GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I also want to address a rigid Commission policy. As a result of a recent competition policy decision, over EUR 1 billion of much-needed UK regional regeneration investment in poor urban areas and derelict sites has been cut by 75%. Following the conclusions of the Belgian informal meeting in October, the Commission must now undertake a review of the operation of state aids and regional regeneration policy. Can the Commissioner please state what follow-up action has been taken? Can it also reassure us that competition policy will not continue to undermine the legitimate efforts of regional and cohesion policies? Secondly, unlike my Conservative colleague, Mr Purvis, I do not believe that we should take a rigid view of the reform of funding post-2006 at this stage. Poorer regions such as Merseyside in my region, and in the rest of the EU 15, may continue to need Objective 1 funding, but more importantly than that, today a delegation of trade unionists from Manchester came to Strasbourg to fight to save 650 jobs threatened due to industrial restructuring. Last year 9 500 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector in the region alone. Can the Commissioner therefore tonight give his support for the continuation of a strong role for European assistance post-2006 for our urban and industrial restructuring regions as well as our poorest regions?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall take up where the Commissioner left off; in any EU country, if a minister writes, on the very day that a decision is taken, a letter such as the one the Vice-President of the Commission sent to the Commissioner, without going to the Council, there would be a governmental crisis, and the Prime Minister or President would have to dismiss one or both or these. This is traditional practice in a democracy. I shall take advantage of this occasion to say, Mr President, after listening to the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries of this Parliament, that I have very little confidence in his neutrality when it comes to carrying out an impartial investigation, after what he has said, because the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries has to represent Parliament’s interests as a whole, and not make his own calculations on what could concern one country or another. (Applause) If you will allow me, Mr President, I should like to say that we are facing a problem with regard to the reform of the common fisheries policy, but there is also a constitutional problem apparent: in the Council, a President-in-Office of the Council saying that he gives instructions to the Commission; in the Commission, a very clear, public and well-known division, which we found out about from the press. The Commission made the decision yesterday without appearing before Parliament, yet revealed all to the press. The only way we have of finding out about such matters is by buying newspapers. Mr President, I am going to ask just one question of the Commissioner, based on the fact that Parliament has an enormous responsibility in trying to defend the interests of all Europeans, starting with fishermen. We feel that this report does not discuss economic and social cohesion; it does not talk about the social fabric in coastal areas, which are also European; it does not talk about sustainable development; it does not include aquiculture, and does not talk about consumers, who also have rights, and furthermore, we all agree with doctors when they tell us that, to improve our diet, we need to eat more fish. Therefore, Mr President, the only question I would like to ask the Commissioner is the following: why not apply all those principles he claims to defend in the reform of the common agricultural policy to the reform of fisheries? If we say that this is multi-dimensional, that it has to defend citizens, the landscape, the culture and all those aspects that shape European life, why should this be defended in agriculture but not in fisheries? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I would like to express my support for the new fisheries protocol concluded between the European Community and Mauritania for the period 1 August 2001 to 31 July 2006, which I deem of vital importance to the European Community, not only because of the fishing opportunities it offers and the sums involved, but mainly for socio-economic reasons, since it enables a large number of vessels operating in Moroccan waters to move to new fishing grounds. I would like to congratulate Mr Gallagher, the rapporteur, on his work. I support the conclusions set out in the report in the explanatory statement. Lastly, with regard to Amendment No 4 (Article 3b), I would like to point out that the Council only grants a negotiating mandate to the Commission for the purpose of concluding new fisheries agreements and not for the renewal of implementation protocols, since the latter do not alter the substance of the framework agreement. I also advocate the redrafting of the rapporteur’s proposal in order to make it consistent with Community law in force on this subject. - Nobilia report (A5-0375/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
I support this proposal because I believe that readmission agreements are legal instruments of vital importance in strengthening cooperation in the fight against illegal immigration, which was one of the priorities of the Laeken Summit. They form part of a coordinated approach which combines defining the rights of citizens of third countries with appropriate management of migratory flows, cooperation with countries of origin and the establishment of a common European asylum system. Nevertheless, given that the Treaty of Amsterdam gave the Community competences in the area of readmission, and that it is for the Council to negotiate and conclude such agreements, I regret that, as in the case of the first readmission agreement entered into with Hong Kong, the European Parliament has once again not been consulted nor kept informed during the negotiations. The report before us relates to an agreement that has already been signed by the plenipotentiaries, so the report comes very late in the day, as once an agreement has been signed there is no scope whatsoever for making changes to the text or to the protocols annexed to it. This kind of situation is politically unacceptable, and I hope that in future the European Parliament will be kept informed about the progress of negotiations by the Commission and by the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
This Parliament has just missed a great opportunity to act in accordance with its role as representative of the peoples of Europe as laid down in the Treaties. Firstly, and this is the most serious thing, because by approving amendment by Mr Méndez de Vigo – whose ‘care’ has been noted – we are depriving the European peoples of their capacity as holders of some of the Union’s legitimacy, which, in accordance with the philosophy of the Treaties, they are entitled to. Secondly, because the final text lays down that the regions with legislative powers will not be able to bring cases before the Court of Justice on their own behalf, and that they must do so with the prior agreement of the State. The Socialist amendment, proposing that the case should be presented through the intermediary of the State, was not much better. Thirdly, nor are these regions explicitly guaranteed the right to participate in Councils of Ministers which deal with matters falling within their competence, leaving this capacity to arbitrate to the respective governments whose lack of political will in relation to this issue is, in the majority of cases, including Spain, notorious. The Napolitano report, however, still contains some very positive aspects and I have therefore decided to vote in favour of it tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would firstly like to thank Mr Souchet for his excellent report, which also represents a good basis for the report I have subsequently been responsible for. Topical events, such as the accident involving the Prestige, make what I want to say about the report by Mr Souchet much more relevant. With regard to the report taken on by Mr Stevenson, I believe it has been the victim of various procedural problems. This report should have represented the reference framework for Parliament’s position on the reform of the fisheries policy, and it is surprising, and only attributable to procedural problems, that this report differs in many respects from what we have subsequently done on approving the legislative proposals in the Committee on Fisheries. There is no doubt that the problems stem from a Commission proposal which arrived late, which has turned out to be perhaps a little immature, and which furthermore was incomplete at the outset. For example, the main package has been presented while lacking certain important sections, such as fishing in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, there are very clear indications that the Commission’s proposals, in structural terms, lack a reasonable basis and at times verge on the absurd. With regard to the policy on the conservation of resources, I will resist anticipating a later debate, which we are going to hold. However, I would like to express a certain distaste at the way we have dealt with this issue. For some time, the fishing policy has established a division between States, and the Commission’s proposal has been accompanied by a scenario which has accentuated that separation between States. Perhaps certain Ministers have taken part in this game, but that is not the important thing. What is really important is that the situation of the populations of cod, hake and other species has blurred the distinction between what have been known as the ‘friends of fishing’ and the ‘friends of the fish’. I believe that, however many debates we have held and however many issues may legitimately divide us, it is clear that we must resolve the problem of how to guarantee sustainable fishing. To this end, I believe it is necessary to deal with fundamental issues, transcending what I would call very specific and overly national interests. We could perhaps have left behind the rigid positions which have divided us – the distribution of quotas for example – and we could have reformed the Community policy, protecting sections of the fleet which most of the economy of the regions dependent on fishing rely on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do not have Mr Fatuzzo’s talent for expressing the feelings we might have towards the soldiers from democracies who are currently fighting a many-headed enemy in the desert, but I too would like to convey my sadness that Parliament has been unable to make a formal statement. Nevertheless, important votes have been achieved, as Mr Procacci has just said. I believe that the ’s resolution came closest to what could have been a Parliamentary position rejecting, in particular, all hysteria of the kind we see all too often at the moment. I would add that Europe’s failure, if Europe has failed – and this empty room seems to be a sign of this – is certainly, with regard to the negotiation process that preceded the commencement of hostilities, a clear failure of the intergovernmental approach. The way our governments prioritised national positions and the real or illusory idea of national interest over the European interest shows us that, if crises can bear fruit, then what we need is, indeed, to launch a new European foreign and security policy based on a new federalism for the new century.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there are different types of undeclared work. It can be difficult drawing the line between undeclared and properly declared work. Sometimes, the blame has to be placed upon individuals who do undeclared work in order to dodge paying tax. The serious cases of undeclared work are those that are organised as such. More often than not, many workers are involved, and the reason is that there are employers who organise, lead and distribute work that will go undeclared in order to keep wage costs down and reduce taxes for themselves. That is the heart of the matter. In many quarters, organised undeclared work is well-known, both among the local population and the authorities. In those cases where no action is taken against such work, this may be because unemployment is high and poor people have no alternative to being exploited by employers who do not declare their employees. There is also a tax argument which plays a big part in Mrs Glase’s thinking. This subject has already been taken up in the debate. Mrs Jöns observed quite correctly that in those regions and countries where the level of tax is fairly – or even very – high, where the labour market is well organised and where workers have strong unions, there is almost no undeclared work at all, at least not in any organised form. If Mrs Glase and her group want to reduce tax in order to make undeclared work less profitable, this is as good as saying that they want to legalise the economic calculations behind undeclared work and make them the general rule. It is like increasing the speed limit on the roads to reduce the number of drivers who break the law by driving too fast, or like legalising the drugs trade to reduce the amount of illegal drug dealing. I was quite shocked to read the rapporteur’s original report in which she proposed that all employees in European workplaces should be forced to carry electronic cards so as constantly to be monitored by the authorities. I believe it is the employers who organise production and take on workers. If anyone is to be compelled to carry electronic cards, it is therefore these employers, who are responsible for the work that is done. My group and I believe that fighting unemployment and poverty is the best, and in fact the only, way of properly combating organised undeclared work. Improved wages are a much better remedy than lower taxes and other concessions to irresponsible employers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the lack of a concrete Commission working programme for the coming institutional reform is a source of concern to Parliament, as we have seen. It seems that we will have to await the Laeken guidelines in order to get under way. But the debate on the future of the Union has been under way for months now, with speeches by various Heads of State and Government, and Parliament is already working actively. Passivity on the part of the Commission, if confirmed, would be very serious in this preparatory stage, because we all know that it has a great responsibility: to act as a guardian of the Community spirit. And this responsibility has to take the form of concrete proposals and not of vague references to a White Paper or other such matters. On the other hand, I am genuinely pleased that this morning President Prodi has reaffirmed his support for the comments which Commissioner Barnier made in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In other words, I am pleased that he has reaffirmed that the proposal for a forum is not a step backwards in relation to the previous convention, but an ambition for a convention which functions better. Well, if that is the case, why change the name? The Europeans already know what a convention is and have been able to observe its results, which have been transparent and fruitful, compared to the shameful achievements of the last Intergovernmental Conference. Its opponents do not reject the name. They reject the convention itself. Let us therefore look to public opinion, and forget name changing, so that Parliament and the Commission can fight side by side. Let us not back down in the face of those people who do not want a democratic and transparent Europe, but an opaque Europe made up of diplomats. The Union does not need a diminished Commission. It needs an active and courageous Commission, which is what we are calling for today. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, despite the protests by the international press, we still do not know the fate of Mr Andrey Babitsky, the courageous Russian journalist who has worked intensively to ensure free and independent information on the ordeal of the civilian population of Chechnya and the destruction of the city of Grozny. Among the contradictions in the accounts that have been given, there has also been an attempt to reassure international public opinion over Mr Babitsky’s fate, by confirming the theory that there was an exchange of prisoners with Chechen fighters which, inter alia, if this did actually take place, would constitute a breach of international law, which certainly does not provide for the involvement of civilians in such circumstances. Nevertheless, we now have more precise information: we know that the acting Russian President himself, Mr Vladimir Putin, asked Russian special services to safeguard Andrey Babitsky’s life and freedom. This is an admission that confirms all our concerns and makes Parliament’s position on the case all the more appropriate, as it calls for a concurrent explanation of other cases of journalists who have disappeared in the Chechen region during the conflict and the safeguarding of media coverage of a conflict that has reached unacceptable levels of violence. Moreover, we are asking the Russian authorities to provide immediate clarification of conditions in the so-called detention centres, and remind them that those responsible for any arbitrary detention, maltreatment or killing of civilians are laying themselves open to accusations of crimes against humanity. We would ask the Council and the Commission for clear and prompt action and a political initiative which does not overlook the issue of human rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, agriculture, support for rural development and the protection of rural communities are at the heart of Mr Khanbhai's report and he addresses many of the fundamental inequities which feature so prominently in the lives of the rural poor. Clearly, as other speakers have said, the European Union and its Member States have a very important role to play. I think we need to show much more understanding of the real reasons for the so-called urban drift from rural areas and of the effect of the systems and structures which conspire to destroy the livelihoods of millions who live by the land. The European Union is, of course, part of the solution. As the biggest trading block, we have an important role to play. I have to say that it is sheer hypocrisy to continue to protect our own agricultural competitive position with higher resources, while at the same time forcing developing countries to liberalise. Rapid opening of their markets threatens food security and sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. The parallel negotiations which will be going on at the WTO and between the ACP and the European Union must be used as an opportunity to show that the European Union clearly understands that trade and market access and tariff levels are directly and inextricably linked to our understanding of how we meet those critical millennium development goals. The paradox is that, in a time of global plenty, farmers in developing countries are abandoning the land and agriculture. They simply cannot compete with heavily subsidised food flooding into their markets and dumped on their markets. The report describes the effect of the dumping of milk on Jamaica and the dumping of beef on West Africa. In Uganda, for instance, the coffee growers are suffering enormously. One hundred and fifty Ugandan shillings are what a grower gets for a kilo of the coffee he grows. If you go down to the Sheraton in Kampala, you pay one thousand Ugandan shillings for one single cup of coffee. With growers receiving such a poor reward for their efforts, it is not surprising that Oxfam describes this as a situation that affects health and education and the whole rural community. So small farmers from Haiti to Mexico and Mozambique to Tanzania are simply selling up and selling out. They are unable to compete with the rich agricultural barons. That is the reality we are facing, one which Mr Khanbhai deals with very well indeed. He also gives us a very timely reminder in his report that 75% of the 1.2 billion living on less than one dollar a day are in rural areas. That certainly is a call to action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my Committee, I would like to make a few observations, starting with rural policy. The agriculture committee subscribes to the Berlin Agreement, also with regard to rural policy, but notes at the same time that spending is suffering delays, and we have established that in a number of cases, vis-à-vis the Council and Member States, the limits of what is possible are being tested with regard to the agricultural funds. That is a pity; it would be preferable if, in spending the budget, the actual objective were achieved, namely if the switch were made from countryside to multifunctionality and greater market orientation. I wanted to share this observation with the Council, in particular. The second point I wanted to make relates to the budget for agriculture and horticulture. It is reported to have increased by 6%, partly due to the switch-over. I have to add, however, that sugar policy, for example, is now again the topic of debate, also within the Commission. I should in any event like to urge the Commission to support Commissioner Fischler in this respect, for the best way to stay within the financial limits is not to put the future of sugar policy at risk again, at least not before 2006. The third point pertains to European agricultural policy as it is now before us in the budget proposals. We have noted that although it may be focused on the social objective, it is, as a result, biased slightly too much in favour of the home market, in contrast to, for example, the power pattern which has unfolded in the United States and Australia, which is mainly aimed at greater market access, and into which a great deal of money is pumped. The budget per farm in the United States is currently three times higher than in Europe. That means that as far as the course which we are setting for the budget is concerned, the question is whether market orientation should not be given a higher profile. Commissioner Fischler has set the tone for this on a number of occasions. This could be further developed but requires collaboration from the Council as an absolute necessity. This also means that, with regard to the European agricultural budget, namely multifunctionality and rural development, consideration must also be given to landscape and animal welfare, and that close collaboration in those areas is needed. In fact, there is room for improvement here too, for example with regard to the tobacco policy. In conclusion, the agriculture committee is of the opinion that we should remain within the confines of the Berlin Agreement, and as such, I, as draftsman of the opinion have to advise against Amendment No 206 with regard to the vote in this Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE