GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our rapporteur, Mr Brok, who negotiated this agreement, has already stated that we are in a whole new area here. He also said that either party could propose that this agreement should be reviewed after two years. Nevertheless, on behalf of my own group, I should like to draw attention to the weaknesses of the arrangement right from the start. The agreement refers to the fact that it would be, as it were, inspired by best practices in Member States. This must mean that the European Parliament would be guaranteed an absolute right to inspect secret documents on security and defence policy, but I wish to raise the question as to whether this will in fact be the case. I am referring to the fact that this agreement allows the Council full powers to decide which documents it will in point of fact actually hand over to this small special committee of the European Parliament. I might imagine that the background to this is discussions held between the Council and NATO. In many respects it seems that the wishes and requirements of NATO have dictated the content of this agreement to a considerable degree. In my opinion, the interests of the European Parliament have not necessarily been taken into account. In my view, my fellow Members have quite rightly pointed out that the European Parliament cannot reserve for itself exclusive rights to implement democratic and public monitoring of foreign and defence policy on behalf of our citizens either. Sometimes I feel that when this agreement was negotiated it was thought that these matters were no business of the public, but that Parliament’s small, handpicked team would assume full responsibility for them. That is why I tabled the amendment the rapporteur has already mentioned. I should like to stress that the exceptions in the Rules of Procedure, which Members of the European Parliament must submit to on the basis of this agreement, must be strictly linked to confidential information as mentioned in the regulation on public access, that is to say ‘sensitive’ documents, and no others. Neither can the right of the Members of the European Parliament to obtain information concerning foreign and security policy, a right that is already guaranteed to them by virtue of Article 21 of the Treaty, be weakened by this agreement. Finally, it is extremely important to stress that, should confidential information contain any reference to some sort of criminal activity, nothing must be allowed to prevent a Member of the European Parliament from contacting the authorities. I would request that Amendment No 2, which is broader in scope that that proposed by the committee, be supported.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I think we should all be really grateful to Mr Martin, not only for the excellent job he has done, as everyone has recognised, but because he is effectively enabling us all to pin down this subject of aquaculture. It has already been said: from now on, we will make a distinction between before and after the Martin report. We can truly say that this industry has, today, come of age, it has become a fully–fledged adult industry with its own particular characteristics and features, it has stopped being an appendage of the fishing industry and, therefore, it needs from us all the attention that any industry of a certain economic stature deserves. As other Members have said, the figures speak for themselves: this is an industry where employment is growing, it is an industry that is responding to rising demand, it is an industry that eases the difficulties of many coastal areas which would otherwise have no alternatives, it is an industry that also helps us fight the battle we have ahead of us with the decline in wild fish stocks. Furthermore, unlike fisheries reforms, it is an industry on which the Commission and Parliament find themselves in substantial agreement. I am delighted to have heard Mr Solbes’s praise for this report today, and we can all see that there is convergence on matters of food safety, research and the environmental compatibility of this industry. We have therefore reached good common ground. In conclusion, I would just like to ask the Commissioner to pay greater attention to the two issues that Parliament wants to raise: first, the changes in the FIFG regulation, the financial regulation, particularly as regards young people’s start–up and the modernisation of farms; and secondly, the natural disaster fund. Commissioner, one cannot declare how valuable and useful an economic sector is without then taking consistent measures to sustain it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on Sunday's election results in Germany. I know this is a national event, but all of us are members or one party or another at home. Sometimes this provides fresh impetus and then it should benefit everyone. Of course, the framework to be set in the budget for the Committee on Petitions is relatively small. Nonetheless, this framework is still quite important. After all, we had more than 2100 cases last year, which the Ombudsman had to deal with. We regard this still relatively new institution as a major step forward in guaranteeing the quality and control of the administration and citizens' access to it. We therefore fail to understand why our few requests relating to the coming year's budget, which primarily concern staffing, have obviously fallen foul of the restrictions and tight constraints governing administrative expenditure. Indeed, I have the impression that in the past, the Commission pegged future costs for the administration at an extremely low level, far too low, and that we are now having to live with the consequences of this mistake. Ultimately, it is down to us, as Parliament, to allocate the scarce resources as fairly as possible. I think this situation is open to severe criticism. Our colleagues have presented their cases for their areas – the small institutions – and I hope that in future budget procedures, despite the error that arose at the advent of this financial perspective, we will be able to find a solution in our area as well.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is important to establish the EU's relations with its new neighbours, following the enlargement through a zone of prosperity and a ring of friends with whom the EU enjoys close, peaceful and cooperative economic relations. In return for concrete progress, Russia and countries of the Western NIS and the Southern Mediterranean should be offered the prospect of a stake in the EU's internal market and participation in the so-called four freedoms - in effect, everything bar participation in the Institutions. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union allows any European state the opportunity of joining the Union, which is why accession has already been ruled out for the non-European Mediterranean partners. Russia and Belarus do not wish to join the European Union, being content with the PCA Agreement, and the Maghreb is planning to be part of an African Union. However, better engagement and cooperation with Belarus in areas of common interest is essential to encourage reform in that country. In spite of Article 49, there is still a serious danger that Moldova and Ukraine will see the process as insufficiently differentiated and as a way of distancing the EU from their just membership aspirations. In addition, the suggestion that there should be additional freedom of movement of persons for all neighbouring countries would undermine the existing attempts to limit large-scale immigration into the EU. The movement of skilled and educated people to nearby countries would also create a serious brain-drain that would damage the economies of countries such as Moldova and Ukraine. However, the EU is looking at ways of facilitating the crossing of external borders for bona fide third country nationals; after all, good fences make for good neighbours in my opinion. Lastly, I propose that Phare and other successful pre-accession financial instruments, which have benefited acceding countries so much, be extended, along with the remit of the EIB to the Western NIS countries, which would replace the current limited Tacis Programme and approach, which carries no private sector economic investments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the tragic events of 11 September have shown, once again, how wide the gap is between the Europe that is and the Europe that ought to be. The shock we felt at the inconceivable level of violence reached by terrorism must now give way to a practical endeavour to provide Europe with the political and institutional tools it needs to play a role combating terrorism and working towards peace and justice in the world. We therefore welcome the decisions of the extraordinary European Council of 21 September in the field of judicial cooperation and home affairs and on combating money laundering. Against this tragic backdrop, the decision of the Italian government and the majority supporting it to make changes to the judicial cooperation treaty with Switzerland appears even more serious and irresponsible, changes to its own code of criminal procedure which are in direct conflict with the commitments made at the extraordinary Council and the Justice and Home Affairs Council. This law would mean that evidence gathered abroad could not be used in court proceedings and that, since this measure applies retrospectively, it would jeopardise hundreds of trials which are currently in progress, nullifying evidence already established. It is this kind of decision which made the Public Prosecutor of Geneva say that this law is a disaster for international justice and that, in twelve years of judicial cooperation with countries throughout the world, he has never, ever seen rules like this adopted. Since I feel that this is not the right place to express an opinion, I call upon the Commission, the Council and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to ascertain whether this measure is in line with the decisions of the extraordinary Summit.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the humanitarian situation in Iraq is clear to us all. That is why our group still believes in the importance of a statement by the Commission and the Council on humanitarian aid prospects in Iraq and on the initial decisions that have been taken in this regard by these two institutions. We would therefore ask for this point to be added to the agenda.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council's refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament's top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter's scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I believe that lifelong learning has very often been defined as a priority objective. However, I feel that the effort being made by Europe is not really being reflected in the results. It is very difficult to establish these principles, to establish a system of quality evaluation, and to develop the right types of teaching so that lifelong learning can genuinely become a common basis throughout people’s lives. In this regard, I believe that the measures we should adopt should include an increase in monitoring and inspection and the clarification of quality indicators, and they should be of differing types, and, above all, it seems to me extremely important to ensure that training be established throughout the territory. This type of training is usually available in the big cities. Rural areas and the most distant extremes of the regions, on the other hand, are not usually so well served. I believe that, from now on, we must implement a policy of proximity, of accessibility, and that really is sustainable development: bringing education closer to people and making it more flexible. Furthermore, there are huge numbers of complaints from companies that they cannot find qualified staff, and we have a very high level of unemployment given the economic situation supporting it too. In this respect, I believe that we must implement these expansion policies throughout the territory and prevent education causing people to be uprooted from their regions, as many women are because they have to move away to be educated.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, while the Commissioner takes note of the matter, I would like to say that I agree with Mrs Corbey. This is exactly the sense of the proposal contained in the voting list proposed by the rapporteur: Amendment No 11 and Amendment No 13 are contradictory. I would, however, say to Mrs Corbey that this is the result of a mistake on the part of our committee. I therefore call upon the House to support and adopt Amendment No 11 but to vote against Amendment No 13, precisely in order to establish a definition of ‘thinners’ which is consistent with the rest of the legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his precise answer and substantial input in this matter. In the meantime, I have been appointed rapporteur for the subject and I am sure that we will work closely together with a view to moving matters on. But the question I have is this: is the Commission still planning to conduct a study into the feasibility of making this college a fixed institution? Because as you know, the European Parliament has called for this to be a fixed institution and not a virtual academy. Are you proposing to conduct a study on the feasibility aspect? You can rely on receiving our full backing for this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too agree that pension policy involves an enormous challenge. As far as the young generation of Europe is concerned, this is perhaps the largest challenge we will see in the field of economic and social policy in the decades ahead. Open coordination is naturally a positive thing and I warmly support it. It is good that the Commission is now looking for indicators and also seeking to increase public debate on this very important issue. My real question concerns whether, however, you see any opportunities for slightly stronger measures, in other words in the future could we also highlight questions of pension policy, for example, in slightly more binding documents such as Stability and Growth Agreements and employment policy guidelines, and, for example, issue warnings to those Member States who are not managing their pension policy properly and ensure that, in the future, through reasonable funding, we will be able to pay sustainable, good pensions to the pensioners of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to welcome Mr Sterckx's report which, in our view, is comprehensive and highlights the catalogue of decisions that culminated in the Prestige disaster. I must also pay tribute to our rapporteur for his hard work on the production of a well thought-out, highly considered, fair and balanced report. This report highlights the many failings of a number of authorities and yet comes forward with some positive ideas on how we can avoid a repeat of the Prestige disaster. My colleague Mrs Miguélez Ramos will no doubt highlight the effects that this disaster has had and continues to have on the Galician coast. She, above everyone, knows the heartache that this disaster has caused and I pay tribute to her tireless efforts on behalf of the people of Galicia. So many other questions have been raised by the Sterckx Report that my Group and I believe that further work is necessary. Further investigation into the events surrounding the loss of the Prestige is needed. There should be further analysis of the economic and ecological disaster that has not only occurred but continues to occur for the people of Galicia and other areas. Furthermore, there should be an analysis into the adequacy of present EU maritime regulations, present IMO regulations and the actions – or perhaps, more appropriately, the lack of action – of some of our Member States. Mr President, the Group, the and the Group have consistently called for a committee of inquiry. Because of the excellent work of Mr Sterckx and by way of a compromise, we can now drop that demand in favour of a request to the Conference of Presidents for a temporary committee to carry on the work of Mr Sterckx and to find the answers to the questions that he and others have posed. That is the least we could do for the people of Galicia and other affected areas. I support the rapporteur's call for such a committee in his Amendment No 11. Anything less from this Parliament would be an abdication of our responsibilities and a total abandonment, not only of the people of Galicia, but of the whole population of the European Union. We on this side of the House are not prepared to let that happen. We are prepared to back Parliament's rapporteur and look to the other side of this House to do the same. The time for political posturing is over: it is now time for action. Let me make our position clear, in light of the rapporteur's final conclusions in his speech concerning the issue of a temporary committee: it is 'no' to any dilution of Amendment No 11 and it is 'no' to any alteration to a future temporary committee's remit. Amendment No 11 is balanced, needed, well-supported and gets to the heart of the problem. To dilute or alter it would be unacceptable and a move born out of political gerrymandering, not a move in favour of maritime safety. I hope that this makes the 's position on Amendment No 11 crystal clear.

Political group: PSE
The basis for this report is the Commission’s proposal linking the trafficking of people for purposes of sexual exploitation – prostitution – and the trafficking of human beings for purposes of work – migrant workers. This is not the best way in which to study and address these two serious problems. As a matter of fact, the UN treats them quite separately and rightly so, taking account of their quite different realities and of the different and separate approaches that they require. Nevertheless, the report improves the Commission’s proposal considerably, and tables around fifty amendments, specifically indicating that trafficking in human beings must not just be punished, but that it must be expressly classified as a criminal activity. The report also proposes increasing prison sentences and takes the view that the instigation of, aiding or abetting such activity must also be punished. Another important proposal is to set up a compensation fund for victims of trafficking in human beings, which would be funded from the confiscation of criminals’ proceeds from crime. I think it is also positive that the report reiterates the need to give adequate protection to victims and witnesses, to grant the victims of trafficking temporary rights of residence for the entire period of criminal investigation or trial, including providing adequate accommodation and other support, specifically for reintegration, and the creation of a database of missing persons. These are the reasons why we are voting in favour of the report, although we are sorry that Commissioner Vitorino was not able to accept all of the proposals tabled by the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The British Conservatives deplore violence of any kind and welcome measures to combat this, including some of those initiatives within the Daphne Programme. Violence, especially against women or children, is completely unjustifiable and cannot be accepted. However, some of the measures in this report encroach on areas better dealt with at Member State level. There is no evidence that taxpayers' money spent on projects at EU level is more effective than when it is spent on national programmes, although the sharing of experience and best practice may make a positive contribution to the reduction of violence of this type. Whilst accepting the good work carried out by the Daphne Programme, the British Conservatives, for the reasons outlined above, have voted against further budgetary appropriations and abstained on the final vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
As the former rapporteur for this report and former chief observer to Pakistan, I have opposed the ratification of the third-generation agreement. Ratification would confer legitimacy on a quasi-military regime, responsible for human rights abuses, a 'flawed' general election and nuclear proliferation. Before the vote in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I contacted Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Christian Solidarity Worldwide to request that they lobby MEPs to oppose ratification. Christian Solidarity Worldwide promptly circulated a briefing to MEPs. Human Rights Watch did not respond. Amnesty International said that it was 'not able to provide more help ... due to the short notice given'. Ratification was approved by only one vote in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Before plenary, I contacted both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch again. Neither responded. In 2003 both issued reports condemning Pakistan. In 2003, Amnesty described the 'systematic human rights violations'. Human Rights Watch in 2003 called on Musharraf to 'transfer power to a legitimate government'. Given the recent comments by Lotte Leicht in the European Voice that the EU has been weak in implementing human rights and democracy clauses, the lack of response is appalling. It betrays those in Pakistan who risk their lives to defend human rights and democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE