GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I see the report of the Wise Men as being a big step forward and I expressly agree with Commissioner Barnier that comprehensive reform of the European Union must now be implemented and should not be postponed until after the enlargement of the Union. That would be disastrous and fatal because what the 15 States cannot settle among themselves, 20 or 25 States most certainly will not be able to. Now is the last chance to reform the Union in such a way that it functions properly, is understood by the citizens and is capable of being expanded. I am pleased that the Treaties are to be redesigned. None of our citizens understands the Treaties of Maastricht or of Amsterdam. It is unreasonable to expect any citizen of the Union to read these texts. The texts must now successfully be divided up into their genuinely constitutional and their more technical elements. This distinction needs to be made, as it is in our Member States’ own fundamental laws or constitutions. A word about the reform of the institutions. The Dehaene Group has concentrated very much upon the reform of the Commission. In my view, it is the Council which should be at the centre of the reform. The Commission will function on the basis of what is done now. Parliament has carried through reforms and is functioning. The institution which is not functioning is the Council. It is the Council which forms a barrier within the Union. In Parliament, we shall therefore also be concentrating on making demands for the reform of the Council. The rules must somehow be laid down for this dual role it has as both a legislative and an executive body, and certainly in a Union of 20 or 25 Member States. I hope, Commissioner Barnier, that the Commission can come up with a concrete proposal for altering the Treaty, which we shall then discuss.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is very satisfied with Mr Belder’s report on Russia. We are nevertheless prepared to accept some amendments. On the other hand, we hope there is support by the other groups for our own amendment, which concerns the position of national minorities in Russia. Recently we in the European Union have been pondering our relations with Russia. The conclusion we have jointly come to is that the formally adopted strategy has not worked satisfactorily. The main reason for this is that the Union has been incapable of showing any united front in its dealings with Russia, but instead some Member States, the bigger ones in particular, have been inclined to go their own way. This situation has to be rectified. There is, however, another key reason for our failings, something that has been given too little attention in our deliberations. In the Union there is insufficient knowledge or understanding of the political situation in Russia. Russia, at least up till now, has not complied with the diplomatic and political principles that we and other Western countries take for granted. This has been evident, for example, in the fact that Russia has been adamant about not agreeing to extend the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to the new Member States of the EU. Perhaps the threat of sanctions would not have the desired effect either, but might instead lead to a trade war in which the Member States of the EU might come off worse than Russia. I have not noticed any such threat being made as yet, however, although it has perhaps been discussed at times. Calm and patience are needed in relations with Russia. To be able to realise our own objectives effectively and keep a watch over our own interests, we always have to consider the special political circumstances that obtain in Russia, hard and wearisome though that sometimes is.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the results of drug therapy against AIDS partly depend on the question whether those drugs are administered in the correct way, at the correct time, in the correct dosage and under expert supervision. In this, preconditions, such as a sound local infrastructure and stability play a crucial role in the approach to health care. Drugs have an optimum effect if continuity in dispensing and expert supervision in treatment are guaranteed. Otherwise there is a real risk of incorrect or inadequate treatment. The combating of AIDS requires the structural improvement of local health care conditions and support from the World Health Organisation, and the work of the European Union directed to that end is therefore of the greatest importance. Only these factors will guarantee long-term development. In the short term many people are already dying, and for that reason a priority choice for affordable drugs now is advisable, as is rightly argued in the resolution. This resolution refers to a greatly impoverished Africa. The Caribbean region and South East Asia, where the problems are also considerable, must not be forgotten in this discussion.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, whatever its positive points, this report is flawed by the demands and requirements set out in the Stability Pact. In other words, it essentially accepts that the wolf can guard the sheep. By its very nature, the Stability Pact in Eastern Europe is intrusive, on the pretext that human rights and democracy are being protected. I will not yet again refer to how the European Union is reacting to the flagrant violations of human rights in Turkey and elsewhere or the strident violations of those rights inside the European Union, i.e. the double standards policy. For the moment, I will just note that the Pact’s real aim is to ensure the political and economic dependence of the countries in the area, to plunder their wealth and to overexploit their workforce. As is also stressed in the report, it is particularly worrying that in the area there will be a test of the European Union’s – I quote – ‘ability to develop an effective civil and military crisis management strategy aimed at conflict prevention’. In other words, new interventions are being prepared, even military ones, with the aim of converting the area into a protectorate. The tragic situation brought on by the criminal intervention of NATO and the European Union in Kosovo and particularly in Yugoslavia is indicative of what is likely to happen. Besides, respect for borders is not a matter of generalised declarations and wishes, as they occur in the report, but practical respect for the territorial sovereignty and integrity of these countries, in other words precisely the opposite of what the European Union and the USA are doing. It is clear that those who support this Stability Pact want to frustrate any resistance to their plans, especially when it involves conflict. They try, either by force or by economic blackmail, to terrorise peoples and subjugate them to the new order. And the question is this: what principle of international law are they basing their actions on? Convinced, then, that the Stability Pact will bring new strife to peoples in the area and reinforce the dominance of the USA and the European Union, we will vote against the report and step up our fight against the Pact and on behalf of peace, friendship and solidarity between the peoples.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am positive from Greece's experience that, contrary to what Mr Brok’s motion for a resolution maintains, the already frightful situation in the nations preparing for accession to the European Union will deteriorate even further, given that the purpose of accession is to serve big business, not the workers; workers who, in the run up to accession, are already feeling the pernicious political, social and economic repercussions of privatisation and the surrender of their economies to foreign economic interests. For reasons of solidarity, therefore, we must vote against the reports. We do not want to be accomplices. As far as Cyprus is concerned, we have taken note of the positive points in the Poos report, which is why we shall abstain rather than vote against it. However, our general political position, as stated above, also applies here. We also note that the pre-accession procedure, especially post-Helsinki, has not only failed to resolve the Cyprus question, it has encouraged Ankara and its vassal Denktash to take an even more intransigent stance. We are particularly worried by the fact that accession negotiations are being used to pressurise the Cypriot leadership into accepting a federal solution, i.e. into legally recognising the invasion and occupation of Cypriot territory and totally abandoning the relevant UN resolutions. I refer you to the statements on the matter made by the president of the European Council, Mr Michel.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the situation regarding the refugees is intolerable, and it is not Russia’s internal affair. Russia is creating a massive humanitarian catastrophe with its action against soldiers and terrorists that have carried out inhumane deeds. However, we must remember that nobody has mentioned here that a separate Muslim state was being created between the Caspian and Black Seas. That is a much larger issue, and one we have to bear in mind. Cutting ourselves off from Russia prior to the elections would be very unwise, as we want to lend our support to Russia’s democratic strengths. When we cut ourselves off before, it led to Stalinism and dictatorship. I support the idea of a visit to Moscow in December, in connection with the elections, as I have proposed, and that we press for a pan-Caucasus peace conference to solve other problems apart from this particular one, as there are military operations going on in half a dozen states in the Caucasus, and the threat of the operations spreading is quite apparent.

Political group: PSE
I would like to say that our Group very much supports this report. We think it is excellent. The mining sector’s track-record leaves a lot to be desired, not just in Europe, but in eastern Europe and worldwide. One of the very important things in this report is the need for a future directive on mining waste. It should cover both operational and abandoned sites and disposal and contain provisions for mining waste action programmes as well as provisions to facilitate more sustainable extraction: site cleaning, waste reduction, and dry-tailing disposal in the case of metal mining waste. Mining companies need to establish decommissioning plans for new and existing mines and tailing ponds. I just have to look at it in my own country where mining companies have come in and basically taken what they want. They then leave the mess behind to be cleaned up. As Mr Bowe said, there may be 'historical' mining sites of interest, but we are really talking about tailing ponds which contain many dangerous substances. Local communities have to live with that and, in some areas, even farming has been affected because the mining companies leave their mess behind, affecting not just the water supplies but also the land in general. We really have to take into account all sectors in the community. The mining industry has got away with it for far too long. We really need an extremely tight clampdown on how mining industries operate and a future directive on mining waste is extremely important. I would just like to finish by saying that the report itself is excellent and I hope that it gets full support. I would also like to confirm that our group would be reluctant to support the amendment proposed by the PPE Group for the reasons just mentioned by other speakers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. The additional budget under discussion contains two central issues: budgeting last year’s surplus and the new system for own resources. The new system for own resources was already in this year’s budget in December but it had to be removed because some Member States had not ratified it. Bringing the income side of the budget up to date in the middle of the year, despite agreement on the matter having been reached as early as two and a half years previously, is poor management. The 40% reduction in the United Kingdom’s contribution will be retained in the system of own resources. It is high time that this reduction was dispensed with, for example when drawing up the next financial perspectives because there is little basis for it. For example a small Member State like Finland has to finance this reduction with a sum corresponding to the annual running costs of an average-sized university. The most depressing part of this year’s additional budget is the budgeting of last year’s surplus. Unused appropriations already amount to approximately EUR 18 billion, or 20% of the entire budget. This indicates incredibly poor management. This particularly concerns the Structural Funds in which under-utilisation stands at EUR 10.5 billion. This seriously threatens the regional and structural policy of the whole EU. Madam President, the Council’s aim to weaken the status of Parliament as a budgetary authority in conjunction with the updating of the Financial Regulation has overshadowed discussion of the additional budget. It tried to transfer powers belonging to Parliament to itself. Fortunately, Parliament’s firm stand forced the Council to realise the facts and at the moment the updating of the regulation is progressing with better mutual understanding. Therefore, as a gesture of goodwill and to create a good atmosphere for cooperation, the Committee on Budgets is ready to relinquish its justified amendments which it made in the first reading of the additional budget and to accept the proposal of the Council as it stands. My group supports this position.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the current financial perspective clearly does not reflect our existing priorities and commitments. The mainstay of Parliament’s strategy should be to force the Council to guarantee that new resources will be allocated to new objectives, in order to prevent these new objectives from being implemented using resources earmarked for existing priorities. The European Parliament is fully entitled to call for the financial perspective to be revised, all the more so in the light of the draft budget proposed by the Council, which has shamelessly given us, in relative terms, the lowest budget in the last ten years. If the financial perspective is not revised, we will inevitably be caught up in “financial engineering”, in redeploying resources and in cuts, either in general expenditure, social and environmental spending or in cooperation. It is also true that in spite of this, appropriations for the Balkans will still be inadequate, not to mention the horizontal reserve, which will result in unacceptable constraints on cooperation policy, on the Cohesion Fund, or even on the issue of Timor, where the European Union has given firm international commitments. We clearly appreciate certain aspects, specifically the fact that the year 2000 amounts for development policies have been retained. This is not enough, however, to change our negative overall view of the draft budget, because it is inadequate. Hence our demand for the financial perspective to be revised.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all I would like to protest against the expulsion of political refugees, which infringes the most basic right of asylum, such as the expulsion of the Italian refugee Paolo Persichetti by the French Government, in particular as subsequent French Governments have provided luxurious exile for a number of deposed dictators and protected them from their own people. Contrary to Mr Evans’s report, which, despite certain positive aspects, is still too timid in its approach, I believe the right of asylum should be absolute and unquestionable. More generally, however, all EU States need to resolve the situation of the tens of thousands of people who arrive in their territory having fled either dictatorships or types of oppression such as that suffered, for example, by women in certain countries, or simply having fled poverty. All the national governments have an inhumane, reactionary policy in this area, refusing large numbers of these immigrants the right to the appropriate papers to enable them to stay in the country and work. It is unacceptable for a category of men and women to be deprived of all their rights, thus falling prey to slum landlords and to employers looking for poorly-paid undeclared workers. If the European Parliament wanted to show that it represents progress, at least on this point, it should make its position clear. It should put pressure on national politicians so that immigrant workers are granted not only the legal papers that would allow them to come out of the shadows into the light and live in dignity, but also the opportunity to enjoy the same political, trade union and community rights as all European Union citizens.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like this report to contribute to the Commission giving up once and for all its obsession that a modern fleet runs counter to the protection of resources. Protection of resources is a priority objective of the CFP, which can under no circumstances be put before any measure that promotes the safety of fishermen, because this is a fundamentally false approach. There are many measures for maintaining and even reducing the fishing effort, while at the same time enabling living and safety conditions for crews to be improved. The report that we are debating today, like all those that have been drawn up regarding safety, shows that the fact the fleet is so old is the main cause both of accidents on board and of sinking, and that sinking often has very serious consequences. The Commission’s plan to reserve the structural measures for the fleet almost exclusively for destroying it, while the surviving fleet is condemned to sail under increasingly precarious conditions, is therefore ridiculous. The only thing that is unfortunately achieved through this policy is that the Community fleet features more strongly in terms of accidents than in terms of savings. Also, there is no point in having a battery of safety standards if it is not required that they are complied with. This is doubly concerning because the fact that this compliance has to be monitored and required makes us wonder what perception the sector has of its own safety. The last FAO report on the world state of fisheries and aquaculture says that a safe working environment is not something that can be imposed easily and that measures for improving safety can only be effective if there is the will to put them into practice. We therefore need to remember the responsibility that we all have as politicians, governments and fishermen, to end the fatalism that seems to surround this sector, a responsibility that cannot of course be escaped by the Commission or its narrow view on the modernisation of the fleet.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank those of the Commissioners who, out of respect for Parliament and the debate on the work programme, have been able to spend a couple of hours with us – once a year. I admire Mrs de Palacio for answering questions across all areas of policy, including those of her colleagues who have other priorities. What I have said amounts to praise for those of her colleagues who are actually here. Mrs de Palacio, Commissioners, I have read the work programme very carefully. It is better than what you have usually come up with. In my areas of interest at least, it is more helpful. You have integrated the concept of sustainability throughout, as we have always requested. I really get the impression that you have done your homework, that you have understood the issues and that the external presentation at least has been very well done. ‘External presentation’ and ‘internal behaviour’ are, however, two very different things. My queries relate in particular to internal behaviour. Let us consider the leftovers, that is to say the things you are carrying forward from 2002. In my field, which is environmental policy, there are some areas that Mrs Schörling and Mrs Frassoni and others have touched upon, such as policy on chemical products, PVC, the batteries directive, and various others. If I consider why that is, I see that one of the main problem areas is that you cannot achieve any internal agreement. You have conflicts between environmental, industrial and trade policy, and there is also often conflict between consumer protection and trade policy. If you cannot resolve these internal conflicts, if you cannot manage to demonstrate leadership and say 'OK, the Commissioner responsible has power over the inter-service procedure', then we will always find ourselves with ‘leftovers’. That is why I am asking you, Mrs de Palacio, how you intend to resolve conflicts within the Commission in future, and whether you are willing to air these conflicts in a more open and transparent way. We can only ever guess the reasons why no proposals are presented to us. We learn them already from the grapevine and the rumour mill. We mostly seek answers in Commissioner Liikanen's areas of responsibility, sometimes, often enough in fact, we seek them in Commissioner Lamy's areas, and sometimes in Commissioner Bolkestein's areas too. I regard them as being the naughty boys. I am not referring to poor Commissioner Wallström and Commissioner Byrne, who always do their best but are sometimes pushed to one side. I expect your internal behaviour to reflect the way you present things externally. That means that you will also present the proposals that you have presented to us very quickly in future.

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your reply, Commissioner. The only specific information you have given me is that the Green Paper is being prepared and will contribute to the joint effort being made by the European institutions and the Member States to increase entrepreneurship, kick-start the European economy and, as a result, create new jobs. I, for my part, need more specific details and I think it would be worth your spending some time on them because, as we have seen from our lengthy discussion of the Lisbon strategy earlier today, following the presentation of the Greek Presidency’s priorities, it will not be easy to achieve the targets we have set and the best way of giving the European economy the competitiveness it needs and creating jobs is to develop small and medium-sized enterprises. I shall wait and see what information I obtain in response to my questions from the report you will be publishing next week, and I reserve the right to re-table my question and ask for specific answers to specific questions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the crisis concerning the boat full of Afghan refugees off Australia again calls attention to the whole problem of Afghan refugees. In the last 20 years, millions of people have fled Afghanistan and, according to the UN human rights organisation, approximately 6.2 million Afghans are classified as refugees. Their first port of call when they leave the country is generally one of the refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran, where they live in appalling conditions. Pakistan can no longer cope with the number of refugees and is sending them back to Afghanistan. Outside the refugee camps, there are so-called travel agents waiting who send refugees with money on to other countries, and the cheapest fare to a Western country is now a journey to Australia, which costs approximately EUR 6 000. This stream of refugees will not stop if we do not manage to receive the refugees properly near Afghanistan and that is what we as the European Union must put our money into. This is the solution to the problem. As long as people are living there in dreadful conditions, they will want to go on fleeing to Western countries.

Political group: ELDR