GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I refer to the draft regulation on European political parties. At the last part-session in Strasbourg the Commission was going to give us a statement on that matter. Subsequently, it was withdrawn and I understand that the Commission has now come to a view on the funding of European political parties. This is a matter of some sensitivity, especially since there are certain parties represented in this House that might regard themselves, for some reason, as ineligible for such funding, even if they approved of the funding in the first place. Could you ask the Commission if it would make a statement on this matter at some stage before the House? Secondly, Madam President, while we are on Tuesday's agenda, it is worrying to me that the European Parliament is holding a debate on the Commission's work programme for 2001 but does not have a resolution on that matter. This is especially important since there are some 200 measures contained in the Commission's work programme for 2001 which Parliament will debate, but on which it will have no resolution. This is a bad precedent. There should be a resolution, especially since we are supposed to be scrutinising the work of the Commission. Finally, could I make the observation that far from being the Commission's work programme for 2001, we might rename it the work programme of the Commission, Parliament and Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, concerning item 11 of the Minutes on the order of business, we agreed yesterday to have the Bourlanges report on today's agenda. However, it was withdrawn from the Committee on Budgets last night without being discussed or voted on. It therefore needs to be withdrawn from today's agenda.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, page 7, point 17 of Mr Soares' report on the state of relations between the EU and Macau reads 'Calls on the European companies which are developing operations in Macau, and via Macau in China, to observe the basic ILO labour standards in their operations'. This is a good thing and it is part of the reason why I voted for the report, but I would greatly appreciate it if, in future, respect for the pension rights of workers were to be promoted as well, for the elderly workers in Macau need protection too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Brok for his balanced approach, which has now become legendary. His report bears witness to how much the world situation has changed since last year. At that time, terrorist attacks were uppermost in our minds, whereas now the focus is on the invasion of Iraq. The rapporteur reminds us of the chasms that have been thrown up between the Member States of the European Union, which have severely strained transatlantic relations and which have affected different NATO members to varying degrees. Mr Brok believes that it is, however, now necessary to redefine Europe's role and, perhaps, to take advantage of the political crisis sparked by the war to make the Union a credible and powerful political actor on the foreign policy stage. Of course, the means of achieving this objective are still relatively ill-defined: some new Member States and their neighbours have, yet again, discovered America and its promises of political and economic guarantees. For this reason, it is advisable not to forget Member States' duty to refrain from intervening in international affairs on the basis of unilateral national positions until the European Union has had an opportunity to define a common European position. I do not, of course, have time to go into all this in greater depth, but the future of our foreign policy is linked to the European Constitution; the veto can wreck the most ambitious peace plans, as we have heard this morning. The European Union's common foreign and security policy objectives depend, not least, on its ability to equip itself with military resources, with the result that we can only envisage relatively low-cost operations. Perhaps we shall have to content ourselves with that, even though, ultimately, I do not believe we can. The Franco-German Brigade alone, a core Rapid Reaction Force, might well have been enough to stop the Balkan crisis in 1991, as Mr Frattini has also said today. We must insist: in addition to the small steps forward achieved ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PSE
I am worried that maybe this scientific report is a way of trying to avoid reducing the time and the distance to what Parliament wanted. There was consensus between the Environment Committee and the Agriculture Committee on the reduction of the overall journey time and distance. It is very important that the Commission takes this on board. I am sorry to say I do not find your answer quite sufficient in relation to the export refunds. You talk about respecting all conditions of animal welfare and say you need a well-balanced solution. European taxpayers do not want their money going to fund something that causes distress and harm to animals. We need to stop the export refunds granted in relation to third countries for slaughter, irrespective of whether conditions are being complied with or not. It is wrong that our money is being used in this way. This is the message that came out clearly from Parliament. I would like a commitment from the Commission that it is going to abolish export refunds to third countries for slaughter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
On behalf of the Committee on Budgets, I want to recommend the Morillon reports. The Committee on Budgets’ amendments have been integrated into the reports, and one could wish for nothing better. In the Commission’s proposals concerning resources for promoting economic and social development in Turkey and for extending the Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey, it is proposed that the period 2000-2002 should be covered, because the year is now so far advanced that it is too late to establish new budget headings for this purpose in 1999. The Committee on Budgets also wishes reference to be made to the interinstitutional agreement of 6 May of this year and for it to be stated that the recommended amounts for the period 2000-2002 should constitute a portion of the multiannual financial framework for the MEDA programme so that it is apparent that we are not concerned here with a new expenditure item. Ever since the European Council confirmed in December 1997 that Turkey could apply for membership of the EU, efforts have been made to create the opportunity to provide financial aid with a view to promoting economic cooperation and bringing Turkey closer to the EU. This, then, is the background to these proposals, on the one hand, for a three-year subsidy of EUR 15 million when a start is made on implementing the Community’s regulations and developing the Customs Union between the EC and Turkey and, on the other hand, for the subsidy of EUR 135 million for developing the economically backward regions of Turkey. These resources therefore have nothing to do with the special subsidy, proposed in the budget for the year 2000, for reconstruction and aid in connection with the earthquakes in Turkey. In 1998 and 1999, Turkey was allocated grants under the ME programme, the European Parliament’s having approved the Commission’s programmes following participation in an interinstitutional working party. The Committee on Budgets also decided that this working party should be maintained during the reading of the Budget for the year 2000. I have just one technical remark on Amendment No 15 in the report concerning economic cooperation where it is stated that the Council (with a qualified majority) or the European Parliament can decide to suspend the partnership. We are talking here about joint decision making, so the Council cannot decide without Parliament’s being heard. This is just by way of clarifying the interpretation of this proposal. Finally, I should say that, this year, the policy-making process has been delayed by the parliamentary election and by the special circumstances in connection with the Commission’s departure. It is good that a resolution can now be adopted to press ahead with the financial aid in accordance with the political conditions linked to the grants.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur for his work. I am entirely in agreement with his aims. But unfortunately, Mr Dary, it is not in our power to insist on the fulfilment of our wishes. Strong forces are lined up against us. Not only do views differ between States within the European Union, which is reflected, as we all know, in the difficulties experienced by the Commission in its attempts to come up with a proposal on this matter; there is also the involvement of the World Trade Organisation. Powerful interests are at play, especially those of the Americans, who, although they are not banana-growers themselves, have invested American capital in the trading corporations. We are familiar with the issues, and our concern that the legitimate interests of the ACP countries, of the smaller banana-growers, will fall by the wayside is surely not unwarranted. We have tried to table amendments again as compromise motions. I hope that the Commission will now accept these amendments. Our main motive in tabling Amendment 35 is to ensure that the Commission reports to us on the impact of the proposed regime on the interests of the smaller banana-growers and on the ACP countries, so that, if there is to be a transition to a ‘tariff only’ system, we in Parliament shall have a basis on which to make a decision. One thing is certainly clear and has been confirmed by the Commission, namely that this will have to be dealt with again in Parliament. To that end, we shall need precise data. Perhaps by that time we shall have achieved codecision on matters of agricultural policy, because decisive moves were made at Nice in the direction of parliamentary codecision; we only have to ensure in the post-Nice discussions that these good intentions are put into practice. We shall most probably be in a more powerful position then, and this should be reflected in the banana report and in the objectives we lay down.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, two days ago, we Finns received tragic news – the beautiful beaches around Runsala near Turku had been affected by an oil slick from an unknown source. Unfortunately, the proposals being debated today will not help in this type of case. This is a classic example of a discharge from an unknown source, and despite the restructuring of port and pilotage fees which we have adopted at EU level, these small discharges have increased in the Baltic Sea. The risk of being prosecuted is also very small. At the same time, we are now, unfortunately, seeing the opening of the port in Primorsk. This port has severely icy conditions, and we know that the package which we are approving today may not perhaps lead to vessels having double hulls until 2017. However, double hulls are no help now, as the ice has already formed in Primorsk port. Only through compulsory pilotage, effective strengthening of the hull against ice, efficient traffic monitoring and good teamwork between the rescue services can we do anything for this port and this unique part of the world. I would ask you, Commissioner, in your continued contacts with Russia, to focus attention on the safety of traffic to Primorsk.

Political group: ELDR
I have actively supported the fact that, in paragraph 3, the European Parliament comes out in favour of the Christian Democratic idea ‘that family policy should create preconditions to enable parents to spend more time with their children’. The same paragraph also emphasises the value of the fact that this would also ‘have a positive impact on family formation and family stability’. On the basis of this, what paragraph 2 calls ‘tackling the demographic problem faced by the majority of the Member States’ is an urgent matter. In accordance with our view of society, Recital K of the report specifies that ‘the rights of children must be at the heart of family policies’. The Group of the European People’s Party succeeded in voting down Recital G (by 321 votes with 169 in favour and 21 abstentions) and, thus, the attempt to create a new and diffuse definition of what constitutes a family, something that is definitely not a task for the EU. The Group believes that the concept of the family is based upon children’s right to their mothers and fathers and upon parents’ responsibility for their children. Children must always be at the heart of how we construct our society, at the same time as the family is society’s most important and most fundamental building block. I therefore voted in favour of the report as a whole (there having been 424 votes in favour, 51 votes against and 37 abstentions).

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I wish to thank Mrs Maij-Weggen for having drawn up a complete list of those documents the European Parliament must make directly accessible to the public. I want to say that Mrs Malmström is absolutely right when she says that transparency can and must extend from Finland to Greece; this really is no longer just a Nordic concept. I would, however, like to say that our new regulation on transparency perhaps incorporates just one feature which is a very Nordic tradition, which is that there are registers of documents. For a long time, people in Finland, Sweden and Denmark have been able to go, for example, to the municipal registrar’s office, the public register, and see what sort of documents were held there – and, obviously, they still can. Now we have the Internet and we can introduce this process in the European Parliament. We can only hope that all the institutions agree that we should endeavour to create one single document register in which documents from all the institutions are indeed directly accessible for as long as possible, and in this way we really will be making decision-making more transparent. We must, however, realise that this will still be a great struggle for us. This week we are having another very important debate on this subject, as we are discussing with Mr Solana the issue of Council reform and transparency, where we will have to defend, for example, the broad definition of legislation. We cannot settle for a situation where only documents connected with the codecision procedure would be accessible to the public, but must try to ensure that all documents that relate to different decisions binding on Member States are accessible. I particularly want to thank the rapporteur for having included a list of Members’ assistants, as they carry out public duties in their capacity as assistants to the Members of Parliament. It is high time we pointed out that these names are not secret; they are not secret individuals, and their names may indeed be made known to the public. Parliament thus also takes the view that, while, on the one hand, the protection of privacy is obviously important, on the other hand, the common interest and the right of access to information also require names to be made public, subject to certain conditions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to point out that we, the Group of the , tabled Amendment No 6 to recital A and that we want the words “supply constraints' in the fourth line of the English text to be replaced by the word 'quotas' because that is the correct term. (The President noted that there was no opposition to considering the oral amendment) On Amendment No 3

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, protecting, preserving and conserving fishery resources means respecting nature, considering our waters as a precious and irreplaceable livelihood and protecting life and biodiversity. There is also an urgent need to ensure the survival of human activities that will disappear if our waters are brutally exploited and depleted. No marine resource must be subjected to predatory activities, and it is therefore surprising that a maritime area as huge as the South-East Atlantic is not covered by the discipline and the management of any organisation. We consequently welcome the Convention creating a regional fisheries organisation for this area of the Atlantic high seas, which was concluded, as a matter of fact, in April 2001 by the main coastal States and by other States with an interest. The proposal for a decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South-East Atlantic Ocean therefore deserves our full support. There is also the possibility that the species covered will be highly vulnerable as a result of their biological make up and the environment in which they live. The rapporteur, Mrs McKenna, was right to table only one amendment and, whilst making some points of criticism, to welcome the Convention. We agree with her and thank her for her work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a very good evening and welcome to Europe's first culture channel. But joking apart, what can I say to you in just a minute? Perhaps I should try to take the wind out of the sceptics' sails. This is not about intervention, it is not about interfering in national cultural policy, no new wave of harmonisation is being started; on the contrary, it is about bringing sermonising politicians down to earth and saying, could you please stop using subsidiarity as a veto. It is about saying, if you really mean that culture is one of the most important models for the peaceful integration of Europe, then you must put your money where you mouth is. We try to join forces in so many areas; why should culture go it alone? Joint investment by Europe in culture – I like that expression better than subsidy, it is not just a question of financial support – is long overdue. May I run over time slightly in order to pay my respects and offer my thanks to all the members who have patiently fought to make headway here over the years, long before my arrival here. I should like to thank them for every millimetre of ground won and I too shall fight for more, millimetre by millimetre.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, we want the EU in ten years’ time to be the world’s most competitive economy, with nobody being excluded. We want to develop Europe in such a way that all people feel they are involved. For that reason it is natural that education should play a prominent role in the Union’s strategy. Good social policy will not prevent exclusion if the issues of equality of education and its high quality are ignored. Investing in education and its availability will mean that the human resources that exist will be made effective use of. It will not then just be a matter of finding talented people and giving them the encouragement they require, necessary as that is: it is just as vital to ensure that everyone is provided with basic knowledge and skills. At the same time, education should help young people and adults too to discover their strengths and to achieve success. In February the EU Ministers for Education adopted a report on the concrete objectives of educational systems in the Member States. The work is to continue. A follow up report is to be presented at the European Council meeting in spring 2002. We in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport are pleased with this development. The Committee has been stressing the importance of a European debate on education for a long time now. We are, however, sorry that Parliament has been passed over in the preparatory work until now. This is not so much a matter of prestige as one of existing resources being underused. I am convinced that Parliament’s involvement in setting targets for education will bring with it an important European angle on the issue. Although education is covered by the principle of subsidiarity, not only does improved competitiveness need to be taken into greater consideration in the educational policy of different countries but also the point of view of individuals. European educational policy must be developed in such a way that it supports the movement of Union citizens and their mutual interaction.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I remember that when my first report was voted on a few months ago, the Commission memorably stated that when it took decisions under the comitology procedure it would be willing to give information to Parliament, but not full information. This caused great hilarity in the House at the time. Also, if Parliament objected to a decision it would 'possibly' take account of Parliament's objection. As you can imagine this caused consternation in the House. That is why the report was referred back to committee. I can now report that we have looked at the matter further. We have had intense discussions with the Commission and what is before you today is a result of those contacts. The Commission has agreed to forward to Parliament all the information laid down in the interinstitutional agreement that we already have in principle with the Commission. If Parliament objects to an implementing measure adopted under comitology, then the Commission must either withdraw it, amend it or take account of Parliament's objection in some other way, or come before the House to make a statement to explain why it is taking any other course of action. That is a significant step forward. It is not ideal, but it is suitable to tide us over until the new constitution comes into force, which will introduce a new category of delegated legislation giving us further powers under the terms of the constitution. I commend it to the House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this resolution states that we are appalled by the atrocities in East Timor and that these awful events strengthen the need for effective controls on arms exports. If we truly believe that – and I hope we do – how can we then not take the next logical step and condemn those governments which ignore arms controls? What is the use of a code of conduct on arms exports, or an arms embargo, if we do not condemn those who violate them? In the very week after Britain agreed to an EU embargo on arms sales to the Indonesian government last month, three British Hawk warplanes were delivered secretly to Indonesia. It stretches credibility beyond belief to imagine that the British government could not have halted the delivery of these war planes which arrived only hours before Indonesian forces shot dead at least five demonstrators in Jakarta. Please make this resolution on arms exports a resolution that is worthy of this Parliament. Make it one that truly respects the awful suffering of the people of Indonesia. Make it one which firmly condemns those governments which defy an EU arms embargo. Please support the Green/EFA amendment to this resolution which seeks to do exactly that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Irish presidency has the chance to deliver on the great promise – made to the public ten years ago – that the European Union would become deeper before it was enlarged. We in this House advocate that this constitution be brought to completion, before 1 May if at all possible, but at any rate hand in hand with enlargement and prior to the European elections. I would also be interested to know what is still left for you to negotiate, and I urge you to stick as closely as possible to the Convention text. Mr Berlusconi never told us what the 82 topics were on which agreement was reached in Naples; perhaps they could be made public some time. I believe that the voting in the Council – this dual majority – must remain fundamental, as it is meant to facilitate decisions instead of more blockages. That is what your benchmark should be, and if the constitution does not come to pass, we face the threat of a two-speed Europe, which is what we do not want.

Political group: PSE