3. Financing of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the financing of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
I should point out that some of our colleagues are currently in Sierra Leone to monitor the elections there.
Józef Pinior
author. - (PL) Mr President, the development of international humanitarian law, together with the establishment of courts to try perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity represented a mayor achievement by the international community after the Second World War. The role of the aforementioned institutions has developed further in the era of globalisation, especially in areas where national leaders are unable to establish a central authority around governments based on the rule of law and ensure the fundamental security of the inhabitants concerned.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone is making a significant contribution to the cause of peace and justice in the Mano River region of West Africa. I should like to highlight the programme undertaken by the Court involving the archiving and translation of documents relating to its work. I should also like to mention the victim protection programmes it has set up. Activities of this nature are crucial to the establishment of governments based on the rule of law in West Africa in the longer term.
In today's resolution on the financing of the Special Court for Sierra Leone the European Parliament is calling on the Commission and on all European and Member State institutions to guarantee the financial basis to enable the Court to complete its work in a measured and responsible manner.
Ryszard Czarnecki
author. - (PL) Mr President, it so happens that the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in Sierra Leone this coming weekend. I cannot but express my regret that the European Parliament delegation previously planned will not be present there.
We might well ask ourselves why the Special Court for Sierra Leone is so important. This is not simply a case of one more of the many African countries with a history of rape and murder. It concerns the prestige and development of the international administration of justice in the area of criminal law.
We have recently witnessed two spectacular failures of this very system, and we should be honest with ourselves and recognise them as such. I refer to the failed attempt to sentence Slobodan Milošević and the exceedingly controversial circumstances surrounding the death of Saddam Hussein. Should a further fiasco now occur in the wake of these much-publicised events, that is to say, should the Court be obliged to cease operations due to a lack of financial resources, it would amount to the coup de grâce for international administration of justice in the area of criminal law.
To go into detail, what is at stake is the allocation of less than USD 90 million over the next two and a quarter years, with more than a third of the total to be transferred this year. This is needed in order to ensure the continued operation of the Court. The prestige of the administration of cross-border justice really does depend on the Special Court for Sierra Leone sentencing Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, and on it investigating 17 allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murders and sexual offences.
I should like publicly to thank two countries from the floor of this House, namely the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which have provided significant financial support for the Court's activities. The United Nations also has an important role to play. It cannot behave like Pontius Pilate and simply wash its hands of the matter. I am glad that the European Parliament will speak with one voice on this issue.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Mr President, those who strongly support the respect for human rights - Members of this House included - have fought hard to ensure that a Special Court for Sierra Leone was set up and notorious killers, like Charles Taylor and his criminal mob, faced trial and punishment. Those same people now view with disbelief the grim prospect that the effort to bring Charles Taylor to book may end up becoming a farce because the Special Court in The Hague ran out of money half way through the trial. Such an eventuality will no doubt be a serious blow to international justice and it will make our citizens lose all faith in the rule of law and order. Furthermore, it will send a very clear encouragement to criminals worldwide to pursue without fear their evil acts of committing genocides and other despicable atrocities against humanity.
Irrespective of the outcome of the plea to somehow keep this Special Court on Sierra Leone alive and functioning, one cannot help but raise the following issues.
Firstly, the USD 89 million requested by the court to conclude its operations is surely a vast amount of money. How come it is so vast? We all know that lawyers make a bomb, but not a nuclear bomb! Could not such a court operate on a more economically efficient budget? Are there perhaps expensive extravagances and gross inefficiencies resulting in large amounts of financial waste?
Secondly, how much did it cost for a very similar court in The Hague to try, to the extent that it did, Slobodan Milošević? Was the budget then not subject to limitations and why was that so? Is it perhaps different to commit a crime against humanity in Europe than in Africa?
These questions need answers, which, from my experience in this House, I know I am not going to get, and our citizens may have to resign themselves to believing not that the rule of law holds true but that money rules the law.
Bernd Posselt
author. - (DE) Mr President, West Africa was once known as a region where there was a great deal of positive development. Today Sierra Leone has become a synonym for the particular horrors which we have witnessed across Africa over these past few years. We therefore have a responsibility to ensure that the forthcoming elections not only help to restore democracy but also, and far more importantly, restore justice and the rule of law. This must include the prosecution of the massive crimes that have taken place in this country. After all, Europeans were among those who used Mr Taylor as a means by which to enrich themselves from, and in, Sierra Leone.
That is why I believe that the process of dealing with these crimes cannot be allowed to fail due to a lack of funds. We Europeans have a responsibility in that regard, but I nonetheless believe that the questions that have been raised here are justified. It is apparent that we will not make progress in the long term with ad hoc tribunals. It is apparent that what we need in the long term is a single universal jurisdiction to deal with these criminal dictators. However, that does not help us at the moment. The first task now is to press ahead with the trials that have already begun and, in particular, to press ahead with securing the conviction of Mr Taylor, for that will send out a warning signal to criminals who are committing crimes against humanity today or who may do so in future: I would mention Zimbabwe's dictator, Mr Mugabe, in this context. Mr Mugabe must be shown what could happen to him if he continues with his horrendous crimes. That is why we need uniform criteria and stable institutions to deal with these massive crimes.
Mikel Irujo Amezaga
author. - (ES) Mr President, I was lucky enough to be part of the Election Observation Mission that participated in the elections held in August in Sierra Leone and I must say first and foremost that we were all extremely impressed with how professionally the mission, led by my Group colleague, Mrs Isler Béguin, was run and is still being run.
As such, I had the opportunity to be able to visit the Special Court in situ and hear directly from Mrs Mansaray, head of the Registry, about the work the Court is doing. During the visit we were constantly told that if there were no justice there would be no peace. That is precisely why this Court is so important. As stated many times in this resolution, it is crucial for the continued consolidation of the peace process in Sierra Leone to ensure that the crimes do not go unpunished
It was very expensive and it costs a lot of money because the Court's work has been of epic proportions; ensuring complete respect for the rule of law in a country that has been devastated by a civil war is very difficult. The first task was to gather all the testimonies and that was no mean feat: the population had to be convinced that there would be no reprisals and that they would not be subjected to any more humiliation.
The second task was to convince the people that all those involved in human rights violations could be tried, not just the guerrilla leaders. In addition, I must point out that the defence of the accused has been scrupulously respected. The Court also took a historic decision in 2004 to refuse to recognise the applicability of a national amnesty for the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Without justice then, there is no peace. It is thus important to contribute to the funding of this Court. We are obliged to contribute towards peace and stability in the Mano River region. The Special Court is itself an example for the reform of Sierra Leone's judicial system and I would call on the Commission here to look into the possibility of providing financial support for the projects carried out by the United Nations with a view to reforming the country's judicial system.
Tadeusz Zwiefka
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the Special Court for Sierra Leone is entitled to count on our particular attention, as it is rightly presented as a new and almost perfect model for the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, it has proved that an international court dealing with war crimes may be located in the country where those crimes were committed, thus allowing local people to have direct access to justice. In addition, if the Special Court for Sierra Leone is compared with similar bodies in other parts of the world, it can be seen that this arrangement has allowed the Court to be fully effective whilst incurring significantly lower costs.
For the first time in history an incumbent head of state of an African country, Charles Taylor, has been successfully convicted of crimes against humanity. It has also proved possible to establish a legal definition of the notion of child soldiers and forced marriages, so as to enable those guilty of such crimes to be convicted. The Special Court for Sierra Leone may unfortunately have to cease its operations as it is running out of funds. The sum required to allow proceedings against the most notorious criminals to continue is less than USD 90 million. I hereby call on all the Member States and on the Commission to provide funds to support the Special Court for Sierra Leone as soon as possible. Continuation of the peace process and reconciliation in Sierra Leone and the whole of West Africa will be seriously threatened if funding for the Court does not become available.
Genowefa Grabowska
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I fully support all those who have appealed for this job to be seen through to the end and for justice to de dispensed in Sierra Leone. This simply must happen. The perpetrators of crimes cannot be allowed to believe that they will enjoy impunity, regardless of where they may reside, be it in Europe, in Africa or in any other part of the world.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity to highlight a particular problem, which I believe to be very significant. We are witnessing a proliferation of courts established by the United Nations, a kind of mushrooming of criminal courts. An International Criminal Court was set up in Rome. An International Criminal Tribunal to deal with the crimes that took place in the former Yugoslavia was also set up, and another to deal with the crimes committed in Rwanda. Now we have the Special Court for Sierra Leone. I appreciate that all these courts are necessary, but if they are to be established their funding must be guaranteed from the outset. That is a sine qua non.
I therefore call on the Commissioner to raise the matter of financing such institutions at the forthcoming EU-Africa summit, due to take place before the end of this year. These institutions are necessary and must be properly funded. It is embarrassing to have to discuss sums of this nature.
Viviane Reding
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Commission is strongly committed to assisting in the transition of Sierra Leone from a situation of post-conflict to one of development and to support its efforts in sustaining peace, stability and democracy.
We have fully supported past, current and future actions of the Court in bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice, thus recognising the suffering of the Sierra Leoneans during the civil war. The work of the Special Court sends an important signal to everyone that serious crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes will no longer remain unpunished, no matter where they have taken place.
The Commission has been providing financial assistance to the court since 2002. This assistance was granted indirectly in 2002, by supporting the project worth almost EUR 685 000 through a coalition of NGOs led by No Peace Without Justice to identify human rights violations, to raise awareness among the legal profession and to provide legal assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone. Since 2003, the Commission has provided the funds to the Special Court directly, through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights as already mentioned. An overall budget of about EUR 2.1 million has been allocated to the Court by means of three Victims' Justice and Legacy projects. The overall objective of these projects was inter alia to ensure that the Special Court contributes to a broader understanding of justice for victims of the conflict. Moreover, in 2006, the emphasis was given to the coverage and proximity of Charles Taylor's trial and it targeted civil society groups as well as the people of Liberia and the subregion.
The Special Court will be supported in 2008 by the new European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, which was adopted in the context of the new Financial Framework 2007-2013. The amount of EUR 600 000 has been reserved in the annual action plan from the 2007 budget. The Commission is holding the talks with the Court to identify the project proposal for the 2007 funding. It has been said several times by different Members that there are difficulties to find sufficient means for financing the Special Court. That is why the Commission is considering raising this matter with the Member States and it is also exploring the possibility of financing the Court and its outreach activities through other financial instruments.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote is due to take place at the end of the debates, in other words in just a moment.


Welcome
President
- Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to inform you that, within the framework of the inter-parliamentary sessions, a delegation from the Moroccan Parliament, led by the Speaker of the Parliament, Mr Abdel Wahid Al-Radi, and the President of the Chamber of Councillors, Mr Mohamed Sheikh Biadillah, is currently on a working visit to the European Parliament, the aim of which is the inaugural meeting of the EU-Morocco Joint Parliamentary Committee. I would like to extend a very warm welcome to all members of this delegation. The co-presidents of this first joint body between our assembly and one of the Maghreb countries are Mrs Mbarka Bouaida, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, National Defence and Islamic Affairs, and Mr Panzeri, Member of the European Parliament.
The European Parliament is delighted to state that relations between the EU and Morocco are excellent, as evidenced by the adoption of the joint document establishing the advanced status of Morocco. This new framework for dialogue further strengthens relations with the delegations of the European Parliament for relations with the Maghreb countries, and makes it possible to broaden talks between the EU and Morocco on matters of common interest. I hope and trust that the meeting which took place in the European Parliament was fruitful and that it will actively contribute towards bringing the two parliaments closer together.


European Agency for Reconstruction (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction - C6-0170/2006 -.
Olli Rehn
Mr President, Honourable Members, I would like to thank Mr Kacin very much for the positive assessment of our proposal in his report.
Let me first explain the rationale of the proposal. At the end of an era of reconstruction, and in view of the preparations for accession, we decided to reassess the mechanisms for assistance implementation in the Balkans, including the future of the European Agency for Reconstruction. We explained our views on the future of the Agency in a report issued in December last year, which was transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament for information. The need to prepare the beneficiary countries to assume their own financial responsibility for the implementation of EU assistance led the Commission to the conclusion to discontinue the Agency but to seek its extension for two years until 31 December 2008, with its current mandate and status, and gradually to phase out its activities under CARDS.
In the mean time, the Commission will prepare the programming and implementation of the instrument for Pre-Accession in a deconcentrated manner through our delegations in the countries concerned from next year onwards. So we have both phasing-out and phasing-in going on at the same time.
The current Regulation expires on 31 December 2006, and, therefore, it is important that the amending regulation is adopted well before the end of the year in order to provide continuity in the implementation of CARDS and legal certainty for the staff of the Agency. A number of administrative decisions will have to be taken directly following the adoption of this regulation before the end of the year.
On the phasing-out of the Agency, the Commission is committed to ensuring an efficient phasing-out and at the same time a phasing-in of the EU delegation's liaison office in order to deliver aid without disruption and in a cost-effective manner. This is a complex process in terms of transferring staff (to the extent possible), transferring files, closing all remaining financial activities and making all necessary arrangements to ensure sufficient premises for the reinforced Commission delegations. The Director-General of DG Enlargement has created a Task Force at director level to monitor and steer this process.
The Commission welcomes Mr Kacin's proposal for regular reporting to the European Parliament 'on the ongoing operational details of the transfer plan'. My services will always be at your disposal to reply to your questions and to provide you with updated information on a regular basis. However, for the sake of legal clarity, I would prefer that this amendment is not included in the text of the amending regulation, the purpose of which is merely to extend the mandate of the Agency for an additional two years.
Jelko Kacin
As rapporteur for Serbia and rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe for Albania, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I have been following the political circumstances in the region very closely. I am aware of the fact that the phasing out of the Agency will coincide with a period of critical developments in the Western Balkans. We have already witnessed Montenegro's declaration of independence, and now we are facing not only the prospect of local, parliamentary and presidential elections but also, on top of that, the constitutional referendum in Serbia. This will take place by the end of the year and, although in theory it should not affect the timetable for deciding the future status of Kosovo, it will nonetheless do so in practice. For this reason, I have also drafted two amendments that I will proceed to present.
As I stated when presenting my report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I support the Commission's proposal for phasing out the Agency by extending its mandate for a further two years. The Agency will retain and renew its current status and mandate, together with its activities under the CARDS programme, but it will be phased out and replaced by Commission delegations and offices that will manage the IPA, our new financial instrument.
The Agency was founded in 2000 as the principal EU office for reconstruction in war-ravaged Kosovo. It later extended its operations to Serbia, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Agency is independent and its mandate is renewed successively every year by the Council and the European Parliament. Hence, even as far back as its founding, it operated on the premise that it was a temporary body and that it would ultimately be replaced. Now, ten years after the Kosovo crisis, it is obvious that the current interim arrangements are inadequate and inappropriate.
The countries of the Western Balkans are in a state of transition from a reconstruction phase to a phase of preparation for their prospective membership of the European Union. Streamlining the European Union's activities by devolving them to Commission delegations is therefore the appropriate and correct way of demonstrating our political commitment to the countries of the Western Balkans. This will also ensure that we make the best use of EU taxpayers' money. Beginning to phase out the Agency now, at a time when activities under the CARDS programme are also being discontinued and replaced by the new financial instrument that is the IPA is both sensible and timely.
I firmly believe that the new streamlined and rationalised arrangements for the political and financial assistance offered by the EU will have positive effects on the political and economic stability of the region. The draft amendment in my original proposal recommended that, in order to coordinate our positions with the Commission, we draw up a detailed report on our organisational plans for devolution. As the Commissioner has informed us, my later recommendation envisaged instead a draft amendment which would oblige the Commission to report to Parliament and the Council on the situation in this region on a quarterly basis. However, the devolution process must be continuous.
The quarterly reports would need to include brief information on the progress of the devolution of individual duties from the Agency to the individual delegations, as well as an assessment of their cooperation in the quarterly period. The reports would need to include new facts that have been gathered since the last report or will shortly be gathered, and would also need to set new objectives that need to be met. Likewise, the reports would need to include an overview of devolution in practice in the beneficiary countries, particularly in the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is still a candidate country, but unfortunately at present still does not have a date for the commencement of negotiations.
In the context of these reports, the Commission would also need to present measures which it intends to adopt in order to promote regional projects after the Agency ceases to operate. Equally, the Commission must adopt specific plans to expand the delegations in response to the break-up of the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro and to expand the delegations in the light of the future status of Kosovo when that becomes reality. At the same time, I have called on the Commission to ensure that all the valuable knowledge and technical expertise which the Agency has accumulated during the seven years of its operation is transferred to the delegations.
Paulo Casaca
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Kacin, I should like to draw the Chamber's attention to the findings of the Committee on Budgetary Control. On at least two missions, one in Thessaloniki and the other in Kosovo, the committee has noted the effectiveness and innovation of the European Reconstruction Agency's external activities.
No such previous Community action has been anything like as effective or innovative. Action on the ground, in conjunction with the local authorities, has been outstandingly good, and I feel it would be a serious mistake if we were to fail to make use of such action in other situations and to forego its benefits.
Commission resources and European funds must not merely be handed over to the United Nations or to NGOs or to any other institution without the proper resources to administer Community funds on the ground.
The EAR's experience in administering Community funds has been most valuable, and I should like to call on the Commission not to let that experience go to waste, because that would be disastrous for the whole of the EU.
Hannes Swoboda
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Kacin, for his work. Although we do not always agree about matters of substance, working with him and discussing things with him are always interesting experiences. I might add that I fully agree with his amendments.
As Mr Casaca has already said, the Agency has done a very good job, and I think that the EU can be proud of itself for creating it. It has indeed done an excellent job, and if that is said by someone like Mr Casaca of the Committee on Budgetary Control, a body from which we can of course expect particular criticism, it counts even more.
Nevertheless, I agree with Commissioner Rehn when he says that times and situations change; individual countries go their separate ways; the duration of the run-up to countries' accessions often varies. I would also ask him, however, to ensure that the people who have had some very positive experiences in these countries also be given the opportunity to continue to do good work for the EU and for these countries.
I should like to take this opportunity to give my sincere thanks to Commissioner Rehn, too, for his commitment to this region; as it is very important to have someone with sensitivity towards the region, someone who knows that its needs have to be met appropriately, and that that includes a pan-European approach. I should like to ask the Commissioner to do his utmost in the coming months, at a time when the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo will be precarious, and also to join together with Parliament - and the Council, too, I hope - to guarantee the stability of this region. I am sure that he will do so. A great deal of the work that the Agency, too, has done, will simply be undone if we do not set clear European objectives to ensure that the path towards EU membership is clear. The countries must increasingly do their own work, however - albeit with our help and support - as we cannot take it off them. It is very important, therefore, that the responsible Commissioner give a clear direction. If he does so, we shall give him our full support in his further work.
Erik Meijer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, the accession of newcomers to the European Union is at its most successful when they already enjoy more or less the same level of democracy, human rights, environmental protection and welfare as do the other Member States. The European Agency for Reconstruction can help remove some of the differences that are still delaying the accession of seven western Balkan states. In recent years, there were differences of opinion about the emphasis this agency should place on education and infrastructure, of both of which there is a desperate lack in those countries, or on reforms. Those reforms in the areas of governance, justice, police and market are mainly external requests. Internal requests, on the other hand, are requests for financial support for small projects that can be tackled independently without too much red tape, supervision or control, combined with the restoration of railway lines, bridges, flood-control dams and drinking water basins that have suffered damage as a result of war or neglect. To pass on the responsibilities of this agency to delegations and agencies of the Commission in 2009 is a radical step. What I would like the Commission to tell us is whether it only wants to help simplify EU intervention or also wants to meet local needs more effectively
Panagiotis Beglitis
(EL) Mr President, I too agree with the previous speakers who said that the Balkan reconstruction agency did indeed play a very important role, not only initially in sending humanitarian aid, but primarily in the reconstruction and strengthening of democratic reforms and in consolidating democratic institutions in the countries of the Western Balkans. This role was strengthened in particular - or I would say legalised - by the decisions taken by the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003 to support the European prospects of the Balkans, which support we need to constantly renew with deeds and decisions. Of course, this role became more effective because Thessaloniki was chosen as the agency's headquarters, due to its geographical vicinity and its knowledge of this area.
As we have seen, the agency was created in a difficult period for the Balkans. I fear that this is an equally difficult period today; we are at a dead end in the negotiations on Kosovo and therefore - and I appeal here to Commissioner Rehn - particular care is needed and we need to pass new competences to the local representations of the Commission in the capitals of the Western Balkans at once, so that there is no vacuum. Of course, there is the two-year transitional period, but what we need to secure as of now is for experience and know-how to be passed on from the agency to the local representations of the Commission. I would even say, Commissioner, that you need to be flexible, that you should not be dogmatic, even when it comes to the possibility of negative developments in the Balkans, so that provision is made right now to extend the term of office of the agency in Thessaloniki a little, even to beyond December 2008, depending on local developments.
To close, I would say that the reconstruction process in the Balkans is not a technocratic process. It is, of course, a political process, which is why the European Commission should keep the European Parliament informed. I agree with Mr Kacin that periodic reports should be submitted on the operation of local ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Józef Pinior
(PL) Mr President, the Commission proposes to discontinue the European Agency for Reconstruction, but also to extend it for two years until 31 December 2008, retaining its status and mandate. According to this plan, the Agency and its activities will be gradually phased out and replaced by Commission representations and offices which will be managed by a new financial instrument.
Reform and ensuring proper financial management is of key importance to the European Union. On the other hand, the phasing out of the European Agency for Reconstruction should not follow a rigid schedule, but should be based on political and economic criteria and factors with full use of its potential as regards specialist knowledge and practice. The European Agency for Reconstruction is being closed at a time of key political events concerning the development of the Western Balkans. In eliminating the Agency, the Commission must make provision for securing stability in the region, and for the UN Security Council decision on the status of Kosovo. Securing the role of the European Union in this process should be a primary aim in this.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
- (LT) While working at the European Parliament, I had the opportunity to visit countries of the former Yugoslavia as well as Albania and witness at first hand how valuable the European perspective is for those countries. The European Agency for Reconstruction has played and continues to play an important role in stabilising the situation and supporting reforms in the region.
As we gradually phase out the activities of the Agency, the economic and political consequences of the elimination of the Agency and the use of the professional experience and knowledge of its staff must be considered. The next few years will be crucial for the West Balkan states on their way to the EU, while some ways of solving the Kosovo problem can once again disrupt not only this region, but much more.
I welcome suggestions of how to strengthen Parliamentary control at this stage of the Agency's operation. The Commission's report should explain whether the delegations and officers of the Commission taking over the task of closing the Agency will be able to properly compensate for this closure.
Olli Rehn
Member of the Commission. (SV) Mr President, honourable Members, I would thank Parliament for supporting the Commission's decision gradually to phase out the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) by allowing the Agency to discontinue its activities under the CARDS Programme. As the IPA is phased in, we shall obtain the best possible conditions for successfully continuing to support affected countries in the Western Balkans. Many Members have expressed concern about the EU losing expert knowledge. We are keen to retain the expertise we have and are therefore, as far as possible, inviting those staff who now work for the EAR to do the same type of work in the Commission's delegations.
Where Montenegro and Kosovo are concerned, the Commission is in the process of planning a well-structured delegation in Podgorica, Montenegro and a possible upgrading of our liaison office in Priština.
Mr President, I would thank Parliament for its support for our stabilisation and integration policy in the Western Balkans. It is incredibly important that we work together in pursuit of the same goals. I am sure that, together, we can achieve very good results when it comes to stabilising the Western Balkans and integrating them into the European Union.
President
I should like to thank the Commissioner and all the speakers in that debate. I should also like to thank the interpreters for their patience.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00.
(The sitting was suspended at 8.50 p.m. and resumed at 9.05 p.m.)


Formal sitting - Sir Jonathan Sacks
President
(DE) Chief Rabbi Sacks, Lady Sacks, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour and pleasure to welcome the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, and his wife, to the European Parliament in Strasbourg at this formal session as part of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament, Sir Jonathan!
(Applause)
As our first guest in this year of intercultural dialogue, the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, made a speech in our plenary session. As the year went on, we also had the opportunity to listen to an address by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. With your speech today, Chief Rabbi, we will have heard from representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Each of these religions has produced its own special contribution to shaping what today's European society has become and what distinguishes it. The same is true of humanism and enlightenment. Even if we live in secular societies in which there is a clear separation of church and state, it is fitting to duly recognise the positive role that organised religion plays in our societies.
This relates not only to the physical contribution to areas such as training, health and social services, but also to the same extent to the development of our ethical consciousness and to the shaping of our values. The European Union is a community of values and the most fundamental of these is the inherent dignity of every human being.
Chief Rabbi, you are well known as a great author and professor, an unsurpassable man of learning and one of the world's leading representatives of the Jewish faith. You have often written and spoken about the danger that a rejuvenation of anti-Semitism poses to our societies.
Last week, at the European Parliament in Brussels, we held a very special commemoration, which we arranged jointly with the European Jewish Congress, in order to remember the 70th anniversary of the Night of Broken Glass. On that occasion, I pointed out that we in the European Union bear a responsibility and a duty to resist, absolutely without exception and without appeasement, all forms of extremism, racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and to defend democracy, the protection of human rights and human dignity across the globe.
Chief Rabbi, in your book The Dignity of Difference - and on this point I will close - which was written a year after the terrible events of 11 September 2001, you tackled one of the most fundamental questions of our day, namely: can we all live together in peace and, if so, how? It is now with great pleasure and honour that I ask the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth to address us.
(Applause)
Sir Jonathan Sacks
Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. - Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, I thank you for the privilege of addressing you today, and I thank you even more for undertaking this vital initiative of intercultural dialogue. I salute you all, but in particular your visionary, wise and deeply humane President, Hans-Gert Pöttering. May I - in what I hope will be today my only breach of the separation between church and state, religion and politics - give my prayer and my blessing that God will bless all of you and all you do. Thank you.
I speak as a Jew from within the oldest continuous cultural presence in Europe. I want to begin by reminding us that European civilisation was born 2 000 years ago in a dialogue, a dialogue between the two greatest cultures of antiquity: Ancient Greece and Biblical Israel - Athens and Jerusalem. They were brought together by Christianity, whose religion came from Israel but whose sacred texts were written in Greek, and that was the founding dialogue of Europe. And some of the greatest moments in European history in the intervening 2 000 years were the result of dialogue. I will mention just three.
The first took place between the 10th and 13th centuries in al-Andalus, in the great cultural movement initiated by the Umayyads in Spain. It began with an Islamic dialogue on the part of thinkers like Averroës with the philosophical heritage of Plato and Aristotle. The Islamic dialogue inspired Jewish thinkers like Moses Maimonides, and the Jewish dialogue inspired Christian thinkers, most famously Aquinas.
The second great moment of intercultural dialogue took place at the beginning of the Italian Renaissance when a young Christian intellectual, Pico della Mirandola, travelled to Padua, where he met a Jewish scholar, Rabbi Elijah Delmedigo, who taught him the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud and Kabbalah in their original languages. Out of that dialogue came the most famous statement of Renaissance values: Pico's Oration on Human Dignity.
The third and most poignant of them all has been the dialogue between Christians and Jews after the Holocaust, inspired by Martin Buber's philosophy of dialogue and by Vatican II and Nostra Aetate. The result has been that, after almost 2 000 years of estrangement and tragedy, today Jews and Christians meet in mutual respect as friends.
But I want to say more than this. As I read the Hebrew Bible, I hear from the very beginning God's call to dialogue. I want to draw attention to two passages. I am not quite sure how this will go down in translation, so I hope anyone who is listening to me in translation will get it. I want to draw attention to two passages in the opening chapters of the Bible whose meaning has been lost in translation for 2 000 years.
The first occurs when God sees the first man isolated and alone and He creates woman. And man, seeing woman for the first time, utters the first poem in the Bible: 'Now I have found bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Aisha, woman, for she was taken from Aish, man'. Now this sounds like a very simple poem. It even sounds rather condescending, as if the man was the first creation and women were a mere afterthought. However, the real meaning lies in the fact that biblical Hebrew has two words for man, not one. One is Adam, and the other is Aish.
This verse that I just quoted to you is the first time the word 'Aish' appears in the Bible. Listen again. 'She shall be called Aisha, because she was taken from Aish'. In other words, the man has to pronounce the name of his wife before he even knows his own name. I have to say 'you' before I can say 'I'. I have to acknowledge the other, before I can truly understand myself.
(Loud applause)
That is the first point the Bible makes: identity is dialogical.
The second occurs soon after, in the first great tragedy that overcomes the first human children Cain and Abel. We expect brotherly love. Instead there is sibling rivalry and then murder, fratricide. And at the heart of this story in Genesis, Chapter IV, is a verse that is impossible to translate and in every English Bible I have ever read the verse is not translated, it is paraphrased.
I am going to translate it literally and you will see why no one translates it that way. Literally the Hebrew means as follows: 'And Cain said to Abel, and it came to pass when they were out in the field that Cain rose up against Abel and killed him.' You can see immediately why it cannot be translated because it says 'and Cain said' but it does not say what he said. The sentence is ungrammatical. The syntax is fractured. And the question is, why? The answer is clear: the Bible is signalling in the most dramatic way, in a broken sentence, how the conversation broke down. The dialogue failed. And what do we read immediately afterwards? 'And Cain rose up against his brother and killed him'. Or to put it simply: where words end, violence begins. Dialogue is the only way to defeat the worst angels of our nature.
(Loud applause)
Dialogue therefore testifies to the double aspect of all human relationships, whether they are between individuals or between countries or cultures or creeds. Our commonalities, on the one hand, and our differences on the other. What we hold in common and what is uniquely ours.
Let me put it as simply as I can. If we were completely different, we could not communicate, but if we were totally the same, we would have nothing to say.
(Applause)
And that is all I have to say about dialogue, and yet I want to add that dialogue may not be quite enough. You see, between the late 18th century and 1933, there was dialogue between Jews and Germans, just as there was dialogue and even friendship between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, or between Serbs and Croats and Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Dialogue brings us together, but it cannot always keep us together when other forces are driving us apart.
Therefore, I want to add one other word, which played a significant part in healing fragmented societies. The word is 'covenant'. It played a major role in European politics in the 16th and 17th centuries in Switzerland, in Holland, in Scotland and in England. Covenant has been part of American culture from the very beginning to today, from the Mayflower Compact in 1620, to John Winthrop's speech aboard the Arabella in 1631, all the way through to the present. I do not know what Barack Obama will say when he makes his inaugural speech but he will either mention or allude to the concept of covenant.
Covenant is, of course, a key word of the Hebrew Bible for a simple reason: biblical Israel was formed out of 12 different tribes, each of which had insisted on retaining its distinct identity.
What is a covenant? A covenant is not a contract. A contract is made for a limited period, for a specific purpose, between two or more parties, each seeking their own benefit. A covenant is made open-endedly by two or more parties who come together in a bond of loyalty and trust to achieve together what none can achieve alone. A contract is like a deal; a covenant is like a marriage. Contracts belong to the market and to the state, to economics and politics, both of which are arenas of competition. Covenants belong to families, communities, charities, which are arenas of cooperation. A contract is between me and you - separate selves - but a covenant is about us - collective belonging. A contract is about interests; a covenant is about identity. And hence the vital distinction, not made clearly enough in European politics, between a social contract and a social covenant: a social contract creates a state; a social covenant creates a society.
(Applause)
You can have a society without a state - that has happened at times in history - but can you have a state without a society, without anything to hold people together? I do not know. You can hold people together in many different ways: by force, by fear, by suppressing cultural difference, by expecting everyone to conform. But when you choose to respect the integrity of many cultures, when you honour what I call - as the President reminded us - the dignity of difference, when you honour that, then to create a society you need a covenant.
Covenant restores the language of cooperation to a world of competition. It focuses on responsibilities, not just on rights. Rights are essential, but rights create conflicts that rights cannot resolve: the right to life against the right to choose; my right to freedom against your right to respect. Rights without responsibilities are the subprime mortgages of the moral world.
(Loud applause)
What covenant does is to get us to think about reciprocity. Covenant says to each of us: we must respect others if we expect others to respect us; we must honour the freedom of others if they are to honour ours. Europe needs a new covenant and the time to begin it is now.
(Applause)
Now, in the midst of financial crisis and economic recession, because in bad times people are aware that we all share a fate.
The Prophet Isaiah foresaw a day when the lion and the lamb would live together. It has not happened yet. Although there was a zoo where a lion and a lamb lived together in the same cage and a visitor asked the zookeeper: 'How do you manage that?'. The zookeeper said: 'Easy, you just need a new lamb every day!'.
(Laughter)
But there was a time when the lion and the lamb did live together. Where was that? In Noah's Ark. And why was that? It was not because they had reached Utopia but because they knew that otherwise they would both drown.
Friends, last Thursday - six days ago - the Archbishop of Canterbury and I led a mission of the leaders of all the faiths in Britain, leaders of the Muslim community, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Jains, the Zoroastrians and the Baha'i, and together we travelled and spent a day in Auschwitz. There we wept together, and there we prayed together, knowing what happens when we fail to honour the humanity of those not like us.
God has given us many languages and many cultures, but only one world in which to live together, and it is getting smaller every day. May we, the countries and the cultures of Europe, in all our glorious diversity, together write a new European covenant of hope.
(The House accorded the speaker a standing ovation.)
President
Sir Jonathan, on behalf of the European Parliament, I am honoured to thank you for your important message. I would like to thank you for your great contribution to the intercultural dialogue.
You spoke about the mutual respect and acknowledgement of others. I think this is what we have learnt from our European history. You said that what unites us is much more than that which divides us. This is the principle - and you finished with this - of our European engagement for a strong, democratic European Union which is based on the dignity of each human being.
Sir Jonathan, thank you for your great message. All the best to you, the religion you represent and the peaceful living together of all religions on our continent and in the world. Thank you, Sir Jonathan.
(Applause)


Council's approach to revision of OLAF regulation (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council by Mrs Gräßle, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the Council's approach to revision of the OLAF regulation - B6-0492/2008).
Ingeborg Gräßle
author. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur on OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, one makes interesting discoveries, for example, that everyone talks about combating fraud but no one does anything. Another discovery is that Member States work out all their payments to the European Union to the last cent, but when it comes to spending this money, they start feeling generous and even make it easier for fraudsters, for example, by still taking an average of 36 months to even report irregularities to the European Union. The European Parliament considers this unacceptable. We want to see an effective fight against fraud, one that includes prevention. We want Member States to put the fight against fraud on the agenda and we want to see a joint discussion about what we need and what the problems are.
We want to see the national judicial authorities taking a greater interest in following up the results of OLAF investigations. There must be an end to the legal loopholes that have existed up to now for fiddles. We need European funds to be treated in the same way as national funds. We want an independent office with the resources and legal bases necessary to perform its tasks. We want an office that can work together with Member States quietly and efficiently.
Our opinion on the legal basis, Regulation 1073/99, covers all these points. Our plea is for this Regulation - which is at the heart of OLAF - to be further developed together with the Council. We call on the Council to incorporate our opinion and open talks on the further development of this Regulation. We want to provide a solution to OLAF's problems.
I wish to thank all the groups in the House for lending their support to this in the form of a resolution, too, on which we shall be voting tomorrow. I would appeal to the French and Czech Council Presidencies to take Parliament's ball and to pass it back. In our proposals, we have also taken up solutions developed and put forward by the Council working party. I wish to assure you of our interest in bringing this Regulation to a speedy conclusion, and of our willingness to engage in constructive discussions on the basis of our proposals.
Consolidating all the legal bases for OLAF, as the Council envisages, would mean wasting a lot more time over an uncertain outcome. OLAF will soon be celebrating its 10th anniversary. Consolidation would mean a further 10 years without an improvement in the legal basis. We are too serious about combating fraud to let this happen. That is why we want to do what is doable now in cooperation with the Council. Thank you very much.
Rama Yade
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, Mrs Gräßle, I would first and foremost like to remind you of the importance the Council attaches to the fight against fraud and to the protection of the European Union's financial interests. The Council considers that the regulations relating to the European Anti-Fraud Office must not only be appropriate to the needs but must also be consistent.
In this context, we should remember the Council's 2007 invitation to present a consolidated legal instrument covering the various aspects of OLAF's work, which would provide the clarity we are all seeking. The Council has taken due note of the European Parliament's amendments adopted on 20 November concerning the modification of the rules for OLAF investigations, and of the debates on this issue, which took place previously within the Committee on Budgetary Control.
The Council has also taken due note of point 44 of the European Parliament's resolution of 23 October 2008, accompanying its first reading of the 2009 budget, which deals with the same issue. The question of the Council's work schedule has already been raised in the budget trialogue of 13 November and in the consultation meeting with the European Parliament of 21 November, by my colleague Mr Woerth, president of the Ecofin Council (Budget).
At this trialogue, in response to the Council's concerns which, I believe, are also shared by the European Parliament, the Commission announced that it will present a working document on the issue of the consolidation of the OLAF regulations at the beginning of next year. I can therefore gladly re-affirm what the Council has already stated, during the trialogue of 13 November, and at the consultation meeting of 21 November, namely that the Council will examine diligently, and with the greatest attention, the outcome of the European Parliament's work on the proposed amendment to Regulation No 1073/1999, and the working document due from the Commission.
I hope to have the opportunity to speak again in order to reply to any comments you might make before 6 p.m. I apologise in advance for having to leave at that time.
Jean-Pierre Audy
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Mrs Yade, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission must protect the European Union's financial interests, and it shares the responsibility for this with the Member States, under the treaties. The Commission - I regret that its bench is empty - has important powers with which to combat fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity which undermines the Union's financial interests.
Let us remember that it was the resignation of the Santer Commission, in March 1999, which led to the creation of the Anti-Fraud Office, or OLAF, whose tenth anniversary we will celebrate next year.
My excellent colleague, Mrs Gräßle, is right to hold the Council to account on the issue of the long-awaited revision of the 1999 regulation for, since then, provision has been made, on the basis of a Commission assessment due to be performed three years after the creation of the Office, to review this regulation that had to be adapted. Your answer, Mrs Yade, is reassuring. It is a consistent answer.
This assessment took place in 2003, and we have a proposal for a regulation. It is now necessary to make a coherent whole of this mechanism, both for internal and external investigations and for OLAF's general missions. There is the 1999 regulation, number 1073, but we also have the 1996 regulation on spot controls and verifications carried out by the Commission, and that of 1995 on the protection of the Union's financial interests.
The 2005 assessment contained 17 proposals, including the creation of a European prosecutor, since, although OLAF has investigative powers, it is an administration which is uncontrolled by an independent judicial authority. This authority could be both a safeguard for investigated individuals and a support for OLAF itself. What, then, is the true nature of OLAF? Is it an aid to justice, and, if so, to what European criminal justice? Is it a special administrative department? There is a long way to go. Thank you, Mrs Yade, for the impetus you have provided today.
Herbert Bösch
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, as the rapporteur has already rightly pointed out, the Council is neglecting its duty to protect the financial interests of the Union. After all, Mrs Yade, what is important is not which treaties are now consolidated and which are not, but rather that you enter into talks. If you do not open negotiations now, you will be quite deliberately delaying the reform of the fight against fraud at European level until the next parliamentary term, and well you know it. We shall also have to tell our voters in June that it is the Member States who lack interest in this; indeed, we can give them several examples.
On the subject of VAT fraud, which costs Germany, for instance, EUR 16-18 billion per year, we would have the option of taking the relevant anti-fraud measures via a reformed OLAF, for example. Yet even the best anti-fraud authority is powerless if the Member States fail to provide any information.
With regard to the following-up of cases by OLAF, we often have to grope around in the dark, as the national authorities have not told us what action has been taken on the basis of the results of OLAF investigations. Action is needed in this regard.
As someone who was involved back in 1999, I can say that the most important thing we wrote into Regulation 1073/99 was that this anti-fraud unit, which has done a good job over the last few years, was to be reformed after a couple of years. This cannot be put off; I should like to remind the Council of this today.
Bart Staes
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to your response. You said that you would study those proposals with the utmost vigilance, avec la plus grande attention. I am sad to say that that response is not good enough for us.
We have done our homework. We approved Mrs Gräßle's report at first reading. We did this because of the loopholes in current legislation. We have tried to correct those flaws, and Mr Bösch is right in saying that we were met with many challenges. We approved the report on VAT fraud only recently. The level of tax fraud in the European Union is somewhere between EUR 200 and 250 billion.
We need sound legislation, therefore. Both you, Mrs Yade, and the Council as a whole should do your jobs. I should like to ask you to be a little more precise about the timeframes the Council intends to observe with regard to this dossier, for that is absolutely vital.
José Javier Pomés Ruiz
(ES) Mr President, I am grateful to Mrs Yade for being present at this debate on a subject that causes citizens so much concern.
This Parliament is coming to the end of a term in which we have tried to tell the taxpayer that we check the accounts here and that we do so as well as possible. We admit that mistakes are made and things are not always done correctly but, above all, we have calculated the amount of fraud and we are doing everything we can. That is why we set up OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, ten years ago. It is now in urgent need of an appropriate legal framework.
Mrs Yade, if you say that we should wait for the Commission to produce its report and only then begin to negotiate what may be the definitive statute for OLAF, we will be wasting time. The elections are coming and we will then be in another parliamentary term. The message that we want to put out to Europe's citizens is that everyone here - the Council, the French and Czech Presidencies, this Parliament and the Commission - is committed to putting an end to the kind of fraud that exists in developing countries and even in highly developed countries.
Thank you, Mrs Yade, for being present at this debate, and I regret that the Commission is not here too.
Inés Ayala Sender
(ES) Mr President, I too welcome Mrs Gräßle's proposal, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, to push ahead and exert pressure so that the legislation we adopt on OLAF can be implemented as soon as possible.
I am therefore also grateful to Mrs Yade for being here, because the proposal that Parliament adopted rightly insisted on the need to ensure and safeguard the rights of people being investigated by OLAF to be presumed innocent and to be allowed a defence, as well as the rights of informants.
Above all, clearer and more transparent rules also need to be laid down, as well as a code of conduct, which we need to publicise to all citizens as soon as possible. In this respect, we are grateful for Mrs Gräßle's initiative and for the support given to her by the Committee on Budgetary Control.
Of course, we earnestly call on the Council to try to unblock the negotiations as quickly as possible so as to move them forward, if possible before the end of this parliamentary term - in other words, before the next elections. That will be crucial in order to guarantee all the rights that Parliament is going to reinforce on the basis of Mrs Gräßle's report.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Yade, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament elections are coming round again next year, and disinformation is particularly rampant in the run-up to elections. That is why we want a rapid reform of OLAF. Instances of failure and of disinformation being used to the detriment of the European Union must be pinpointed clearly and unambiguously. I believe that this support and this clarity are what the European public needs.
Markus Pieper
(DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, as a member of the Committee on Regional Development, I understand the importance of OLAF's work in the field of the Structural Funds. The latest report on the Communities' financial interests reports over 3 800 instances of irregularity, which represents an increase of 19% on 2006. The amount concerned is EUR 828 million, 17% more than even the year before.
This is why the Council must now improve the fight against fraud, and by carrying out a true reform of the legal basis, rather than performing cosmetic surgery on existing texts.
If the Council is serious about this, it should also work on improving its reporting system. Up to now, Member States have been taking an average of 36 months to even inform OLAF of irregularities. Reliable figures should be provided quickly, and in electronic form, so that OLAF can do its work efficiently. We owe this to everyone concerned - the taxpayer, and also those who spend EU funds to the best of their knowledge and conscience.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, I will be brief. I rushed down to support Mrs Gräßle in her efforts and I think we all are doing that here today. We have heard that the reputation of the European Union is being damaged by the perception that fraud is allowed to prevail. So anything that would strengthen and improve the efficiency of OLAF is to be welcomed and supported. So, with those very few words, I commend Mrs Gräßle for her efforts and I urge the Council and Commission to listen carefully.
Rama Yade
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fully understand the European Parliament's concerns. The Council now has the results of the European Parliament's first reading. There is a logic to the way in which the Council - which has done its job in calling for consolidation of the 2007 legislation - works and operates, which means that it needs documents produced by the Commission before it can go any further. Until this work has been communicated to the Council by the Commission, I am obliged to tell you that we will have to wait for this moment.
I am sure that, once we have the working document on the consolidation of the legislation on OLAF, as announced by the Commission, we will be able to make rapid progress on the issue of reform. However, we need this document, and Parliament can rely on the Council to take this matter forward, with the usual respect shown for good institutional cooperation, in order to make OLAF's legal framework as clear as possible.
President
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Article 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 18 December 2008.
(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)