GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the draft Council regulation on the promotion of the conversion of vessels and of fishermen dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco, which is the subject of the excellent report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, deserves our unreserved approval. The proposal shows that the European Union cares about the fate of such vulnerable and fragile activities, whose survival depended on the renewal or non-renewal of a fishing agreement with Morocco. European solidarity works and continues to work. That is for the sceptics. The Commission proposal considers the problems of conversion from its economic and social angles. It also has the merit of mobilising new money, EUR 197 million, which is compatible with the mobilisation of other resources already allocated under the Structural Funds. In Portugal there are 570 fishermen who receive support under this programme, 400 of whom live in Sesimbra, a small, attractive fishing and tourist town very close to Lisbon. Of these 400 who live in Sesimbra, 150 are already over 55 years old, which means they can be moved into early retirement, since at this age it is difficult to retrain them for a different job. In simple terms, while the shipowners are liable to receive supplements of 20%, the same is not true for the fishermen, which to me seems an injustice. Now, the fishermen will be able to get EUR 10 000 euros over one year if they do not do any other work. The possibility of a 20% increase, although modest, would allow them to raise that sum to EUR 12 000, which would make it rather more attractive. Furthermore, the proposal has quite a rigid structure and should be made more flexible, allowing the Member States, in this case Portugal and Spain, to adapt better to situations that are truly complex and sometimes do not fit within the rigid stays of the regulation. This flexibility should be accepted so that the aid already granted by the end of 2001 should not all be accounted for under the part of FIFG Article 4 intended for socio-economic measures, and all of it within the Lisbon and Tagus valley region, and it would be better if it could be diluted in other programmes. Lastly, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I entirely agree with the content and proposals of the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, which I think are lucid and sensible, particularly those dealing with the possibility of supporting processing activities that were dependent on fishing. Indeed, it does not make sense that certain fishery-dependent processing and marketing activities, which in this case have been hit very hard, should not also be funded. For this reason, too, we are grateful for the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, given the way this morning’s debate is going, I wonder whether we are in a seminar, in a big lecture, or in a Parliament whose obligation is to legislate and to provide solutions to European society’s current problems. Ladies and gentlemen, I think it is very worrying that this Parliament has rejected en bloc Council initiatives such as the ones we are considering here and that this demonstrates great disarray in the legislative process which the Treaty obliges us to follow. Free movement, for example, is a fundamental aspect, which requires legislation that is crystal-clear to both the citizens of the European Union and to those from third countries. I agree with the reasoning that Mrs Frahm expresses in her report for rejecting the initiative and for expecting the Commission to fulfil the objectives proposed on the scoreboard, because we do need to consider all the scenarios in which nationals of third countries who are authorised to circulate within the territory of the Member States may find themselves in. It is also necessary, for the sake of this legal coherence, that the solutions proposed do not contradict the Treaties. The same can be said of Mr Nassauer’s report, in which he has expressed himself well and in which he rightly criticises the lack of legal rigour of the French Government’s initiatives on the mutual recognition of decisions regarding expulsion. We should truly be considering whether the European institutions are providing a rigorous response to European society’s current demand that we create a policy on immigration which respects the principles of freedom, equality and justice that go hand in hand with European culture. Immigration and everything relating to it requires a tripartite pact between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, which will impose some order on this debate. The majority groups in this House, as happens in our own countries, must reach a consensus on the great principles enshrined in Chapter IV of the Treaty and its legislative implementation. We must achieve joint consensus and consideration. Ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that the path of confrontation which we are taking will not help to reach a solution to the problem, but rather make it worse, which would have dangerous consequences for all of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
We all applaud the coming of the second age of railways, and acknowledge that market liberalisation can continue with economic opportunity and public service needs to bring it about. The UK invented railways, developed them and was the first to privatise them. As a member of the Rail Maritime and Transport Union in Britain my view is guided by the balance we strike in railway development. We should have acknowledged here that European railway systems are all different, and their diversity merits the derogations proposed. We should have placed greater emphasis on the introduction of rail regulators, as the UK now has, and less on the ideology of physical separation of infrastructure and operating services. And we need to be absolutely certain that we have licensing systems which carry obligations, and network benefits for passengers. No one should have ignored these issues in the vote we cast today. - Swoboda report (A5-0171/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the post-Nice agenda of the Heads of Government is motivated by political cowardice and not by the need to prepare Europe for enlargement. The topics are intended to allay the people’s fear of an intangible shift of power towards Brussels at the expense of national jurisdiction, but all they will do is increase the sense of alienation. It is impossible for there to be a definitive distribution of competences between the European and national levels. The cooperation process is dynamic not static. Things that are taboo at first, such as the euro, may appeal later on. This is determined by social need, which cannot be predicted. It would, of course, be marvellous to have a broad forum on the future of Europe, but the outcome is a foregone conclusion. There are fundamental differences of opinion on this matter amongst the countries, across the political divide, and even within the political parties themselves. If we want to restore the confidence of the people then we must introduce a culture of greater openness and decisiveness in Europe. So what we need is a political unit which does not stand for re-nationalisation of policy, but which strengthens the political European institutions. That is what we need to see on the agenda, and that is what would testify to courage.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is obvious to everyone that the fishing industry needs fish. Without fish there can be no fishing industry. One of the biggest problems with the common fisheries policy over the past 20 years has been that several objectives have not been prioritised. This has created conflicts. The only way to ensure that the fishing industry has any kind of future is to put conservation at the top of the agenda. This is a prerequisite for the industry, not an obstacle that has to be overcome. Unless conservation is the number one priority, compromises with other objectives of the common fisheries policy, such as economic ones, will always lead to further erosion of stocks. We have tabled an amendment which would set as a prime objective the need to ensure that fish stocks and other marine species remain abundant. Both the fishing industry and the Committee on Fisheries claim that they agree with the need to conserve stocks and protect the marine environment. The recent cuts in quotas for several stocks in the EU last month provide ample illustration of the need to make conservation of stocks the main priority.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, with regard to this particular resolution, let me say I am appalled at the opportunist hypocrisy of certain groups and certain individuals in this House. I totally agree with the comments of my colleague, Mr Poettering, when he criticised them for setting themselves up as the custodians of morality in this House. All MEPs want a fair statute because it is an albatross around our neck and when they play this opportunist politics, it will be seized upon by the press, in my own country and other countries, to lambast Parliament. Unfortunately, the press ignores the real work of this Parliament, the serious work that it undertakes, be it on foreign policy, be it on the promotion of human rights and democracy and, indeed, on other issues, and they will concentrate on these sorts of issues. But the other reason I resent the opportunist hypocrisy is this: those Members that complain about the current system are not obliged to take travel expenses. They can go to the cash office and get reimbursement of travel expenses. If they think it is a wrong system they should practise what they are preach. To their credit, some Members, especially Dutch Members, only take the reimbursement of the tickets. Those that think that the system is wrong should practise what they preach and should only present their tickets for reimbursement and should not avail themselves of the other expenses and continue with this sort of hypocrisy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to congratulate the European institutions and the members of the conciliation committee who, under the presidency of Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck – who I would have liked to have been here –, who have been able, sparing no effort, to unite differing views in order to reach a reasonable compromise between the two basic positions which initially seemed incompatible. That is to say, firstly, the obligatory declaration of all raw materials, with a tolerance level of 15%, and the obligation of feed producers to communicate the exact percentages, whenever required by animal farmers, to which I believe we should add a time limit, set previously in this legislation, and, secondly, the positive list – which all the previous speakers have mentioned – which the Commission must present before the end of 2002, once the viability studies have been carried out. When it comes to restoring consumer confidence, following the recent food crises (BSE, dioxins, etc.) absolute transparency is necessary, even indispensable. However, ladies and gentlemen, this is an example of how, within the scope of the codecision procedure, it is possible to reach reasonable agreements – good agreements, I would say – and we in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development will therefore continue to ask the Council to gradually extend that procedure to all legislative actions in the field of the Community’s agricultural policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to speak in favour of Enrique Barón Crespo's proposal for the reasons he has outlined so eloquently.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my group respects the other groups. It is up to the to solve its own internal problems, but I put a question to the Council asking it to show its willingness to hold a dialogue and the Council did so. After the vote, I think we should all join forces, and I am addressing Mr Watson in particular, whom I ask, on behalf of my group, to stop his policy of aggression and unjustified slander of the other political groups and specific nationalities in Parliament. Now is a time for unity and implementing the Rules of Procedure. Thank you. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the Group of the European People’s Party unreservedly endorses the very fine report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos. It is important that the rules drawn up by the International Maritime Organisation should actually be mandatory. We had lengthy discussions about whether this was even permissible, as shipping is a global business. No, though, we have to transpose the most important points into Community law, that being the only way in which we can really ensure that the IMO rules are promptly applied across the board in EU waters and in European ports, thus protecting the public from the potential dangers arising from terrorism, piracy or other illegal activities. We, too, of course, regret having to discuss these issues with relative speed. Along with the problem with financial sustainability, which Mr Folias has just addressed, people in the ports are constantly asking whether what we are prescribing is workable, and whether it can be implemented in practice. I hope that the Council will work very carefully through the results in practice when these regulations are transposed, but, as the IMO rules are to apply from 1 July next year, we believe it to be important that we should now create legal certainty, and so we endorse the rapporteur’s request that agreement be reached at first reading. We hope, however, that the rules devised jointly by the rapporteur and the Council will indeed result in workable and practical regulations in ports, as these are crucial nodal points which we want to make safer without hindering them from functioning. They must function, and I hope that we can achieve that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since Zimbabwe decided to take part in the war in Congo, its economic situation has deteriorated by the day. It simply cannot afford a war, but instead of withdrawing from it, it seems that the Zimbabwean government has chosen to create new problems for itself and look for scapegoats. The way in which the land reform has been handled has made the economic and social situation even worse, and now that the success of the opposition parties, despite all intimidation attempts which we have witnessed with our own eyes, has become apparent, Mr Mugabe is resorting to human rights violations. Zimbabwe is not only in chaos, it is under a reign of terror. A Head of State who plunges his own country into chaos, and persecutes his own people does not really deserve our respect. The dialogue between the European Union and Zimbabwe must, therefore, in the context of the ACP, be employed to reverse this situation. We therefore understand that any official contact with Mr Mugabe is only acceptable to the extent that it is aimed at reinstating the rule of law and human rights, and takes place within the framework of the peace negotiations in Central Africa. In that sense, we distance ourselves from Paragraph 16 of the compromise resolution, because we make allowances for the Belgian government, the French President and Commissioner Nielson who received President Mugabe in the framework of those peace negotiations. We will therefore support the amendment from the liberal group, but our population and the people of Zimbabwe do expect to see results very soon. We expect the pressure to be stepped up in such a way that the cynical stance of Mr Mugabe, who is indeed still receiving support from his old companions, will be brought to an end and the rule of law restored instead. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the human rights situation in Burma continues to deteriorate under the not-so-gentle control of the military junta. The plight of Aung San Suu Kyi continues to worsen. She has not been allowed to travel since she was placed under house arrest on 21 September when she attempted to travel to Mandalay. She apparently has no access to a telephone and no visitors. There are even rumours that she has been handcuffed in her own house. The plight of the rest of the members of the National League for Democracy is hardly any better. Large numbers are under arrest or are being harassed, and attempts have been made to close down their offices in Burma. The junta has said that it is their intention to try and smash the party as a whole. But it not just Aung San Suu Kyi, it is not just the military, it is not just the NLD – there are almost 3 000 political prisoners who are suffering from hard labour and torture. There are forced relocations of populations of ethnic minorities and there is forced labour. The ILO has been in and tried to look at the situation and see if constructive engagement led to any improvement. As we know, the ILO is meeting today. It is likely to recommend sanctions because there has been no improvement. I am beginning to get thoroughly fed up with making this speech – I have made it on three or four occasions now to the Council and the Commission – but the situation is worsening, so what are you going to do? Council and Commission, it is now finally time to act. You must recognise that we are making no progress whatsoever with the current approach. Please look at imposing sanctions. Make it absolutely clear that we are not going to attend the meeting in Laos in the presence of the Burmese military junta because that will be intolerable and the message will be that they can get away with it. Vietnam

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on this European Stock Exchange which I hope to see established – and I regret that Mrs Kauppi's report, which I voted in favour of, does not contain this proposal – I would also like to see European public pension funds quoted as well. It would be important for those who work to see that the contributions that they pay, in the hope that they will be able to recoup them later on when they are elderly and live on their pensions without having to work, are contributions and funds which are invested well, invested in a European Stock Exchange which will generate a much better, much larger European pension than national pensions would be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for years the European Parliament has been arguing for Community initiatives on pensions and consequently we are pleased with the principles agreed in the Council and the work prepared by the Commission. The task now is to use the texts in front of us in order to promote the convergence of the systems through cooperation and coordination between Member States. There are two ways of approaching this. On the one hand, there are a series of common challenges, the ageing of the population and the dearth of younger people or the relation between younger and older people, the changing degree of dependence or the ratio of active to inactive people, etc., limited budgetary resources, technical potential in health care, and so on. On the other hand, there are number of cross-border complications: the mobility of individuals or the option of working in another Member State and drawing a pension, the mobility of capital or the option of saving in another Member State and drawing a pension, the supplementary pension funds, which unlike the compulsory pension schemes appeal to people in various Member States and even in other countries. For all those reasons, the systems must be made sustainable so that they can withstand common challenges and cross-border complications. The report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs indicates current thinking in the European Parliament and also in the European People’s Party on the convergence of pension systems. It is not for the European Union to prescribe to Member States how pensions should be organised and financed. The Member States themselves choose the appropriate ratio of compulsory scheme to supplementary schemes, between an apportionment method and capitalisation, between contributions and payments or between social security or index-linked prosperity. But, on the one hand, solutions must be found for difficulties that hamper the free movement of pensions and pensioners and on the other efforts must be made to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of systems with budgetary resources in the service of social aims and not the other way round. For the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and for the Group too the combination of cooperation between Member States and coordination between the systems seems the appropriate way of safeguarding pensions and reassuring pensioners and consequently this point must be clarified at the European Council in Gothenburg. I think that years ago the Luxembourg Summit on employment, where the open coordination method was effectively introduced, showed us an excellent way but of course a link must be made between pensions and employment. For as long as Europe and the various Member States do not succeed in solving the difficulties surrounding the employment of the over-55s and for as long as the case is not pressed more urgently, more opportunities are not created and more things are not made virtually compulsory, the pensions problem will not be solved. It is essential to link the two. This should be one of the guidelines in the framework of the coordination and indicators which is about to be drawn up.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to make a brief observation, namely that the situation with Mr Helmer is one thing and the attack on another group is another matter. Firstly, anyone who is acquainted with the range of Europe's Social Democrats and their historical background over the past ten to fifteen years should not make statements about such diversity in the way that Mr Schulz just has. Secondly, there is no arguing about matters of taste, and on that we are once more in agreement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we can agree to this request for urgent procedure if this is dealt with at the second April part-session, when we will also know how the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market interprets the law. Although we do not agree with changing the legal basis, we are prepared, subject to these conditions, to discuss this at the second April part-session. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure) President. – This item will therefore be placed on the agenda of the April part-session in Brussels.(1) *** Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan [COM(2002) 117 – C5-0132/2002 – 2002/0059(CNS)] by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.

Political group: PSE