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Wallström ended her initial speech in this debate by expressing the wish that we move forward together. The conclusion that I have drawn from this debate is that we are effectively moving forward together. This can only be good news for the Council and the Portuguese Presidency and I must thank the Commission and the European Parliament for the fact that we can move forward together based on the proposal which I have presented to you today.
As has already been said, the form is not so important; what is truly important is the substance. The substance in this case is to provide the European political parties with additional resources so that they can fully carry out their political activities and exercise their competences and so that they can fully involve all our citizens in this fascinating process of European construction.
That is the real substance, the real reason and the real issue. As I have said, I can only rejoice that the three institutions have been able to reach agreement on how to move forward in this regard. I must also say, if you will allow me to be frank, that the fact that we could reach this agreement during the Portuguese Presidency is for me and for the Portuguese Government naturally a key aspect of our Presidency, which is rapidly coming to an end.
I must say three things to you. Firstly, we hope that we will soon receive the opinion of the Court of Auditors and that we will therefore be able to achieve a rapid conclusion in this respect. Secondly, it was said here today by a Member that there were some European political parties that would be excluded from the scope of the new regulations: that is not the case as all are eligible. Finally, I want to very sincerely reiterate our commitment to do everything we can to conclude this process by the end of the year.
Jo Leinen
rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, the Council has just stated that there is broad agreement on the content of this Regulation. On Thursday, prior to the vote on this item, I will propose that the vote be postponed, so that we can get an agreement at first reading before the end of this year, probably at the December part-session.
President
I have noted the information you have given us, Mr Leinen, and we shall finish our debate with a contribution from Commissioner Wallström.
Margot Wallström
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, Mr Lobo Antunes, I definitely think that you should take all the credit that you deserve for hopefully being able to conclude this particular file before the end of the year. Then I think we should have a glass of wine, or port, to celebrate what the Portuguese Presidency has achieved on this very important file.
If Mr Helmer had remained in plenary, I would have turned to him and said that he is a living proof of how European democracy works because European taxpayers pay his salary to be here to oppose, to be against the European Union and all the rest of us. We welcome him here, we accept him here because his voice is also necessary in this debate.
So those who oppose also play a very important role in this Chamber in the European political debate. This is exactly the idea behind giving all the political parties the possibility of forming and contributing to the European political foundation, to have a lively debate where both sides and all the different views can be expressed. And we do it in an open and transparent way about the criteria, about the rules, about exactly what legal base to apply for all of this. There are no secrets in this particular proposal.
As the situation is right now, all the 10 currently existing political parties at European level have set up political foundations which represent a very wide range of political views and programmes.
This can only stimulate this lively and diverse debate on European policy issues, and it will contribute to bringing Europe closer to its citizens.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written declarations (Rule 142)
Alexandra Dobolyi
in writing. - (HU) I feel that the Commission's recommendation is important and shows the way forward. The European political parties play an important role in politics at European level. They have a big role not only in European political life but also in the creation of a European public sector in the broadest sense, so I feel that their role and the redefinition of their activities are topical.
It is a central question whether we should support the initiatives of these European political parties in the interests of encouraging citizens to participate consciously in the democratic life of the Union, and in its creation. I trust that there is demand and an opportunity for measures to reinforce and extend political dialogue: ensuring the most widespread participation possible of citizens in the democratic life of the Union, not least including young people, in order to ensure that everyone is heard.
I would like to mention here that one of the political goals decided for the European Union is still the promotion and advancement of the creation of a European public life. In order to do this, one of the elements emphasised in the Commission's document is support for political foundations at European level that provide assistance or support and supplement the activities of groups of political parties that are close to them, through various initiatives such as, for example, organising European seminars, training and conferences.
Finally, European-level foundations like this can ensure an efficient financial framework for cooperation between national political foundations and teachers at European level, including other representatives of youth organisations and civil society.


Judicial training (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on judicial training - B7-0306/2010).
Luigi Berlinguer
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we called for this oral question and a parliamentary resolution to make the Commission aware of the vital importance of fostering a common judicial culture throughout Europe as part of the Stockholm Programme.
I would like to say at the outset that this is important but also that, with a view to the communication that the Commission will have to produce on future pilot projects, as already discussed, we would like to clarify some points. First of all, we would like the parliamentary consultations to start soon so that we do not get to the initial phase, when we begin to draw up an idea for these future projects, too late when the projects have already been more or less fully formulated.
I say this because we have some basic observations to make. National judges and prosecutors in individual states are now crucial pawns in the construction of Europe because, by interpreting national rights in a European light, they can lay the ground for settling disputes and regulating the daily lives of citizens. By doing so, they engender a sense of European citizenship; they engender a European sensibility in everyone who inhabits these lands. This comes about because the people are made to feel the tangible benefits of introducing European elements and hence Community law, above all, into all State laws so that our citizens can live better lives. This offers real advantages for overcoming problems that would otherwise remain unresolved.
By saying this, my aim is to turn the whole system slightly on its head. For example, we do not agree that these projects should be along the lines of Erasmus projects because the number of judges and prosecutors involved in Erasmus-style projects would be very low. This could not be otherwise due to the high costs of physical mobility in this field and the numbers would not therefore be very significant within the judiciary as a whole.
The most important question concerns the term 'familiarisation courses', which we introduced in our paper. Judges are not schoolchildren sitting behind their desks waiting to be taught a lesson. They are mature and highly professional people with little time to spare and who cannot therefore easily move around. Despite this, they hold a valuable store of knowledge and should be stimulated to pit their knowledge against the new problems of European law and European culture. This will create fertile ground for exchanges, virtual rather than physical, using technologies, the Internet and the various opportunities such exchanges can create. Their starting point should be not so much a general approach but rather the individual cases, the individual problems that judges and prosecutors have to deal with. The cases and problems are new and must stimulate the professional growth of these legal operators, providing them with the stimulus they need to make an effective contribution, based on autobiographical reflection on their experience and what they have learned, to respond to the challenges represented by Europe in positive terms.
As you see, Mr President, Commissioner, we intend to break with the tradition of the courses that have been held so far and that we feel are not really fit for purpose. We would like to know how much and what funds are available and express our doubts over the idea - as we stated in our communication - of a Central European institution to oversee this process because we are in favour of a bottom-up movement and against centralisation.
This is a new approach. What we wish to point out, however, is that unless we shape a European mentality among judges and prosecutors, who will, in this way, offer their services to justice and the citizens who call for it, we will not make Europe. This is therefore not only an important charter for European justice; it is an important charter for the development of European unity as a whole.
Kristalina Georgieva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of the Commission, I thank you for the question that has been put to us. I am very pleased to engage in dialogue on this question with the European Parliament. The Commission is working at improving access to European judicial training, not only for judges and prosecutors, but also for all other legal professions. We consider contacts with all networks and representative organisations to be of the utmost importance. Member States are also of major importance since they have the overall responsibility for training of judges, prosecutors and court staff.
The Commission is currently assessing what financial means would be necessary to implement European judicial training and exchanges on a larger scale and some proposals could be presented, or actually are going to be presented, for the new financial perspective.
In the meantime, it is important to do more and better with the available means, with what we have now. We have already taken steps to ensure that European judicial training is better taken into consideration in the 2011 financial programmes.
However, I would like to underline that, for several years, stakeholders have been encouraged to present more training projects in response to calls for proposals, but results have been disappointing: only a limited number of good quality projects on judicial training were received and the Commission regrets, in particular, that very few quality projects have been presented on training of court staff, bailiffs, notaries or legal interpreters.
The Commission services are already working on developing proof of concept projects for exchanges between legal practitioners. We are not developing any pilot project this year under Article 49(6)a of the Financial Regulation.
Feasibility studies are necessary to help the Commission define which features should be common to all legal professions and which ones should take into consideration organisational aspects specific to one particular legal profession.
To develop a common judicial culture, the Commission is keen to encourage European networks, stakeholders and Member States to organise common activities on comparative law and approximation of law, which might eventually come under the umbrella of a European Law Institute, as indicated in the Commission's Action Plan.
Contacts with stakeholders have shown that there is a need to better structure European judicial training and they have framed a number of questions that the Commission is focused on now. Questions like the following: What type of activities are we talking about when we consider European judicial training? What tools do we have to assess the impact training has at European level? How do we assess the level of quality? How can we reuse good practices, and transfer know-how? How can we allow legal practitioners to be trained not only in EU law or comparative law, but also in the skills necessary to work in a European area of justice, such as knowledge of other languages, understanding of cross-border banking and similar issues? How can we achieve a European training scheme which focuses on the needs of our citizens?
We would like to use the feedback from European judicial training activities to assess the quality of EU legislation in our ongoing efforts for better regulation.
These are some of the aspects on which the Commission is working and they will be the basis of the communication the Commission will be presenting in 2011. And in this communication, there will, of course, be a funding proposal and the Commission has a higher level of ambition with regard to funding than we currently have available. We welcome opportunities to further discuss European judicial training and will engage with Parliament on this important matter.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
The principle of mutual recognition, which is a fundamental one, requires mutual trust, and trust in the legal systems of other countries. These values can only come from mutual recognition and understanding, which will then give rise to a European judicial culture. Mutual acquaintance and understanding can themselves only come about as a result of activating policy to foster them, including exchange of experience, visits, sharing information, and, above all, training for lawyers and people working in the justice system - especially judges in courts of first instance - and thorough modernisation of university education programmes. In order to continue establishing a European judicial culture, an active role must be played by European networks set up in individual sectors of the judicial system.
In the context of the effectiveness of training for people working in the justice system, it is essential to emphasise the significance of the multilingual e-Justice portal. The portal should have access to legal databases and to judicial and non-judicial electronic means of appeal. It should also give access to smart systems developed as aids to citizens who are seeking ways to resolve legal problems or who are using extensive registers, lists of people working in the justice system and simple guides to the legal system of each Member State.
The European Parliament should participate fully in the development and approval of the principles of training for people working in the justice system, in particular, the pilot projects envisaged in the Commission's Action Plan pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the treaty.
It is also very important that the European Commission should consult Parliament on separate plans to open an institute based on existing structures and networks of cooperation, in particular, the European Judicial Training Network and the Academy of European Law. Suitable training for people working in the justice system and establishment of a European judicial culture can accelerate court proceedings in cross-border cases and, in this way, can contribute significantly to improving the function of the internal market, both for businesspeople and for citizens, and to giving citizens easier access to the justice system.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
Mr President, I am now working in my second term on the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, and am very well aware of the importance of the subject of today's debate. Creating a European legal space, which has been our ambition for years, is not possible without suitably trained lawyers and judges. The role of national judges in ensuring that European law is observed cannot be overestimated. Let us remember that it is the national judges who are able to refer a question to the European Court of Justice requesting interpretation of EU law in cases where there is a suspicion that it has been broken at national level. It is, therefore, obvious that judges must have a perfect knowledge of EU law. It is not always like this, today. EU law, despite its formal precedence over national law, is not well known and is sometimes even seen as a necessary evil.
I fully support the proposals concerning the training of judges, which call for, among other things, strengthening of the structures which are involved in this training, namely the Academy of European Law and the European Judicial Training Network. I also think that such training should enjoy greater financial support from the Union and that this should be taken into consideration during the negotiations on the Financial Framework for 2014-2020 which are just beginning.
Diana Wallis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we, the few of us left in this room from the Committee on Legal Affairs, are all very keen on the Stockholm Programme, but there is no point in us sitting in this place or in Brussels and passing new laws if our judges in the Member States do not know that law and are not proficient in interpreting it on behalf of our citizens.
Frankly, the situation at the moment is not good. We ask a lot of our national judges. They have to know their national law, their European law, we expect them to know foreign law - all the laws of our 27 Member States - to know languages, and to have a comparative knowledge of various legal systems. To achieve all that takes time - probably several lifetimes - and money.
It is going to be difficult to achieve this with our current judges, with the best will in the world. They have to find time and space to do this. We can try to do our best through various linkages, exchange programmes and continuing education. But the Member States also have to help us.
But I want to look to the future, because it is the young law students of today who will be the judges of tomorrow, and there we have to concentrate on getting the legal education of today right for the judges of the future in a European judicial space.
Jaroslav Paška
The basic precondition for a well-functioning European judicial space is the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, respecting the different legal traditions and methods of the countries, operating on the basis of mutual trust between judges, people in the legal professions and citizens.
Differences between the judicial systems of the various Member States should, in no case, undermine the legal certainty of our citizens or interfere with their right to a fair and competent adjudication of their problems. It is therefore very important to create the best possible conditions for expanding European judicial training.
In the interests of better understanding of the interdependence of the European and national legal environments, the European Union must also put greater effort into creating a network of accredited institutions for the professional training of lawyers, which will be able to provide professional tuition and courses for lawyers and judges on the specifics of domestic, comparative and European law, and on their mutual connections. These investments into improving the quality of the judicial and legal environment of the European Union must be seen as essential costs for achieving the highly important common objective of increasing satisfaction and legal certainty for all our citizens.
Cecilia Wikström
(SV) Mr President, our task is to build a Europe of the future together, based on common values, mutual trust and respect for the differences that make up our combined strength. These values cannot be legislated for, decided on or demanded. They can only be developed in reciprocal meetings between people. It is extremely important for the men and women working in the legal profession in our Member States to have the opportunity to meet, discuss and learn from each other. It is in these meetings that understanding and respect for our differences grows and knowledge can be gained that can strengthen our respective traditions.
We need to strengthen the learning and dialogue between European citizens and we will do that by creating arenas that provide the opportunity for development and growth among people who have devoted their lives to the legal systems in our Member States. Like others, I would emphasise the need for forceful action and am expecting a great deal from the Commission when it comes to bringing to the fore this important area for the common good of us all.
Kristalina Georgieva
Member of the Commission. - The points that have been made here very much align with the intention of the Commission to pursue, as much as possible, networking that would allow the profession to thrive on the skills and capabilities of the best and the brightest within it, but also to provide the platform for training at national, regional and European level in the engagement of active networks such as the Academy of European Law, the European Judicial Training Network and the European Institute of Public Administration.
Secondly, there was a very important point made on focusing on the future. This is something that the Commission very much agrees with. The question is how to implement it, as the training programmes evolve in 2011, but also with the new communication being put in place for the next financial perspective.
Thirdly, if I could just make one very specific point. It is my pleasure to inform Parliament that an EU justice portal will be launched on 16 July, because we should not wait until we have the new communication. We should use the means available to us. After all, it is about better implementation of European law, but it is also about increasing the trust of citizens in the law so they can actually rely on the collective advancements that, in the end, have to benefit them, our citizens.
So let me stop here. Mr President, this is your first time in the Chair in your new position. You are doing extremely well. We started exactly five minutes after nine and we seem to be able to finish five minutes before the end of the session, before 12. Congratulations, and I wish you in your future chairmanship to be as organised as you have been tonight.
President
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 June 2010.