GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Members of the European Parliament have exceptionally good grounds for self-criticism in this debate. As a former member of the Committee on Budgetary Control I myself am also guilty. I did not draw the right conclusions from the reports produced by the Court of Auditors regarding the flaws in the accounting system. I did not believe that the Commission’s accounts could be so very badly organised in a budget of almost EUR 100 billion. Looking back, we Members of Parliament received all the relevant information from the Court of Auditors, on the basis of which we should have reacted earlier to the weaknesses in the system. We were not equal to the task. We are responsible for the weakness in the monitoring procedures, the Commission itself for the weaknesses in the system. The problems are not individual cases of malpractice, but are themselves inherent in the accounting system. The action taken by the Commission’s former chief accountant, Martha Andreasen, made it possible for the problems to be exposed. Just a while ago Mrs Andreasen told me that the Emperor has no clothes, that the Commission’s accounting system is rotten to the core, and that things must be swiftly put right. It is thanks to her that we can now speak about the real problems we used to turn a blind eye to. For her pains, Mrs Andreasen was dismissed from her job. That was an injustice. The Commission has made a mistake in protecting officials who should have been dismissed on the grounds of total professional incompetence with regard to accountancy skills. Instead, they dismissed Mrs Andreasen. We politicians do not see problems if they are too close up or too big. We did not see the flaws in the Commission’s accounting system in time, but, as we can see them now, things have to be put right. We also have to restore Mrs Andreasen’s ruined reputation. We must not just rescue Social Democrat and Green Commissioners with European Parliament Social Democrat and Green votes. As Members of the European Parliament we should feel ashamed of the role we have played. The report by the Committee on Budgetary Control lists numerous flaws, which give a gloomy picture of both the Commission’s accounting system and ourselves. If we had to be discharged from liability regarding our own actions I would vote against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, may I first of all take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Watson on the preparation of this report. It is a very balanced and very good report. Terrorism has been a major problem in the Western world and in Europe it has been prevalent certainly since the Second World War. It has been proved that a dedicated few can hold a majority to ransom. We have to face up to the fact that there has not been full cooperation between Member States. We in Northern Ireland have experienced that very painfully over the past 30 years. If terrorists have a safe haven they will continue to flourish because they have somewhere to retreat to. We must end safe havens. I have some reservations, in that if you abolish extradition what you put in its place may not be effective. If we do abolish extradition, whatever replaces it must work and must be seen to work, especially between Member States. The Member States must be free to protect their citizens. I believe it is the duty of every Member State government to protect the innocent, not the perpetrators of violence. There must be maximum cooperation to achieve this. We also see terrorist cooperation throughout the world. The recent arrest of three IRA activists in Columbia brings home very clearly how widespread terrorism is throughout the world and how terrorists cooperate in the development of new and better weapons. We also have to recognise that many terrorist organisations are involved in racketeering, drug smuggling and many other forms of normal criminal activity. They use certain words and pseudonyms. They threaten the communities in which they live. We have to recognise the victims. There must be mutual recognition. No one has the right to murder in the attempt to achieve a political objective. We must also remember it is easy to terrorise: I have experience of this. But believe you me, it is much more difficult to build peace after the terrorism.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are, naturally, in favour of the widest possible distribution of information and communication technologies to pupils and teachers. However, if we did not vote for this report but abstained, it is because the rapporteur urges us, under the pretext of furthering these technologies, to help businesses in this sector in various ways. These are businesses which, moreover, are not all, far from it, small and medium-sized enterprises, as the report would have us believe, but some are subsidiaries of large groups.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Patsy Sörensen, for the care and accuracy of her report. On the other hand, I would like to focus my attention on the presentation of various amendments to the draft text which include people affected by terrorism as the victims of crime in the EU. I completely agree with this, as well as the fact that certain groups use violence to try to impose their ideals. What I believe, Mr President, is that when we speak of imposing ideals, and of victims, we should not only refer to terrorist organisations, of which there are too many and which must cease to exist in a democracy such as the one we want for Europe. In this respect, we must also reject and condemn the impositions and violence sometimes exercised by bodies and apparatus of the states, as in the case of GAL and other previous cases in Spain. Democratic justice must apply to all without exception, and moral reparations and material, medical, psychological and social aid etc. must reach all the victims of terrorism without exception, including, of course, the victims of the above-mentioned state-sponsored groups. Only in this way, acting fairly, will we achieve a Europe which lives in peace and prosperity, which is the founding aim of our Community and I believe that this is still our greatest aspiration.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the lack of success of Johannesburg was due to the change in the political climate. This change in the political climate is taking place not only in the US, but also in the EU because we have a much more trade-dominated political agenda than we did in 1992. The Group today considers that we will no longer be credible in the eyes of the G77 countries if we do not change this and add four cornerstones to our international policy. Firstly, monitoring is not sufficient. We need a binding agreement in the EU on 0.7% of ODA. Secondly, we must stop export subsidies on agriculture. Thirdly, we must progress in Europe in the area of production and consumption patterns. Fourthly, we must stop trade dominance and restore a better balance between multilateral environmental agreements and trade, and also introduce binding agreements for big business with regard to their corporate and social responsibility. If we look at the way the negotiations were handled in Johannesburg – and this is another reason for its lack of success – in the first week we had a Commissioner who was primarily interested in trade issues. There may have been very good reasons why the Commissioner for the Environment was only able to attend for some 48 hours, but on top of this we had a Commissioner who had determined a substantial part of the negotiations, without any democratic scrutiny, in secret negotiations months ahead of the whole summit. Finally, we were less well prepared with regard to the energy partnership than we were on the water partnership. That was another reason why we were not able to move ahead quickly on this and you, Commissioners, signed a letter in which you tried to readdress the question of the role of nuclear energy in this partnership. Can you give us a clear message that we in Parliament will be much more involved in the future of this partnership, as we requested in our report? (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, today, once again, it is necessary to discuss the Erika disaster, two and a half months after it occurred, because its tragic consequences are far from over. Now we must continue both to apply pressure, together with citizens’ organisations, to ensure that Total pays the full costs for everything destroyed due to its unbridled pursuit for profits, and also to make a firm commitment to ensuring that this type of disaster never happens again. Even though the joint motion for a resolution is an interesting one, it does not tackle the subject of flags of convenience, a problem which must be both condemned and resolved as a matter of urgency if we are to contribute to the principle of preventing maritime disasters. It is actually not so much a matter of improving safety checks on these flags of convenience, as stipulated in the resolution, as actually working right now to eliminate their existence. This is the only solution to ensure that seafarers’ living and working conditions are satisfactory, that they are covered by effective legislation and social protection, and that fishing operations and the environment are respected. Parliament adopts a resolution after every maritime disaster. Generally it puts forward positive technical measures, some of which are adopted in directives. If they were applied, they would in fact serve to counter the idea of cutting costs to the minimum, a policy which is maintained through flags of convenience.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to remind you that this – as you are doubtless aware – is the European Parliament. I am telling you this because in this Parliament we are familiar with the Tampere agenda; we know what was decided there. I would like to remind you of this because it does not exactly coincide with what you have told us. The Tampere agenda comprised four sections with regard to the common management of immigration; one was family reunification. The Council has already eliminated one proposal. Another is on the parliamentary agenda but not on the Council’s. A policy for the management of migration flows, a policy for establishing legal immigration channels, clear, transparent, not drowning in a sea of bureaucracy from 15 different legal systems. A Commission proposal is being considered in Parliament, and it is not on the Council agenda. An integration policy that translates into a Commission proposal to create a statute for long-term immigrants. This is not on the Council agenda. We are in total chaos. The Social Affairs Council has approved the free movement of immigrant workers, which is prevented by immigration laws in 15 Member States. This is not on the Seville agenda. With regard to the external agenda: in Tampere, we spoke of co-development, the joint management of migration flows, and you told me that in Seville there is a tiny part referring to the threat to third countries. Co-management is not on the Seville agenda. The fight against illegal immigration, with which my group and I are entirely in agreement, appears in a somewhat esoteric form. You say that the Commission plan for the joint control of external borders is of particular importance. We do not understand that here, and nor does the public. Are you going to debate this? Why would this be the first thing on the Council agenda? Not only this, but the national governments, over the past two years and eight months, have implemented differing national policies in this area. You talk of reviewing the Tampere commitments. Save yourself the trouble – it will not take long, since no progress has been made with regard to immigration in two years and eight months. As the Council, you are responsible by omission for not having governed Community policy, and that, Mr President, is extremely serious. You are replacing consensus on solutions with making joint gestures that are incapable of resolving problems. You are replacing the adoption of legislation and policies to manage migration flows with writing notes and press releases that contribute to creating a problematic climate. Do not be surprised that the citizens view the European Union as a problem and not as the solution it should be.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have known Mr Perry for some time in this Parliament – and I consider him one of my best friends – and I have followed the issue he raised in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market with very real interest. But having examined the case, I have no choice but to agree with what Mr Patten just said. That is to say, in the infringement procedure, the Commission is not the Court of Justice, but an agent of Community law which tries to ensure that the law is applied, by demanding that the State comply with Community legislation. And in this case, I believe that the Commission has done that, although perhaps rather belatedly. The result of an infringement procedure, once the State in question has complied with Community law, is the closure of the case, because – as Mr Patten has also said – there is a repeated judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities according to which there is no case for infringement when the State in question has complied with Community law. I believe that Mr Perry has a laudable interest in the Community institutions functioning properly and, of course, it would be desirable for us all to do the same with all the directives that are not transposed by the Member States. What does not work here is a mechanism of fines and penalties imposed by the Commission. The Commission does not have those powers. Only the Court of Justice should have them and, specifically, I would refer Mr Perry to British law. Continental administrative law allows a State to be called to account for non-compliance with its obligations, including, for example, the failure to transpose a Community directive in time. But I have the impression that the procedure which is being tried here is not going to lead anywhere, because I do not see how the Commission, at any point, is going to be able to invoke non-compliance with a Community directive in the past on the part of the State in order to call them to account. From a legal point of view, that mechanism does not exist. In other words, given that Mr Perry is probably completely right to be concerned about compliance with Community legislation and acknowledging that there has probably been harm done to individuals, the judicial procedure is not that of reiteration of the action by the Commission – which has fulfilled its obligations – but, if necessary, an internal British administrative procedure in the event that, in accordance with British law, individuals have been prejudiced by the failure to transpose a Community directive in time. I therefore believe that the Commission, at this time, has fully complied with its obligations and we in the European Parliament cannot demand that it act in any other way.

Political group: PSE
Could I first of all take the opportunity to welcome the report and say that the whole issue of the management, control and the conservation of fisheries stocks is a major problem no matter where you look. Throughout the European Union and far beyond we are all well aware of that. It has also been the source of tremendous disagreement between the fishermen, on one hand, and the scientists, on the other. To some extent, those of us who are politicians find ourselves in the middle. We are neither fishermen nor scientists and we try to find the way and the truth between what both are saying to us. This is an extremely difficult position to have to try to find a way through. What I would say to this House and to the Commissioner is that we need information of the highest quality and the highest standard that we can all, scientists, fishermen or politicians, take on board. That is why I believe there is a tremendous role for the Commission to play in going out there and encouraging the fishermen to come forward and cooperate with it and come forward with a solution that we can all agree to. The Commission should take account of the views of the national regional authorities and the industry. The Commissioner, when he replied to my report last month, seemed to get his geographical situations slightly mixed up – he did not know whether he was going to Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I suddenly discovered that he went to Scotland and the Republic of Ireland but he did not come to Northern Ireland. Hopefully, geographically, he will be much better placed in the future. I know he knows where Northern Ireland is and I certainly hope he will come in the future to visit the fishermen there. I want to say, before we come to a decision that will end the chaos – because I think we are all aware of the situation we are facing coming into December on TACs and quotas – that it is going to be extremely difficult not only for the regional and national areas and the fishermen but also for the Commission. We need a better way of addressing this at a better time of the year with a greater lead in and greater cooperation than we have had in the past. I ask the Commission to take that on board.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to add my warm welcome and congratulations to the presidency on the successful achievement of the Lisbon Summit. I think we will come to see in the future that all roads did lead to Lisbon via Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne, because Lisbon should be the end of a process, one that can actually deliver as regards the sort of priorities we want to bring to a successful conclusion throughout the whole of the European Union. The key question is how we turn the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit into action; we must ensure that we turn the rhetoric of Lisbon into a reality. I shall not dwell too much on the specifics of the Lisbon Summit. A lot of us have been through that already and we welcome many of the conclusions. I want to look at the challenges that are inherent in the Lisbon process for Parliament, the Commission and, indeed, all three institutions. In particular, for Parliament there is a huge challenge in realising the full legislative implications of completing a single market. There is a challenge in realising the full potential of the e-economy. There is a challenge for Parliament in playing its part in helping Europe to become the dynamic centre of sustainable job creation, innovation, competitiveness and modernised social welfare. It is a challenge that Parliament must rise to, working with the other institutions, Commissioner Prodi and his colleagues, and the Council. If we do not, nobody will understand or forgive us for not realising our aim. The reason, as I mentioned before the Lisbon Summit, relates to those who are in the gallery with us today – the citizens of Europe. We have to turn Lisbon into something that means something to them, something to the people in my home town of Wolverhampton. To me, Lisbon is all about creating a Europe of highly-paid, highly-skilled, high-value-added jobs. If we can achieve that sort of Europe from the Lisbon process, it will be good for our citizens and for Europe as a whole, because what could be more socially just and inclusive than a Europe that genuinely benefits from full employment and good jobs that everybody can enjoy? That is our challenge. In conclusion, I thank the Portuguese presidency very much. I thank the President-in-Office, the Minister and, in particular, Prime Minister Guterres for all the personal effort he put into this process. At Lisbon the Portuguese presidency gave us the key to unlock a decade of sustained innovation, competitiveness and job creation across our continent. Now is the time for us as a Parliament, the Commission and the Council to work together to ensure that key is turned. IN THE CHAIR: MR MARINHOVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 25 January 2002, Madagascar’s High Constitutional Court published the result of the elections. The slow procedure and the quasi-monarchic nature of the regime that has been in power for almost 20 years, which, in particular, had led Madagascar’s government to refuse the presence of international observers, and the ambiguities found in the public statements made by the opposition, sow more than a seed of doubt as to whether these results are reliable. But are Madagascar’s leaders solely responsible for this parody of democracy? Why was this country, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, not the focus of particular attention from international public opinion before these regrettable events occurred? Have the countries of Europe, and France in particular, forgotten the past they share with Madagascar? Ladies and gentlemen, the Madagascans do not need us to take them by the hand, nor do they need us to make electoral choices on their behalf. However, Europe cannot, under any circumstances, stand aside and do nothing. In spite of the ‘good behaviour’ that the observers have emphasised – which is one of the Madagascan people’s defining characteristics – the situation is exceptional for this country. More than 500 000 people take to the streets every day to demonstrate on a scale that has not been seen since the country gained independence. Madagascar has been brought to a virtual standstill by a general strike that is having disastrous consequences, and the support for which is as strong as ever despite being in its tenth day. We cannot remain indifferent, given the serious nature of this situation. We must therefore adopt initiatives to help the people of Madagascar to rediscover a dignified way of life. And this will only happen if the second round takes place in a transparent fashion; in other words, if the international organisation and if the European Union ensure the elections are conducted in the proper manner. We must demand that the two candidates show respect for the Rule of Law and safeguard civil peace so that the electoral problems do not escalate into an ethnic dispute. We must quite simply call for the voice of the people to be heard and for their verdict to be respected.

Political group: PSE