GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lemierre, I would like to begin by thanking you and your staff for your work. The balance-sheet is impressive. We are pleased that the balance-sheet which you have delivered today gives no cause for criticism. Secondly, I endorse your priorities. Despite your specific role, I think it is very important, as you have said, that the Bank is also an agency for the implementation of the Commission's priorities, as well as for cooperation with the Commission and the Parliament. We must not spread ourselves too thinly. We must set priorities in order to be able to fulfil our political and economic responsibilities in the world – for the Member States, the accession countries, and the surrounding countries. We cannot adopt divergent priorities. I believe that the following points are important. I hope that next time round, you will also report on the impact of your operations in the transformation countries, since it enhances awareness of the Bank's strengths if we have not only a balance-sheet but also information about the macroeconomic effects of its activities. Secondly, I think it is important to continue and intensify your work on boosting small and medium-sized enterprises. We are all aware of the key role played by SMEs in creating and consolidating training places and jobs. Our expectation is that you will increase this commitment, especially by strengthening the focus on equity investment for SMEs and supporting the development of an SME infrastructure. I would simply point out that in Russia, only 10% of the workforce is employed in SMEs. It is also very important that in a week when we have spoken a great deal about the Lisbon process, you are keeping the Lisbon strategy in mind when evaluating projects and enterprises and making this one of your criteria. Furthermore, of course, we need a priority headed ‘accession countries’. However, EU enlargement will not be complete in 2004. The issue of the Balkans – i.e. the former Yugoslavia – is important for the European Union, as is the establishment of a security belt, and economic development on the European Union's borders is integral to this process. I therefore ask you to continue your policy course and to take Parliament's ideas on board. We will support you in this approach.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if you had given me the floor first, as rapporteur, I would have been able to cover the point raised by Mrs McCarthy. Could I just formally ask you for a separate vote on Amendments Nos 2, 11, 23 and 24? I have been asked to do this as a formality, even though it is included in colleagues' voting lists. Could I also say to colleagues that this is part of the compromise package we discussed. I want to make it clear in your voting list, colleagues, that the first part of Amendment No 15 is part of the compromise text and I am recommending you vote against the second part. My Amendment No 36 is also part of the compromise text, and for clarity for colleagues on the Legal Affairs Committee, this is the amendment you voted on in committee with just the addition of the word 'television' after 'digital interactive'. That was a compromise. I agreed with the Council to clarify the wording – there have been no other changes. Can I also make it absolutely clear that Amendment No 11 is also a compromise text and that is shown at the bottom of your voting list. I turn now to the points quite rightly raised by my shadow rapporteur, Mrs McCarthy, on the question of 'must carry' obligations. This is an issue that many colleagues are concerned about and reflects Article 31 of the proposal. I am recommending that you vote against the committee amendment as part of the compromise but I would ask you, Mr President, to give the floor to Mr Liikanen. He has prepared a statement clarifying the access provisions for public service broadcasters in the whole electronic communication package. That access provision is the key concern of colleagues. So, can I ask you to give Mr Liikanen the floor?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on 17 October, the Brussels European Council included in its conclusions a statement on Bolivia containing four points. This statement said, amongst other things, that the European Council reiterated its support for the democratically-elected government of Bolivia in its efforts to find a peaceful and constitutional solution to the current crisis and added that the European Council called on the political, social and economic forces in Bolivia to renounce violence and begin a responsible and constructive dialogue with the Bolivian Government. This was said at a time when, as Commissioner Vitorino himself has acknowledged, the Bolivian Government had been responsible for the deaths of more than eighty citizens and for injuries to hundreds of people and material damage to their property. At that time I was ashamed to read that the European Union, together with the US Government, was one of the few sources of support left to the President who acted in such an irresponsible way, after having tried to appropriate the country’s scant natural resources. The question I would ask the Presidency, represented by the Commission at the moment, and I am not sure whether it will be able to answer, is what kind of information the European Council had when adopting this statement, given that on that same day, before it had been possible to translate the Council’s statement into Spanish, the President of Bolivia was delivering his letter of resignation to the Bolivian National Congress. What type of representation do we have? Is there no communication between the Commission and the Council? Did the Commission not know what was happening? What kind of information was there? How could the Council have adopted this statement without the support of the Commission? In other words, we cannot act in such an irresponsible manner, because in this case the European Union has made a fool of itself. It has made a fool of itself before the public and – I repeat – I was ashamed to read in the newspapers that we were supporting this statement, together with the United States. But the Americans behaved more intelligently, because, when they saw that things were going badly, before 17 October, they told Sánchez de Lozada to go. Mr President, I apologise for taking such a critical tone, but I really feel hugely indignant at the moment, because it is not acceptable for our Union to be supporting this type of policy. I would like to add that I agree with Mr Salafranca that this is a time to stay calm, to support the new Bolivian Government, to do everything possible to ensure that this government succeeds, and I would like to thank the Commissioner for the information he has given me on emergency aid. Well, I do not believe that the emergency aid will be enough. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America. Millions of country people are living in misery. The situation is truly horrendous and I believe that that country needs a very particular form of help, and we should avoid repeating past mistakes. We must not rob these poor people of the only natural resource remaining to them, having first taken silver from Bolivia and then tin.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted in favour of the Conciliation Committee’s definitive decision on the directive on end-of-life vehicles. I voted in favour, not just because pensioners and elderly people who have reached a certain age feel that their fate is similar to that of cars, but, above all, because it is right and proper that, at last, thanks to Europe’s initiative, a solution has been found to the problem of where to put cars when they do not work any more. I would, however, suggest improving on our decision, by providing for the payment of a deposit when a new car is purchased, to be returned when the old car is brought back.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for some time now, the European Parliament has been monitoring the situation in Venezuela with interest. I should like very specifically to draw attention to the delegation of MEPs that visited the country to assess the damage produced by the floods in the state of Vargas. When it returned, this delegation drew up a resolution and mobilised considerable financial resources in order to express the EU’s solidarity with those affected. This Parliament’s most recent official delegation to Venezuela detected the possible risk of an anti-democratic trend whose most important manifestation was the cancellation of the Venezuelan parliamentarians’ mandate before the Latin American Parliament. Today, the country is undergoing a political, economic and social crisis that has produced many victims, as did similar crises this weekend in Colombia and, in the past, in Bolivia. Moreover, this is actually contrary to Venezuela’s peaceful traditions. That is why I believe that the European Union in general and our Parliament in particular have to support the efforts of the Organisation of American States and of the ‘Group of Friends’ to try to bring about a situation in which the country is in some way able once again to feel the beat of economic and social development and to embark upon the path of stability, democratic consolidation and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. The European Commission must, however, help us in this task and, of course, the measures taken the day before yesterday by the Commission to limit and modify the system of generalised Community preferences are not going to be of much help in handling the situations being experienced by Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. I believe that this Parliament must respond and lose no time in setting out its priorities for helping these countries, which are subject to many threats. In the case of Venezuela, moreover, we have to obtain a peaceful, negotiated and democratic solution, given the grave situation being experienced by that country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I see this debate and the resolution as being about self-respect. This Parliament has been directly elected for twenty-four years. In a year’s time, these direct elections to Europe’s citizens’ chamber will involve the citizens of twenty-five Member States of the European Union. In a few weeks’ time, the Convention on the Future of Europe will be presenting a draft treaty for a European Constitution, and the next Intergovernmental Conference will be getting underway. There are important roles to be played by parties – including European parties – by the European Parliament as the only EU institution directly elected by the European public, by the citizens’ representatives, all of which are an important part of the European project. To this day, nevertheless, there is no Statute for European Political Parties; despite that fact, there is to this day no Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The time for them has come; indeed, the resolution is overdue, and I tell you that today’s debate is important, because it is not only the Council that needs to do its homework on many issues – we do too, transparently, determinedly, comprehensibly, and in full awareness of our responsibilities, and, if the game of ping-pong is to be brought to an end, then it has to be spelled out that we decided that seven hundred MEPs were sufficient; it was the Council, in Nice, who arbitrarily increased our number. We are enacting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament on the basis of a report produced by outside experts. So far, the Council has not made the choice as to whether to go for a uniform European Statute or twenty-five differing assessments of the same work, and so, to put it briefly, our development from a parliamentary assembly into a European Parliament has not yet been completed. The public nature of this debate also means that we have to openly address the point that no member of a national parliament – exceptions prove the rule – travels as much as we do. No national parliament has more democratic freedoms than we do. No national parliament is as consistent as we are in increasing the amount of work it does. Although nobody can say that he does not need to improve, to become more efficient and more professional, most of us in this House do good work, work that has a value of its own and requires framework conditions specific to itself. In the coming weeks, the new European order will come into being. This will also involve a new role for the European Parliament and the revaluation of its freely elected members. All these things justify a transparent and uniform statute for the Members of the European Parliament. There is nothing to be said in favour of deficient self-confidence or of populist self-laceration, nor indeed of superciliousness or arrogance. It is important and right that the fundamental issue that Mr Rothley and I have raised should be decided rather than continuing to be postponed. Ladies and gentlemen, let us, with all the representatives of the Member States, not be afraid of making decisions or of the decisions that may be taken. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have a long catalogue of action by the Council and the Commission to deal with the problem of counterfeiting of the euro. According to a report in the Financial Times on 22 May, Europol apparently thinks that these measures are still inadequate. One of the particular concerns is the very high value of the 500-euro note, which is in danger of making the euro the currency of choice for counterfeiters and money launderers, because it is substantially higher in value than any other note in regular circulation in the United States, Japan or the United Kingdom. Has the Council not considered the possibility of delaying the issuing of the 500-euro note because, with the introduction of the euro, there will be a particularly dangerous window of opportunity for counterfeiters potentially to have a field day, as millions of people around the world will never have seen these notes before. Substantial counterfeiting will engender the severe risk of global damage to the whole credibility of, and confidence in, the euro.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am in favour of an amendment to Amendment No 19, an oral amendment – in this way, all the positions would be respected – ending with the words: ‘this should be taken into account by Member States’. In this case, I would be in favour of the amendment and it would therefore be a good compromise agreement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like Mrs Breyer I voted against this report. I also think that there is a lot of hypocrisy and double-speak in this House. As regards travel expenses, ever since I came here it has been an issue that has been raised by many people, especially people in my own group. The system should be changed. We need a system where we get back what we spend, but this should not be tied in with a lot of other matters. There were some controversial proposals in the Rothley report, particularly as regards EU tax. As an Irish citizen, I find it hard to justify to my voters at home why I should be paying a different rate of tax to them or why I should be privileged to pay a lower tax. By tying the two together – salary and expenses – we are avoiding the fact that the system needs to be changed. This issue is going to go on and on. The voters and the media in the various Member States will be highlighting it. It is questionable whether it is acceptable that a Member of this Parliament be paid more than, for example, the president of his own country, which could happen in certain cases. The system needs to be reformed, and in such a way that we can take a credible stand and show that we are not getting extra privileges that our own voters are not entitled to.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We have today voted against the report, our justification being as follows. An agreement on takeover bids (relating to company purchases) has been made just recently. The EU institutions should keep to what has been agreed in these negotiations. This report proposes deviations from the agreement. Such behaviour may lead to its becoming more difficult in the future to conclude agreements, if the institutions do not keep to them. We therefore believe that the points relating to the weighting of voting rights and various forms of defensive measure should not have been included in the report. When those aspects of company law that benefit from harmonisation are changed through European legislation, the principle of subsidiarity must be respected, and central corporate governance must as far as possible be avoided. The freedom to enter into agreements must never be infringed in the manner proposed. We particularly welcome trade and industry’s initiatives in the interests of increased transparency and the scrutiny of administration and reporting, and we hope that these principles will influence future European development in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the case of takeover bids, some Members would like staff representatives of the businesses concerned to be better informed than this directive provides for them to be. So be it, but why then does one of these amendments simultaneously propose the acceptance of ‘confidentiality clauses’, which in the end means restricting information to certain delegates and denying it to the workforce as a whole? In addition, even if these amendments were adopted, that would not protect workers at all from the tragic consequences of buyouts, in particular, mass redundancies under the pretext of restructuring. European authorities are concerned with bringing some degree of unity to this jungle-like system, as this House is doing regarding takeover bids. They are, however, wildly scorning those who, year after year, takeover bid or not, find themselves in ever greater numbers back on the streets because reducing the workforce, and therefore the salaried masses, is one of the ways in which those who possess capital can increase the price of their shares on the Stock Exchange. Only a ban on mass redundancies could protect workers from the tragic consequences of takeover bids for jobs. We voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, both the Commission's latest interim report and the opinions of the different committees of this Parliament demonstrate that Turkey has made important steps in the direction of the Copenhagen criteria. That country has made enormous progress over the past years. By way of example, I would mention the abolition of the death penalty and the change in attitude towards the Kurdish minority. This is all happening under a Turkish Government of which it was feared at the time that it would turn Turkey into an Islamic state. Fortunately, reality is different. Without hesitation, the Turkish Government calls for good governance, more transparency and equality between men and women. The experiment which the AKP Party is conducting is unique and of worldwide significance. As the European Union should not leave these signals without a response, it should offer a concrete prospect of joining as soon as possible; otherwise, we would soon run the risk of having to face the threat of an Islamic-fundamentalist state, no longer open to dialogue, by the back door.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Vitorino. Commissioner, you have listened seriously to the demands made by many experts on migration and NGOs and have made it clear in two communications how policy on refugees and traditional migrants is to be handled. With your communication on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status valid throughout the Union for persons granted asylum you have brought forward some excellent proposals for harmonising asylum policy. Your proposals will now help us to find some concrete solutions. The rapporteur, Mr Evans, has made a fine job of this. I regard the additions he proposes as enhancing the current debate on concrete directives. You have also succeeded, Commissioner, with your communication on a Community migration policy, in making it clear how important it is that future migration in the European Union should be jointly controlled and regulated throughout the Union. However, we will probably have to carry on debating the wishes of the Nation States, which I take very seriously. They want to arrange the fine tuning of migration themselves, although their strategies have already been a failure at national level for decades. I trust that we will soon manage to persuade our colleagues at national level that there is no alternative to Union-wide control of migration.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on the eve of the donor conference on Iraq, I, as the budget rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, would like to endorse the Commission’s realistic proposals to release a further EUR 200 million for the reconstruction of Iraq on top of the EUR 100 million of humanitarian aid previously promised. Anyone in favour of more European money for reconstruction must go and argue and must knock on the doors of the Member States. As a matter of fact, it surprises me that countries that at the time were very enthusiastic advocates of a military intervention in Iraq are today willing only to release very limited funds or even no funds at all for its reconstruction. It is plain cynical to have to conclude that certain donors want to advance loans to Iraq as if the debt burden of the Iraqi people were not already high enough. The conditions laid down by the European Union for a financial contribution for reconstruction are a sine qua non. The central role of the UN must be strengthened. The European money must therefore only be deposited in a new Trust Fund to be set up by the UN and the World Bank. Secondly, the aid must not be spent exclusively on large-scale construction projects that are made to measure for companies that have good relations with the White House. Thirdly, I am also arguing for 35% of the annual credits to be used for elementary health care and primary education. Whatever, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy does not wish to see funds for the reconstruction of Iraq being at the expense of other commitments of the Union, such as those with regard to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Latin America. Failing to make good on agreements made would seriously harm the credibility and the reliability of our foreign policy and for me that is far more important than the political rearguard actions in this Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I voted in favour of the Schmidt report on the regulation of investments in transferable securities because, as I stated in this Chamber this morning, I consider it very important that the monies of the citizens of the European Union be put to good use. The vast majority of these citizens are elderly people and pensioners, who want a peaceful retirement and who, after the problems encountered during the course of their working lives, have at last found financial peace of mind. The regulation of investments in transferable securities, the vast majority of which are made by elderly pensioners, is thus a major step forward for the European Union. – Report by Olle Schmidt (A5-0025/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE