GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, on behalf of my colleague, Carmen Cerdeira, who has been shadow rapporteur for this report, and who unfortunately cannot be here, I will try as far as possible to speak on behalf of my political group. Citizenship of the Union – institutionalised and created as such by the Treaty of Maastricht and later modified by the Treaty of Amsterdam – confers a series of rights and duties on the nationals of all the Member States. The intention is to associate the citizens with the process of European integration, giving them more involvement, strengthening the protection of their rights and promoting the idea of a European identity by means of the creation of a sense of belonging amongst the citizens of the Union. The citizenship rights and the Union as a whole will only have credibility amongst the citizens if they can be applied in practice in their everyday lives. Within the context of citizenship of the Union, one of the fundamental rights that citizenship confers is laid down in Article 18(1) of the Treaty, which gives every citizen of the Union the right to enter, move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States. The same right, with a similar wording, is conferred on the European citizen by Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and this seems to us very significant. Consequently, these rights are of a constituent and not a declarative nature. In other words they are acquired regardless of any permission granted by the Member States. We welcome the Commission’s proposal, which we consider to be a genuine step forward. The movement of the Union’s citizens amongst the Member States should be carried out mutatis mutandis in conditions similar to those of the citizens of a particular State. In reality, Madam President, the Union’s citizens have taken this principle on board much more quickly and thoroughly than their governments. They have taken it on board and they exercise it. I can assure you that in my part of the Union, on the coast where I spend several days, there are many European citizens residing illegally who simply come and go between their two houses, one in their country of origin and one in my country, whenever they want and without filling out any papers. It cannot be demonstrated whether these people have spent the last six months in their house, because sometimes it is 60 km from the neighbouring country. The euro will make this even easier and more possible and I hope that progress can be made within the Commission. Therefore, my group has presented amendments that intend, once and for all, to end the consideration of the economic situation of people, giving priority to the condition of citizen, and to recognise that at this moment the citizens and their families are already exercising the right to free movement within the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this very authoritative work, but I would also like to add a comment of my own. Frankly, I am not really convinced that our Parliamentary work benefits from the House being tied for over a year and a half to working on a document, even a document as authoritative as the White Paper – with over 400 amendments and who knows what other complications – not least in that the result is this, of necessity very brief, concise debate, in which it is difficult to address a subject of this kind. It may be better to find a new methodology for dealing with the major chapters of the White Paper and to proceed section by section. I am proposing this for the very reason that it is extremely difficult to know what to say in two minutes on such a huge subject. I will therefore focus not on what I endorse – which is a great deal, most of the White Paper – but on what I feel is still a grey area, in other words, Commissioner, the matter of Trans-European Networks. As Mr Jarzembowski has rightly said, if we want to concentrate the Union’s efforts, including its economic resources, then let us look in that direction, in the direction of projects which are of genuine European importance. In any case, we cannot fail to notice that they are not given enough consideration in the White Paper, that the way they are dealt with is inadequate. We have updated a list of projects which are already in difficulties, falling behind schedule, which cannot proceed, but, instead of discovering why they are at a standstill and finding ways and means of speeding up their implementation, we have decided to add to this list and to do so, what is more, with projects which will require a great deal of hard work and commitment. Your idea of indicating the European interest of some of these projects was brilliant, but it has not been carried through. I will end, Commissioner, by saying that there is a general need to focus more on the basic goals, concentrating particularly on matters of European Union infrastructure, urging the Member States to work to this end but directing the work and resources of our committee towards this area too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we wish to table an oral amendment to the fourth indent. The wording of the Spanish text currently refers to when action is taken with a view to appropriating natural resources illegally. We wish this to be replaced with a text along the following lines: including action taken to appropriate such resources illegally. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) Before the vote on recital A:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the direct cultural policy of the European Union is restricted, as the Member States have wished, to the modest funding of programmes which, nevertheless, are amongst those most often requested by the citizens. This deficiency is due, in my opinion, to fundamental causes. Firstly, the Council’s fear of denationalising these policies, which some consider as signs of national identity. The other reason is the governments’, and also the Commission’s, fear of using Community resources for subsidies which are not directed towards farmers or large public works. People avoid talking about culture or art in economic terms when, on the contrary, it should be argued that the cultural industries create employment and generate wealth for Europe. If we include the audiovisual field and cultural tourism in the culture sector, it is by far the most important sector for the European economy. I address this, without much hope that they read the Minutes, it is true, to the Finance Ministers and also our colleagues in the Committee on Budgets. As requested by Mrs Zorba, the Commission must quantify these aspects and consider them when drawing up its policies, not only the directly cultural ones but also the economic, social and territorial ones. Furthermore, Commissioner, you should demand that your colleagues take this approach to territorial policies. On the other hand, it is also becoming necessary to restrict the commercialisation of culture. You will perhaps remember that a few years ago one of the best museums in the world, the property of one of our Member States, was renting out its rooms when the museum was closed – rooms exhibiting humanity’s greatest works – for weddings and other social events. This was a depressing and alarming example. Within the European Union, the economic exploitation of cultural resources must be compatible with their historical and artistic dignity. Mr President, these aspects and many others are dealt with in this report, and I warmly congratulate its author on its timeliness and quality.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the majority of my group considers that, unfortunately, the unambitious and technical nature of Mr Galeote Quecedo’s report means that it fails to live up to its fine title of a common Community diplomacy. In particular, I feel that it is a mistake to deny, as Mr Galeote Quecedo has done, that the political aim of his report is the gradual creation of a common diplomacy as the expression of a common policy. This is to ignore the reality that what we have at the moment is a discordant, incoherent chorus of European countries and their 14 thousand or so diplomats, compared to the 3 500 diplomats of the United States. We should simply supplement the 15 diplomatic corps with another, more or less competent corps, made up of European Union officials or, as is the case today precisely in Commissioner Patten’s entourage, national diplomats, possibly including more representatives from some countries than others. I also feel that the debate on Commissioner Verheugen’s statements indicated extremely clearly that it is not possible for the Union to carry out its external activities in the context of such a lack of cohesion and such frustration caused by the confusion of powers and responsibilities. Commissioner Patten, you have already spoken on this subject, Commissioner Verheugen will also do so, and then each of the Member States will give their opinion. This means that the message we send to the European citizens can only be contradictory. The group of the will support Amendments Nos 5 and 6 tabled by Mr Dupuis, which introduce the political agenda of a common diplomacy and the proposal to start establishing European Union embassies in those countries where not all the countries of the Union are represented. I hope that others will also support these amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As always, Commissioner Diamantopoulou is highly alert; indeed, she is one of the most alert, able and sharp-minded of the Commission’s representatives. Employment statistics are certainly extremely important in combating unemployment. Does the Commissioner know, for example, that in Italy, in order to get a pension, many women are forced to sign on at the job centre as if they were looking for a job, thus altering the unemployment figures? The jobless in Italy therefore always seem far more numerous precisely because there is a law that forces women to join the list of those seeking work even if this work is not what they want or desire. Since this is an inflated and unfair statistic, does the Commissioner not think that there should be an attempt to seek clear and transparent statistics?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, environmental liability should be one of the jewels in the crown of European environmental legislation, but up to now it has been a tragedy. The Commission has taken 20 years to translate the polluter pays principle into legislation. It is not getting industry to pay, however, but the national governments. The polluter pays principle has been desecrated by the Commission. Unfortunately, Mr Manders has made the mess even worse and has trimmed the already weak proposal right down to the bone. It is not surprising that the whole of industry is rallying round Mr Manders. If industry has an environmental permit, it can never be liable. A car driver needs a driving licence to use the roads, but if the car driver causes an accident, he or she is most definitely liable. That is where compulsory car insurance comes in. We must introduce exactly the same responsibilities for industry. That is the core of the polluter pays principle. We must be able to claim against the perpetrators for accidents like those involving the Prestige and the Erika, as well as nuclear accidents and pollution caused by genetically modified food. Hopefully the liberals, the s, the , the regionalists, the communists and individuals on the right will achieve a majority tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following the first four action programmes for equality between women and men, it was a good move on the part of the Commission to innovate by proposing a Community framework strategy for equality and a programme to implement this strategy and make real progress towards equality. There is great need of this, even though a quarter of a century has passed since the first Community directive on the equal treatment of men and women with regard to pay. I find the Commission’s new approach to be a very positive one, and the proposal for a decision for the 2001-2005 programme to have been well considered. Unfortunately, the report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is no improvement on the text put forward by the Commission. It overeggs the pudding, and includes unconsidered and indigestible proposals, worded in such a way as to make a first-year law student’s hair stand on end. In committee, I had tabled a raft of amendments intended to do away with the worst of the incongruities, particularly those that demonstrated an outlandish mish-mash of strategy and programmes. The Commission has produced an excellent text. It is a very serious mistake, in politics, to mix strategy up with tactics or with programmes. As is so often the case in reports by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, we have here a report including the ideological claims of the left wing coalition, the gauche plurielle, in this Parliament, like the claim that measures eligible for programme funding in a transnational context should include the analysis and assessment of, I quote, “the significance of a general reduction in working hours”. Do we really need to waste any of the paltry EUR 53.45 million in appropriations to cover five years on such an analysis? I think not. I am also of the opinion that the appropriations for the European Women’s Lobby, budget line A 3037, should not be included in the appropriations committed for the programme and I hope that the Commissioner will favour the amendments that I and the other members of my Group have tabled, above the rapporteur’s own far-fetched amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in December 2002 the Fisheries Council agreed a compromise which effectively halved catches for the Scottish and UK whitefish fleets and stopped vessels going to sea for more than 15 days a month. These are drastic measures but far short of the all-out moratorium recommended to the Commission by its scientific advisors on fish stocks, ISIS. United Kingdom and Scottish ministers have been attacked for agreeing to the hard-fought compromise. At the time one of the fishing leaders commented that he doubted that the Archangel Gabriel could have got a better deal in the circumstances. Inevitably such actions have a socio-economic impact on the communities that depend on fishing for whitefish - especially cod. We must acknowledge this. I give my personal support to the resolution before us this evening. I also welcome the GBP 50 million compensation package approved by the Scottish Parliament last week and the related compensation packages in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is significant that we are discussing this issue as vital talks take place today and tomorrow in Brussels. Scottish and UK fishermen have joined fellow fishermen and civil servants from other EU countries at the European Commission's Fisheries Advisory Committee. Talks will focus on a long-term cod recovery plan. I am delighted that the Fisheries Commissioner, Mr Fischler, will bring forward amendments to the current restrictions which have proved to be 'too rigid'. However, the negotiations on the long-term recovery plan will be tough. We really have to think carefully about the right road to take. I want us to examine all possible options on effort control. Saying 'sod the cod', allowing fishing to continue and hoping for the best is hardly an option, nor is renationalising the CFP. This ducks the difficult issues posed by the need for stock recovery. We really need to rationalise the CFP and cod recovery. We must work in a cooperative manner with industry, ministers and other organisations to seek a common solution. We must also create regional committees, allowing decisions to be taken as close to those affected as possible. Doing nothing in the light of declining cod stocks is not an option. The difficult task of arriving at a quota figure that is sustainable, yet scientifically credible, remains.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are no doubt all agreed that the common fisheries policy needs to be reformed, but great differences become apparent as soon as discussion turns to the detailed modalities of reform. These have to do not only with how we assess the situation, which is at present, indeed, not exactly rosy, but also with what measures are to be taken. We even take different views of the scientific investigations into our resources, as shown by the report on our timetable, which we are discussing this evening, and I imagine that discussions in the Council of Ministers are just as animated as our own in Parliament. As Europe's Parliament, though, we should be concentrating on the points of fact and attempting to play an active part in fashioning a reform whose prime objective will be to maintain fishery resources. We are talking about the precautionary principle, and cuts, painful though they may be, are probably necessary to secure sustainable management of fish stocks and hence the long-term survival of fishery as a whole. The social component of the measures we are to decide on, however, plays a key role in this. I therefore call on all Members of this House, as well as the Fisheries Ministers, to fulfil their responsibility for fishery as a whole in the European Union and to distance themselves from myopic national interests when deciding what shape the reform is to take. We should not now let the great opportunity pass to decide on a fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy. We have to make use of this opportunity, or else the prospects for our fisheries in Europe will, in the foreseeable future, be bleak indeed. That this is so is already demonstrated very clearly by the current state of cod stocks in the North Sea, and I hope that will be a lesson to us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank the Commissioner for his answer, because I, too, am of the opinion that the abolition of the provincial Info-Points would signify a loss to the image of the European Union. First of all, these information centres are close to the citizen, and this can be taken literally. The information centres are physically present in the provinces. The proximity of the centres ensures that those seeking information do not have to travel a long way, saving them time and money. I think that this is the EU’s trump card, and a way of being customer friendly. Secondly, the European Parliament has already stated its opinion on the European Union’s information and communication strategy, and, in so doing, has expressed the desire to bring communications as close as possible to the citizen. In its motion for a resolution, it expresses the desire to invest more in a well-functioning information network, including Info-Points. The word is ‘invest’, not ‘abolish’. I quote: ‘The European Parliament ... considers that there is a need to introduce measures for administrative adjustment, structuring and staff training, aimed at the effective operation of the external offices and the network of information centres ..., which could also be used by MEPs in their respective constituencies’. When we talk about bringing the European Union closer to the citizen and bridging the gap with the citizen – because research reveals that that gap really exists – investing more in the Info-Points is part of the solution. I should like to make a plea, then, that we by no means abolish these Info-Points, but, on the contrary, improve their functioning, particularly now, in the light of the elections and enlargement taking place in 2004. We must not make savings on the promotion of the European Union, a Union that brings peace, security and prosperity to the Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Swoboda for his speech and also the report. My group supports the regulation, not only because of its technical and financial value to Turkey, but also for the political message it sends. The regulation is a confidence-building measure. It shows we treat Turkey's candidacy for European membership with the respect that it surely deserves. It squares Turkey's candidacy with that of the other states, sending a signal that we will be fair and straightforward with Turkey and setting an example of the political consistency that we expect and require from the Turks. The regulation will trigger a raft of reforms. It is certain that the quality and pace of reform in Turkey will be driven by the developing relationship with the European Union. The next step must be the national plan, published quickly and fully responding to the Accession Partnership programme. We need this national plan to ensure that the momentum that supports European integration in Turkey does not diminish. We in the will assess this national programme for reform critically but fairly.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, thank you for having given me the floor now because, in actual fact, the three reports on which we are to vote constitute a package. With my fellow MEP, Mrs Müller, we have managed to obtain very sound compromises, thanks to which we are making very significant progress where pharmaceutical legislation is concerned. I should like to join Mrs Müller in saying that it is vital for us to vote in favour of the compromises as presented and not to vote in favour of the amendments that were not the subjects of these compromises. Any vote in favour of an amendment that is not a part of these compromises would bring into question the compromises at which we have arrived in conjunction with the Italian Presidency. I should really like to make it clear to our fellow MEPs that they should vote in favour of the compromises and not in favour of the other amendments that do not form a part of these.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have taken the floor now spontaneously – as spontaneously as it is possible to do so in this Parliament – because a colleague from the group cannot be here. But I am taking the floor as someone who until last April was a very ordinary civil servant in the German diplomatic service, and so people might perhaps think that I would be certain to be relatively sceptical about an approach of this kind because it will surely tend to erode the powers of national colleagues. I am not sceptical, and I should like to warmly congratulate Mr Galeote Quecedo on his report. I am, however, rather surprised at the strange scenarios depicted by some of the honourable members here. What is this really about? Mr Galeote Quecedo actually made this quite clear: there is a remit for the European Union to be represented in third countries and this is about us being represented there better and more professionally within its terms; it is about our people whom we post there being able to work as effectively as possible within their remit. I do not wish to offend anybody, but if I imagine let's say a former national civil servant from the Ministry of Agriculture in a Member State coming into the Commission at some point and doing really outstanding work internally, and then being appointed to head perhaps an external delegation or a Commission representation abroad, I think that this person would definitely still gain from learning what national colleagues will have perhaps learnt at a diplomatic college. And I believe that this would allow the person to do their job even more successfully. Similarly, however, I should also like to say that this remit will of course grow in conjunction with powers at European level. In this respect, both the fears expressed by Mr Coûteaux on the one hand, and the hopes expressed by Mr Dupuis on the other, are certainly justified. As the tasks broaden, so the power devolved to these representations will increase, but this is also what we, as a body, have all wanted. Seen from this point of view, it is good if we already start making appropriate preparations now. I believe that the report drafted by Mr Galeote Quecedo is a very good one.

Political group: PPE-DE