GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
We have abstained from the vote on this report, as we have on the two previous reports on fisheries. We are in favour of recovering the stocks of fish that are threatened with extinction. For years, however, European policy has focused on solely on performance, profit and sustainable development. As a result, the major fishing companies have overexploited stocks and plundered the spawning beds. This has brought enormous profits for shipowners and processing companies, whose cost prices have continued to fall. As fish stocks have decreased at the same pace, the authorities finally got worried and decided to reduce the size of fishing fleets. It is the small-scale fishermen who have paid the price and taxpayers too, since they have subsidised the aid so that the major shipowners continue to prosper, since the only ‘sustainable development’ taking place was that of their own profits. The measures envisaged by the European institutions or national States will consist of indecisive measures, which according to one report have been scuppered by the large shipowners with the complicity of the EU Member States, and measures whose main effect is to harm the communities that depend on fishing. We reject any measure that, on the pretext of preserving nature, destroys the livelihoods of the small-scale fishermen who survive on what they earn.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as our President already wished us a Happy Christmas at lunchtime today, which may explain why many Members have already inadvertently left, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you as our President for Thursday evening for your excellent chairmanship and to congratulate you. We wish you, and of course all the staff who have remained with us until this evening, a very Happy Christmas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for the information of the House, Mr President, I should like to make a clarification. Chancellor Schüssel’s government will maintain the refugee policy of the former social democratic government led by Chancellor Klima. There is no change in refugee policy in Austria! Rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s territory and 25% of the population live in them. As a farmer and Member of Parliament, I have always endeavoured not to look at agriculture in isolation but to see rural areas as a whole. I attach particular importance to adopting an integrated approach towards rural development because I am convinced that only cooperation linking up all people from all walks of life in rural areas will permit them to be active and attractive places to live for everyone; I refer, in short, to the multifunctionality of rural areas. I should like to welcome in particular the new LEAR+ programme because of its comprehensive nature. In the future it will be possible to have programmes not only in the individual zones eligible for structural aid but in all the regions of the EU. This across-the-board approach is sensible because the programmes for rural development are also structured in this way. In the future, funding will no longer come from three funds but from the EAGGF Guidance section alone. It will therefore be necessary to increase the quality of the programmes because the EAGGF is supposed to be an effective financial instrument. Greater precision in the selection process will lead to greater effectiveness, because the money should not be squandered recklessly. In addition, I should particularly like to emphasise the point which offers an approach towards creating an integrated and environmentally friendly development strategy. There is great potential for future job creation in rural areas here and we must exploit this if we wish to offer fresh prospects to people living in the countryside. That is why policy for rural areas is more than a policy just for farmers. LEAR+ should supplement already existing programmes, avoid overlaps and duplication of financing and thus contribute to a process of development which is as comprehensive as possible. In this way, LEADER+ can, together with the programmes under Regulation (EC) No 1257/99, consolidate the second pillar of the CAP even more effectively and produce the best possible benefits for the whole of the countryside.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, with all due respect, I should like to remind the House that, as far as the recurring issue of the name of FYROM is concerned, this name has been endorsed by FYROM itself. Ladies and gentlemen, please do not subrogate to this nation by speaking on its behalf. They personally agreed to this name at the United Nations. Do not worry, a solution will be found and, anyway, that is not the problem. Helping FYROM or Macedonia in its present state. That is what Parliament should be doing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, one of the objectives of the directive is to improve access to public transport for persons of reduced mobility. The European Parliament and the Council seriously disagreed on this point. The European Parliament’s insistence on provisions to facilitate access for persons of reduced mobility, especially wheelchair users, was vindicated, as was the rapporteur, Mr Miller. The agreement reached in the Conciliation Committee, which is in line with the position taken by the European Parliament, proves yet again how important issues such as the quality of life can only be promoted through courageous policies which are free from technocrats' reservations and financial considerations. The proposed directive introduces a broader definition of the term ‘persons of reduced mobility’, stipulating that it includes all people who experience some difficulty when using public transport, especially the elderly and the disabled. Reduced mobility does not necessary depend on some form of medical complaint. This is an important innovation which could be used as the starting point for similar adjustments to give substance to policy on the quality of life. To be specific, disability may take different forms, including not just physical mobility but also intellectual and sensory impairment. Therefore, it also includes people who merely have limb impairments, are of small stature, pregnant women etc. It also states that all sloping areas in vehicles must have a non-slip surface. It is also worth pointing out that it does not limit itself to vehicle specifications; in order to ensure passengers can board safely, it also makes provision for easier access through local infrastructure planning. This should guarantee safe, pavement-level boarding by all persons of reduced mobility. I would like to believe that the spirit of agreement achieved here will prevail over other similar endeavours.

Political group: PSE
Mr Mantovani’s report addresses the issue of equal opportunities for people with disabilities, which is certainly to be welcomed. It is true that we too often forget that, before people are people with disabilities, they are, quite simply, people, who also deserve to have their dignity and their rights respected: the right to freedom of movement, the right to take part in the life of society in general, the right to equality of opportunity and the right to be respected as a person. Put simply, the rights accorded to all human beings. A dignified society can be recognised by the place it gives to its most vulnerable members. Unfortunately, today, in the countries we call developed, people with disabilities are still too frequently the victims of discrimination. That is why I support the rapporteur in his request that any policy should be based on universal values accorded to everyone. I hope that this report finally makes us pay attention to all people with disabilities and this is why I voted in favour of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
I had to devote all my speaking time for the discharge procedure to the Casaca report concerning the European Commission’s annual accounts for 2001. That was unavoidable in view of the attacks by Mr Kuhne and Mrs Avilés Perea on critical officials, newspapers and Members of the European Parliament, who see the financial administration as being still susceptible to fraud. Consequently, I did not have the chance to express my approval for the Staes report concerning discharge for section I, Parliament itself. He rightly points out the EUR 169 million annual expense of having building complexes in three cities, EUR 40 million of which is for additional staff. He also draws attention to the additional costs of EUR 3.9 million for travelling to and fro between Brussels and Strasbourg and the loss of 25 855 working days per year. It is necessary, therefore, to concentrate Parliament's activities in a single city, and let Parliament itself decide which city that shall be. This is better than laying down a division of the job between Strasbourg and Brussels, as stated in the 1997 Treaty or in a future constitution of a superstate which it will be scarcely possible to amend. Even the rapporteur’s criticism of the constant necessity of dealing with land speculators when extending buildings in Brussels is spot on. I shall be voting in favour of this discharge.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to start by asking when a final decision will be taken on the seat of the Police Academy. You may well be aware that Parliament, at my suggestion, proposed this Police Academy in 1998 and brought it into being. We actually thought it should be sited in the border zone between the present-day EU and the candidate countries. So the first question is: when is a decision going to be taken about the Academy's eventual location? My second question is on border control, and it is this: what is your view of a specifically European legal basis for the control of Europe's borders? And for my third point: is the managing body for integrated European border control, which you have just mentioned, to have a permanent base, and if so, where is it to be?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President. Industrial intellectual property rights are a useful instrument for the economy and for society in general, and I believe it is only natural to want to tailor them to Community requirements in an internal market. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal to create a Community patent. I should also like to extend my thanks to the rapporteur for all the work she has done. However, I do not see eye to eye with her on one particular item, namely that of the language regime. In my view, a Community-based approach also presupposes respect for the Community principle, including the use of language. And the fact that the discussions on the use of languages have never been absent from the agenda in the debates says a great deal, in my view. I have also listened very carefully to my fellow French, Italian, German and Spanish MEPs and have ascertained that everyone is calling for a scheme in which their own language is still used to the fullest extent. Since as long ago as 1958, the citizens of the Member States have had the right to use their own official language in their communication with the European institutions, and also when they communicate before legal bodies of the Community. In fact, we even enshrined this in a treaty in Amsterdam. However, while the citizen is given the impression that progress is being made in their linguistic rights, these are increasingly being undermined, and that is certainly the case in the sector of intellectual property rights. First there was the Trademarks Bureau; this was followed by the drawings and models, and now there is also the patent regulation. Since then, we have also witnessed a – fortunately frustrated – attempt to no longer translate even generally binding standards which enhance our book-keeping into all official languages. Ladies and gentlemen, I would therefore urge you to vote consciously tomorrow, to send out a signal to the Council and the Commission to very carefully reconsider the articles concerning the language regime. We must really prevent a new clause from being added to the list of incidents of unjustifiable discrimination against languages when the regulation on the Community patent enters into force. I therefore call on you to study these language amendments very carefully and to support them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my colleagues and I think that of all the sectors forced to endure the agonies of liberalisation, the postal sector is both the most important and the most ill-treated. First the Commission and then the Council of Ministers showed that they are either unaware of or systematically underestimate the fact that alongside and in addition to the service which they provide to the public, the postal services play a significant social role in all of the Member States and in all of the regions of the Union. On the pretext of liberalising the service, we are depriving the public – and first and foremost its most disadvantaged members – of social support which is nevertheless essential. Parliament had, moreover, rejected the initial proposals put to it. Those which have been put to the vote today contain improvements, but they do not remove the threat to society; quite the opposite, it is becoming increasingly clear that no provision has been made for funding the universal service or for compensating for the inequalities caused by nature. To make matters worse, the massive job losses which will be the direct result of the measures being recommended will compound the violence which is already doing serious damage to European society. Under these circumstances my colleagues and I supported all of the constructive amendments, wherever they came from, and will remain more vigilant than ever.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, you came, Mrs Schreyer, to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, you presented your arguments there, and you were met with respect. However, I would like to make one comment and then put a question to you. You say there was an increase in the agricultural sector and that this increase would be curtailed. The fact that the percentage rise is so high is a result of the cuts in appropriations that were decided earlier in Berlin. In fact, these appropriations are urgently needed! I think we must not give the impression that we can keep using the agriculture budget as a kind of bottomless pit whenever we are short of money in other areas. That is why I now ask you: do we not need to shift appropriations that might not be needed in export policy to the line for the integrated development of rural areas? We need substantial funds there, because enlargement, with the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries, will generate enormous problems in these rural areas.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Paulsen on her report. Some very important aspects have been included, as many other people have mentioned. I am especially pleased with the inclusion of animal welfare. Some people dismiss this as an issue but I think it is very important. On the issue of controls, this is something that relates not only to this issue but also to a vast area of legislation in the European Union, where legislation is in place but it is not enforced; there are no controls. It is important that if you have legislation and rules, they must be enforced. You cannot do that without proper and adequate controls. I am most concerned about the issue of sanctions; it is regrettable that they are not included. You will not force Member States and companies into complying with the law if there are no adequate sanctions in place. We have seen in the past that companies responsible for feed scandals never go to jail; those responsible within those companies are never properly penalised. There are derisory fines which are no deterrent to any continuation of these kinds of offences. We are not going to find a way forward without sanctions, because we need both the carrot and stick approaches to ensure that the legislation is complied with.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to single out one aspect of the summit, namely employment, since the socio-economic policy which we pursue has, after all, a considerable bearing on employment. Firstly, I am of the opinion that the summit should consider whether the objectives laid down in Lisbon can be met. In my view, this is impossible at the sluggish pace which we are currently seeing in Europe. I have studied the figures relating to the development of employment and unemployment. Last year was disappointing, and we will therefore never be able to meet the target. This is partly due to the fact that there is no longer any pressure from the European Union to actually implement the national action plans for employment which Member States are required to submit every year. During the initial period of the Luxembourg process, the bad reports which the Commission gave the different Member States were still headline news. News of such reports has now been relegated to token entries on the last pages of some newspapers. This means, therefore, that the pressure to utilise the open coordination method is slowly being reduced. The summit should therefore consider what can be done to increase this pressure. I would now like to mention two specific points. Firstly, the costs to employers of creating employment are far too high. If I look at the difference between the costs and what employees are eventually left with, then non-management staff, for example, retain on average 45% of the costs of employing them, while management retain 35 or 36%. If nothing is done to curb these costs for employers, the level of redundancies will remain high. Secondly, the difference between unemployment benefits and wages is too small. Many people remain unemployed and combine this situation with moonlighting, because wages are too low.

Political group: PPE-DE
Today, 8 March, a day on which we are paying tribute to women and to their fight for equal rights and opportunities, we must point out that, despite the progress that has been made in terms of setting out principles, profound inequalities and major discrimination remain in an enormous range of areas. We are a long way from complying with Community decisions, on equal access to work, salaries and promotions, and on promoting rights in the areas of sexual and reproductive health, establishing social support mechanisms for maternity and paternity, crèches and nurseries or structures to support the elderly. Women still endure violence within the family, despite the programmes and legislation in force. Particularly serious is the discrimination faced by immigrant women and women with disabilities, despite the proposals that we have adopted here. Trafficking in human beings and prostitution continue to reach alarming levels in the European Union, and further socio-economic policies, high-quality public services and effective measures are required to solve the problems of poverty and social exclusion. By putting people second, neo-liberalism prevents women’s rights from becoming a reality, makes unemployment worse, makes jobs less stable, devalues maternity and paternity and obstructs women’s participation in social and political life. Some EU countries are lagging behind in both legal and practical terms. I must highlight, at this juncture, what is happening in Portugal. Despite all the calls to repeal the legislation punishing women who have to resort to the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, women’s dignity and privacy are still being attacked, not least in court proceedings, including the recent trial in Aveiro, of seven women accused of having had illegal abortions and their relatives and friends. Even though they were all acquitted, they are still under threat from the Attorney General’s office because, demonstrating an attitude that persecutes women, the law that condemns women to up to three years in prison remains in force. The attempt on 3 March in the Assembly of the Republic to amend the law was rejected by members who make up the current right-leaning government majority, upholding a situation that is an embarrassment to Portugal and which primarily penalises less well-off women who cannot make use of the safe health services of our neighbouring country. Consequently, despite the fact that this Parliament has voted in favour of important resolutions aimed at promoting women’s rights, most decisions are ignored by the Member States due to the lack of political will to implement the measures that are adopted. The major challenge is, therefore, to continue to fight to ensure that equality becomes a reality and that women’s dignity is properly respected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, speaking on behalf of my group, I wish to extend warm thanks to the three rapporteurs. It is rather sad that there is nobody here – no journalists, no members of the public – but that is how things are. The three rapporteurs have done an excellent job of dealing with substantial legislative initiatives, and we are pleased with the progress that has been made. I would like to thank Mr Clegg for having enabled us to come to an agreement with the Council on a joint regulation protecting our airlines against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices. Both of us – indeed, I believe, all of us – agree that this is not so much about the use of weaponry as about stocking up an ammunition box, one that we hope will enable us to prevent unfair subsidisation in America, among other places. We can in any case, if a stop is not put to it, threaten them with a whole ammunition depot full of sanctions against their airlines and to the benefit of our own. While we have no desire to restrict competition, we do want to have an ammunition box for the sake of fair competition at global level. Mr Dhaene has done well to improve the practical details of the Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security. I think that Parliament and the Council will endorse the Commission’s approach, which involves adapting the highly stringent rules that we need, post-9/11, to smaller airports in a practicable and affordable way, so I am grateful to Mr Dhaene for his practical solution. Contrary to what might sometimes be believed, we are not just engaged in enacting meaningless laws. Mr Nicholson probably had the toughest brief, that of insurance requirements, which is the most expensive issue to deal with. On these, insurance premiums depend, and they can get very expensive. I think we have managed to reconcile both the passengers’ interest in having a proper and high level of insurance cover and the airlines’ interest in premiums that remain affordable. The amounts involved represent a fair compromise. It is, I think, a very fine thing that Mr Nicholson has managed to take the right approach to gliders, too. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Vice-President De Palacio. We are engaged – as we need to be – in adopting every kind of legislation relating to air transport by the end of this legislative period. One might say that a majority in this House, drawn from every political group, is united in favouring the adoption of these practical rules for really safe air transport, so, on behalf of my own group, let me thank the rapporteurs and the Vice-President.

Political group: PPE-DE