GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Let me begin by saying that the support the proposal of the Commission for both the FIFG and the MAGP. We also agree with the rapporteur's amendments seeking to restrict the derogation for safety to vessels less than 12 metres in length and we would like to thank her for retabling these important amendments. However, we are entirely opposed to the proposal as it has now emerged from the committee. The amendments are removing the most progressive elements that the Commission is proposing. After all, both the MAGP and the FIFG are already so full of loopholes that you actually sail The Atlantic Dawn through. The proposal would simply close a couple of these more blatant loopholes. Glancing through a scientific report on the status of fish stocks makes for very depressing reading these days. It does not matter whether it is ICES, or the STECF or any of the regional bodies such as NAFO. Everywhere you look fish stocks are over-exploited and far too often severely depleted. The EU has had to take emergency measures for three cod stocks and northern hake and it is clear that other stocks will soon be added to the list. There is pretty much universal agreement that this deplorable situation is due to the excess capacity of the world's fishing fleets. The Commission is always reminding us of this, but the Member States and certain segments of the fishing industry are clearly in denial. The Community has agreed to several international instruments which seek to control fishing capacity and/or fishing effort. For instance, the FAO Code of Conduct provides that states should take measures to prevent or eliminate excess fishing capacity and should ensure that levels of fishing effort are in line with sustainable use of fisheries resources. But whenever the Commission tries to put these obligations into effect, they are shot down by Parliament and the Council. Some have argued that it is not reasonable to try and change a programme in the last year or that certain aspects of the proposal are contrary to the idea of natural justice. The FIFG is due to continue until 2006 and so there are several years in which these reforms could bring some sort of positive effect. Surely it is far from natural justice to refuse to take action now and to continue as if the future is bright, only to have more and more stocks decrease and to impose even further temporary or permanent closures. I would ask the Members of this House to consider the case of the northern cod stock off Newfoundland which provided 200 000 tonnes of fish every year for five centuries. In 1992, the Canadian Government had to close the fisheries even for subsistence fishing and there is still little if any sign of improvement in the stock. Is that the kind of future we want for our own coastal communities? The time has come for us to take a long-term rather than just a 6-months to 12-months view. We really have to deal with this issue and I would like to support what the Commission is proposing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Morillon on his report, which is the usual balanced blend of imagination and realism, vision and pragmatism. Indeed, I wish for his sake that even our fellow Member Mr Korakas would actually read it, for then he would arrive at a different view. The real question facing us, of course – to put it in provocative terms – is this: should the European Union become a military power? I agree with the previous speaker, Mr Laschet: in recent weeks or months, Europe has, unfortunately, not played any global role at all. That is a fact. Of course, it is primarily a matter of will, as Commissioner Patten always says. Are we actually willing to take on a role? I believe – and the Morillon report, which has after all been adopted by a large majority, bears this out – that here in this House, we do have the will to play a proper role in world affairs. Can a military capability help us? The answer, in my view, is ‘yes’. A military capability can help us if there is a common foreign and security policy. It cannot be a substitute for the common foreign and security policy, but it can certainly support and underpin it. I too, however, am sceptical about an arms race. It would be quite grotesque to argue that in the past, we were involved in the arms race because we had to keep pace with an opponent, and now we have to compete in the arms race because we have to keep pace with a partner, namely the United States of America. But if we read it correctly, the Morillon report states primarily – not exclusively, but primarily – that the task must be to coordinate our defence spending so that, initially, we achieve a far greater impact and more efficiency with the same amount of money. Secondly, it is certainly also important to identify where there are gaps which we Europeans can close. In reality, there are two alternative options to be considered. To my mind, leaving things as they are is not an option. The first option is for us to become a military power like the USA, albeit rather less powerful, less imperialist and less efficient. I see that as unacceptable. The other option is to acquire a military capability to underpin a common foreign and security policy, just as Mr Morillon outlines in his report, so that we have the capacity to act efficiently within the framework of a multilateral policy. We do not have this capacity at present. The Morillon Report identifies ways for us to act efficiently in a multilateral framework. That is why we are clear and unequivocal in our endorsement of the Morillon Report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have been informed that a press conference, organised by Mr Vattimo, took place this morning to promote an Italian book which is clearly libellous: a book which has already been condemned in Italy, a book which libels a member of the Italian parliament. In my opinion, the left is, once again, displaying its tendency here to exploit the institutions for the clear purposes of Italian electoral campaigning. I would like to ask you, Mr President, who authorised the use of the room for these purposes. I know that the title of the press conference was changed so that the room could be used, in the sense that the reference to the electoral campaign was removed from the title, but the subject of the conference was clearly the Italian electoral campaign.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the Commission's proposals for reform of the car market. I regret that elements of Mr Konrad's report water down the Commission's plan. Motorists in the UK and elsewhere in the EU have for too long paid too much for new cars and been subjected to restrictive practices concerning after-sales servicing and spare parts. I urge Mr Monti to speed ahead with reform. - Motion for a resolution (B5-0318/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her patient work on a difficult issue. Parliament can debate today, and tomorrow, I hope, it will be able to adopt a report that improves the Commission proposal. It is, as has already been said, a very problematic dossier, because the different countries have very different systems to deal with this matter – they range from situations of all-embracing guarantees to a lack of any kind of protection. I too applaud the Commission’s initiative, which is not a straitjacket restricting autonomy and subsidiarity but comes after 20 years of attempts by employers and workers to reach an agreement. I believe there are three basic objectives of equality of treatment contained in the proposal: equality of treatment for temporary workers compared with other workers in terms of job security and status; respect for established social standards within the user enterprises, through equal treatment in terms of pay and working conditions of temporary workers and other, comparable workers in the user enterprises; and recognition of the work of agencies supplying temporary workers as a legitimate professional activity, removing unnecessary restrictions, authorisations and prohibitions. The purpose of the directive is thus to guarantee and harmonise a common minimum level of protection for temporary workers, without any discrimination. It is a directive that places temporary work within its own part of the labour market, recognising its importance and value without, however, pushing it until it becomes almost the only system for hiring people. I also believe, since Lisbon has been mentioned, that this directive regulates temporary work in a way that brings it qualitatively into line with the Lisbon objectives.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this afternoon we are going to hold the annual debate on the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice. It is included in the agenda as Questions to the Council. In reality, the oral question is intended to introduce the debate laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 2 of the Treaty. I would like to ask the Presidency to guarantee that the Council, which has not replied in writing to these questions, will firstly reply to the questions put by the Committee on Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs, so that we can then proceed to the debate laid down in the Union Treaty in a more effective way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would just like to stress that the European Parliament supports the Commission proposal to make the most of this experiment in reducing rates of VAT for labour-intensive services. Nevertheless, we are very disappointed that the nine Member States that have taken advantage of this did not see their way to submitting their reports on this experiment as agreed, so that the Commission does not have a basis for preparing its own legislative proposal. I wish specifically to appeal to these Member States to submit their reports next year so that we can have a European legislative proposal on reducing rates of VAT for labour-intensive services by the end of this parliamentary term. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0361/2002) by Carlos Lage, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out, for the period from 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2005, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Principe on fishing off the coast of São Tomé and Principe (COM(2002) 398 – C5-0394/2002 – 2002/0162 (CNS)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0362/2002) by Niels Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the Commission communication on the Community action plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing ((COM(2002) 180 – C5-0332/2002 – 2002/2176(COS)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0349/2002) by Jürgen Zimmerling, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the state of research in applicant countries and measures needed to ensure their full participation in the framework programme (2002/2082/(INI)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0367/2002) by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and European Parliament and Council Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the (9754/3/2002 – C5-0424/2002 – 2001/0095(COD)) (Rapporteur: Alain Lipietz) (The President declared the common position approved) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0368/2002) by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council decision on the Community statistical programme 2003 to 2007 (9820/1/2002 – C5-0452/2002 – 2001/0281(COD)) (Rapporteur: Astrid Lulling)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not agree with the last observation by Mrs Berès. It is not a question of having an amendment passed. It is a question of reflecting, in relation to a text which is important in terms of the Convention, on something which is of great importance to this Parliament, which is the legitimacy, the double legitimacy, of the Union. Mr Tsatsos and I, in our report on the Treaty of Amsterdam, speak of the double legitimacy of States and peoples. The concept of the people seems to us to be an archaic one. We want to talk of citizens, because we want to bring Europe closer to the citizens. I am not therefore withdrawing my amendment and I would ask that it be put to the vote. And I would also ask the Socialist Group to take on board that this is truly the modern way to act and not the old-fashioned one. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote.(1) IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Clegg report (A5-0439/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Group. We support the joint resolution, but, at the same time, I would endorse Mr Casaca's comments that we should not be widening this resolution outside of its original terms. Therefore, we will not support the two amendments by the Liberals and the . Of course the Group condemns the cowardly 'twin towers' bombings of the Gateway of India and of the Zaveri Bazaar in Mumbai on 25 August 2003 that killed and injured so many people. Under no circumstances can any terrorist attack that targets civilians, resulting in the loss of innocent lives, be accepted by the international community. These terrorist bombs were clearly designed to cause maximum civilian causalities, to destabilise Indian society and weaken the Indian economy. Yet members of both the Hindu and Muslim communities in India died in the attack and worked together in the rescue efforts. We have seen a degree of restraint that we have to welcome. At the same time, we welcome the statement by the Pakistani Foreign Minister expressing sympathy with the victims and their families. We urge the Commission, the Council and this Parliament to do all they can to ensure that the current rapprochement between India and Pakistan is not damaged by these incidents.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Irish presidency on the work it has done in picking up the thread of an IGC that was cut short in December for the lack of any real political will to complete the institutional reform of the EU, even though this is crucial to the proper functioning of Europe in the years to come. Speaking on behalf of the French delegation within the Group of the European People’s Party , and joining with the great majority of my fellow MEPs, from whom you have already heard, what I ask of the forthcoming Brussels European Council is that it should demonstrate its determination, in political terms, to overcome difficulties which, whilst important, are still secondary to what is really at stake: making the unification of our continent a political, economic and social triumph. It is absolutely vital that the draft constitution put before us by the Convention, the exceptional success of which we can see today in the light of the difficulties the IGC had with it, should be adopted with the minimum possible delay. That is our message to the Irish presidency. Moreover, the Lisbon objectives, which are ambitious but realistic, necessarily involve putting in place proactive policies enabling us to compete with our trading partners, first among them the United States and Japan, in the strategic areas of research and development, education, and lifelong training. Let us therefore implement these necessary reforms and overcome our fruitless divisions in order to make Europe a success on every front. Europe’s citizens will be summoned to the polls in June to elect their MEPs, and they expect more of the European Union than is often articulated. They are relying on us to make it possible for them to live harmoniously beyond their own borders, to work freely and as much as they want, and to save them from being swamped by forms and pointless taxes. Although the Spring European Council is certainly not the culmination of European history, it could well be a key staging post on the way to the speedy adoption of a Constitution and as we progress towards putting in place the economic and trading frameworks that are indispensable if Europe is, at last, to enjoy growth.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for all her efforts in favour of European culture and the rapporteur, Mrs Prets, for the work she has done and above all for dealing with the many amendments. My country, Spain, is a country with great cultural diversity and wealth and we are naturally entirely in favour of cultural diversity. Nevertheless, I would like to say that we would have liked the report, rather than referring to non-uniform cultural identities, to have referred to the plurality of cultural identities in the European Union. The focus used seems to us, in general, to be rather negative. And the reality is that, in many countries of Europe, cultural identities are not uniform, precisely because they are plural and we must not forget that this is one of our great assets. We must not forget that the right of each Member State to define, apply and adapt its cultural policies is subject to national legislation and, therefore, this must be done in accordance with their respective national legislations. I would like to say finally that, given that there are differing positions and concerns with regard to this issue in the European Union, I believe it would be correct for us to leave it in the hands of Unesco as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we debated the framework directive on water this week, and the disaster in Romania has demonstrated once again how very seriously we need to take the protection of water. This disaster has raised a number of important issues which concern us as a European Union. We are delighted with the pledge that EU aid will be used to clean the rivers, and at least as important is the reinforcement of environmental awareness both in Romania and, more generally, in Central and Eastern Europe. We therefore welcome Commissioner Wallström’s brief visit, for it can contribute to this awareness. After all, this is a candidate country we are talking about, and this disaster is in addition to the existing concern about whether all candidate countries will comply with the EU environmental rules in time. The polluter ought to pay. I wonder whether the European Union can recoup this kind of cost from the environmental cowboys who appear in the so-called ‘Wild East’, making use of the inadequate environmental legislation in place. I would be in favour of its doing so.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, although we cannot take away the torture to which the political opponents who were tried without any guarantees in Equatorial Guinea were subjected to, the country should void the trial, its results and the measures adopted during it, such as the suppression of the bar association, if it wants to be part of the association with the European Union. Freeing those convicted and the members of their families and restoring the bar association should be demands from the European Parliament. With this legal sham, the regime in Equatorial Guinea has surpassed all the limits that can be allowed for a signatory of the Cotonou Agreement, as Miguel Angel Martínez said, which is not only an agreement for economic cooperation, but also for political dialogue. Equatorial Guinea has already committed itself internally with the European Union and with the whole of the international community, as a signatory of the Convention against Torture, to begin the transition to democracy, in other words, to hold free elections in a context of respect for human rights. Failing to comply with that international obligation gives rise to sanctions that we request from the Commission and the EU-ACP Council of Ministers as part of the Cotonou Agreement. In this sense, democratic conditionality, used in a constructive manner, is a key tool in the European Union’s development policy. The Socialist Group will join with its African colleagues in a detailed debate on this in the next ACP-EU Joint Assembly.

Political group: PSE
Owing to financial interests, I shall abstain from voting on this report and the following four.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to follow on from what Mr Karas has said, and refer to a level competitive playing field. Yes, we certainly have an internal market, but we also have 15 sets of national circumstances within this internal market. So there is not a level competitive playing field. For example, there is not a level playing field between large companies and SMEs, because there are already wide differences in taxation between them, nor is there a level playing field between companies that operate globally and those that operate at regional level. There is not a level playing field when you consider the system of taxes and charges in the Member States and how market access is guaranteed. When we talk about wanting to become the most dynamic economic region in the world, that means that we have to increase our economic power. In a nutshell, that means that we either have to rationalise, which is in the economic interest of individual companies, but not in our macroeconomic interest, as it of course involves job losses, or else we can increase turnover. If we want to increase turnover, we need a market – we need customers. Customers who must have money. That means that we have to increase demand. Demand must come from both public and private investment. That means that people must obtain sufficient income from paid employment, if they are to be in a position to buy products in the first place. It is no good having the very best, most well-designed, most durable and most keenly priced product if there are no customers who can pay for it. I therefore simply believe that the contrast that is constantly made between economic policy and social policy is simply wrong. Mr Radwan, you said that the best economic policy is simultaneously also the best social policy. I would also like to turn that round: a good social policy is also a good economic policy. I say that because there is a common denominator here, which is why investments have to be taken into account. As I see it, education is not a form of consumption, but an investment in the future, because we have to develop new products. To do that, we need a skilled workforce. And that has to be built into this whole framework of investment activity.

Political group: GUE-NGL