GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Tunisia made a commitment to respect human rights and it is a key element of the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement. We now believe, however, that these undertakings, which were reiterated at the Association Council session of 29 January, have been flouted by the way in which Hamma Hammami and his co-defendants are being treated by the Tunisian Government. The defendants, who voluntarily came out of hiding, a state in which they were forced to live following their infamous trials in 1997 and 1998, were again convicted on 2 February before the Court of First Instance and their sentence was confirmed in a farcical judicial hearing which, unfortunately, confirms the serious defects in the rule of law that has been in force in Tunisia for several years. Two hundred lawyers gathered in support of the defence. They were set upon by the police and the prisoners were violently assaulted. Hamma Hammami began a hunger strike on 26 February to protest against the conditions in which he is being detained. He was moved to the area in Tunis prison that is reserved for those sentenced to death, despite the fact that he is a political prisoner. This situation is in breach of the Treaties, particularly Article 2 of the Association Agreement with the European Union on the respect of human rights. It is now crucial that, a few weeks before the start of the Conference on Foreign Affairs (Barcelona V), which is being held in Valencia on 22 and 23 April, we, as Members of the European Parliament, call upon the Tunisian authorities to release Hamma Hammami and his co-defendants. This is a first step which is essential for the respect of the rule of law in Tunisia. We also call on the Commission to demand that the Tunis authorities comply with international law and to instruct its parliamentary delegation to raise this subject more firmly with the Tunisian Government.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Sudre, we must bear in mind that the opportunity for us to debate here in this House today on the subject of the outermost regions is the result of a process of slow maturation. The fact is, even though, as early as the Treaty of Rome, reference was made to the French overseas departments, we had to wait until 1989 and the programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of these regions, the notorious POSEI programmes, for the European Union to at long last acknowledge that the permanence and combination of structural handicaps affecting the outermost regions justified special treatment in comparison with the other regions of the Community. Eight years later, the Treaty of Amsterdam with its Article 299(2), the subject of our discussion today, gave rise to the hope that one day the terms ‘growth’ and ‘employment’ would mean the same thing throughout all European territory. So, it has been a long wait, and the hopes expressed by our peoples have built up throughout this long wait. I therefore feel entitled to confess that I felt rather disappointed when I read the Commission communication. Ladies and gentlemen, the time for stating good intentions is behind us, what we need is practical action and we need it now. We need a specific timetable, one that will be respected. We need real financial commitments, not, as we have in the 2001 budget, POSEI appropriations that, at the moment, have been cut by 25%. Most especially we need guarantees that this action will continue in the long term, because the handicaps of these regions, as listed in Article 299(2) – remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult climate – are not about to disappear. I am therefore pleased that the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has adopted a bold and ambitious stance on state aid, tax schemes and the implications of enlargement. I am pleased to see that the committee has adopted the bulk of the amendment I tabled. I should, moreover, like to pay tribute, at this point, to the rapporteur, Mrs Sudre, for her open-mindedness and her consultative approach, which made it possible, with everyone joining forces, to successfully complete a report which offers our regions real hope. Indeed I am convinced that the young people of our regions can actually glimpse a way out of the tragic unemployment which so drives them to despair, if we do manage to shift from a basically financial strategy, necessary, admittedly, but inadequate, to a more comprehensive strategy based on real recognition of our unique characteristics. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the outermost regions are already the very emblem of the diversity, and hence the wealth of the European Union. Tomorrow they may become a laboratory providing the finest illustration of the effectiveness of the experiment of the European social model. We need audacity, intelligence and compassion. I have no doubt but that the proposals which the Commission will submit to the Council will be characterised by these qualities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the EU is trusting in liberalisation to ensure that services of general interest are sufficiently available. If that means increased and fairer competition in postal services, transport, water supply, social services and so on, this can only be agreed to. If, though, simple considerations of cost mean that the quality of service drops, with ever fewer service providers being available and ever fewer people being employed, this proposal merits political resistance. State monopolies must not be replaced by private monopolies. Mr Langen, the rapporteur, has taken on board my suggestion that tasks of general interest should be acknowledged to be common European values. They contribute to the European social model and to the sustainable development of the EU's regions. The aim is to guarantee high standards of quality and safety, range of provision and continuity in a healthy price/service ratio. As before, the Member States' offers for tender will independently determine which yardstick to apply as regards environmental friendliness, availability and social standards. It is for the good of all citizens if these services are unambiguously defined in the context of a European law on the placing of contracts. Exceptions from the internal market's competition and market regulations should include local, social and charitable services which do not work with their eye on profit and are committed to meeting the needs of the weak and those on the margins of society. Citizens and service users are to be comprehensively involved in the Member States' and the Commission's efforts to make this agreement reality. New regulations on services of general interest in the EU will only be accepted if transparency and involvement are ensured. As a member not only of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs but also of that on Employment and Social Affairs, I recommend that this House approve this report, which is excellent because it is balanced.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have two concerns about paragraph 6 of Mr Cunha's report, on which I congratulate him as a whole. First of all, the automatic reduction in quotas for Member States in breach. My concern is that the effect of this is actually to impose the sanctions in the wrong place. If we reduce quotas, it is fishermen and their livelihood that will suffer. It is simply contrary to the principles of justice to punish some people for the faults of others. My second concern is with the reference to the relative stability principle. In my view, the argument that the paragraph does undermine that principle is a compelling one. As it stands, there is a reference to an automatic reduction of quotas with no specification as to extent or time-limits. This could lead to a major erosion of traditional fishing rights. It is very different from the reduction in the case of over­fishing, which simply restores the balance. I am aware of the amendment that suggests that the reduction should simply be a temporary one, but I think it would be far safer to take out the references to quotas and the relative stability principle altogether. I accept entirely that we need serious and effective penalties but please let us make sure that they respect the principles of the common fisheries policy and fall on those who deserve them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Committee on Industry considers this report to be quite positive. It feels that the indicators in euros paint a more reliable picture than the current measurement and eligibility criteria and also considers that the unemployment indicators are important because in some regions, only 44% of people of working age are in employment, although disparities in production are also significant. The Committee on Industry also takes the view that the concentration of the Union’s economy in a triangle which is twice or four times as productive as the outlying regions is one of the problems accentuating these disparities and making it difficult to correct them, and is of the opinion that future programming must make a qualitative assessment of the various indicators. With regard to enlargement, we must allow greater flexibility in the way funds are used, in line with the specific characteristics of each State. The Committee on Industry supports an increase in the Union’s financial effort for cohesion policy, specifically by making competition tougher and by adjusting the budgets of Community policies. It takes the view that any policy that is given greater financial resources than cohesion policy could neutralise it and that the most developed countries grant production aid that almost equals the Community budget. The lack of tough competition favours neither cohesion nor integration and is one reason for ongoing criticism within the WTO. The Committee on Industry urges the Commission to guarantee the creation of a European energy and communications market that respects universal service, prioritises energy efficiency and research, energy saving and the use of renewable energies. The Committee considers it essential to complete infrastructures in the fields of accessibility and transport in order to reduce the effects on the competitiveness of the current outlying regions, without which the efforts for cohesion that we have already made will suffer. The Committee wishes to draw attention to the effects on the price and the taxation of energy in the outermost and overseas regions. It recommends that endogenous energies should be developed as well as clean and safe technologies for the use of coal, nuclear energy and hydrocarbons.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group, I should like to point out that we will be supporting the joint resolution on Zimbabwe. The Zanu-PF regime is an appalling example of the repression of an impoverished and starving people. Morgan Tsvangirai – the leader of the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change – has been put on trial under spurious charges of treason. The economic situation in that country has sharply worsened, with the GDP falling 40% over the last 4 years, and with inflation already at 600% and forecast to reach 1000% before the end of 2004. There is 70% unemployment and over 6 million people are in need of food aid. There have already been some reports of children dying from malnutrition, particularly in the Bulawayo area. There has been a disastrous land reform programme – which no reference to the evils of colonialism can possibly justify – that has dismantled commercial agriculture without replacing it with any other way of producing food efficiently and effectively. The Daily News – Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper – is still closed, despite the courts ordering its reopening, and now the news editor and chief reporter of the Zimbabwe Independent have been arrested under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. What we want is a renewal of the sanctions against Zimbabwe, which are up for renewal by the EU on 20 February 2004. Equally, we want a further widening and strengthening of sanctions against the regime, with the introduction of additional measures to make international action against the regime more effective, in particular the stringent enforcement of the visa ban. There will be a meeting of the EU-African Union Foreign Ministerial Troika on 1 April, and we hope that the EU will put it high on the agenda. We welcome the intervention by Archbishop Desmond Tutu following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria, but would call on other African leaders to equally intervene and put pressure on Mugabe to take action. We need the donor community to make available food aid that can be distributed through non-governmental channels; and we want the EU Member States on the UN Security Council to galvanise the international community into taking coordinated and effective action against this intolerable regime.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Friedrich, citizenship must be seen as a contract between the state and the individual, in which the parties recognise mutual rights and obligations. EU citizenship is a logical extension of the various long established de facto rights and obligations of various kinds between the EU and Member State citizens. A natural step towards EU citizenship would, of course, be a binding charter clearly stating and clarifying the fundamental rights and obligations. The charter should be seen as an important part of the principles of EU citizenship and would be at the very heart of citizenship. The need for EU citizenship has become fully obvious in the light of the necessary restrictions on individual rights that followed the 11 September catastrophe. The need for a developed EU citizenship thus becomes clear, a citizenship that provides a better definition of the basic contract between the individual and the EU and balances rights and restrictions in the same political decision-making system. With every day that passes it becomes increasingly difficult to understand why some social democratic governments oppose merging the Communities and the Union, yet this is absolutely necessary in order to clarify the fundamental obligations and rights. Without that simplification, any EU citizenship will be difficult to grasp and more or less impossible to communicate to EU citizens. It should be remembered that the outcome of ongoing national elections could have both a positive and a negative impact on citizens’ rights. EU citizenship could provide an important tool for explaining to European citizens what EU membership means. However, this requires a clearer, simpler Treaty. As the European Parliament representative on the Interinstitutional Committee on Access to Documents, I have reached an agreement with the Council representative, Mr Haarder, on information focusing directly on the citizen. The idea is to show citizens how and where they can obtain the information that will enable them to take part in European democracy, by giving a simple summary of citizens’ rights in European daily newspapers. The funds for this are there but it is taking far too long to mobilise the political will. This could be a simple way of creating an understanding of citizenship. Consequently, it would be unacceptable if this proposal were delayed just now when it is so important for European democracy. The Commission, which is responsible for organising the next interinstitutional meeting, should therefore promptly – very promptly – organise such a meeting to ensure that Europe’s democratic progress is not delayed. Finally, I should like to thank Mr Coelho for his very constructive contribution to the democratic development of Europe, in which EU citizenship plays such a central role.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with Commissioner Nielson that since the Cuban regime unleashed its repression in March, with the detention of independent journalists and human rights activists, our relations have only deteriorated. The sentences followed trials which did not respect, according to all the analyses, Mr President, the necessary minimum legal safeguards, proving the most pessimistic predictions to be right. What is more, the prison conditions of those sentenced, according to all the news, Mr Nielson, clearly violate human rights. I believe that, at this time, the essential thing, the priority, must be to deploy all the resources available to us to protect those sentenced and their families. I would ask Commissioner Nielson to tell us what he is doing in relation to the Commission’s delegation, recently opened up in Havana. The Cuban authorities must have no doubt that liberation is an essential requirement if they hope to move in the direction of normalising our relations. Furthermore, they must explicitly protect other dissidents who are not under arrest, such as the current holder of the Sakharov Prize, Mr Oswaldo Payá. The authorities’ refusal to allow him to be with us today – announced by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy – seems to me to be very worrying, and I would ask the Presidency of the European Parliament to support the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to its intentions. In view of this situation – as Minister Frattini has said – it is clear that it is not possible to change the common position set in 1996 and we must – and I address this directly to the President—in-Office of the Council – prevent any gesture which could be interpreted as an internal difference within the European Union. On the contrary, we must preserve the current unified approach and I am glad that the Italian Presidency is making efforts in this direction. We must also reject the Cuban authorities’ attempts to divide us and therefore measures such as the demonstration of 14 June or the closure of the Spanish Cultural Centre are not so much acts of aggression against a Member State as against the whole of the European Union. Mr President, our only purpose must be to improve the living conditions and areas of freedom of the Cuban citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, 2003 will be a key year in terms of preparation for enlargement. Therefore, it is disappointing that the report on the other institutions does not really grasp this challenge and, I believe, has missed an opportunity to build on the reform agenda that Parliament had embarked upon in the last few years. I have three main issues I wish to touch briefly on. Firstly, I am concerned about the lack of perspective and the narrowness of the focus. There is far too much concentration on Parliament, and the other institutions do not appear to merit much comment. I understand that the rapporteur did not have an opportunity to visit Luxembourg before the vote in the Committee on Budgets; that might explain the lack of emphasis. I hope this is not seen as a negative message by them. Secondly, it is imperative that we iron out some of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the report. With reference to staffing, the report calls for a politically balanced Administration. This is a ludicrous statement and I completely disagree with what Mr Elles said earlier. My understanding of the Executive of this and of many other Parliaments across the world is that the Administration is generally neutral. I have grave concerns about what has been suggested and the implication that the Administration is not neutral or that it should not be, and I shudder to think of the consequences of this. Are we really going to ask the staff to tick a political affiliation box before they are appointed to a new job? Even more fundamentally, this runs in direct contradiction to the emphasis that the Committee on Budgets has put in this report, on the staff appointment or promotion always being based on ability and merit. That is the principle I wholeheartedly support. Therefore, I would urge the rapporteur to distance himself from such negative statements. These sentiments, if carried, will be to the detriment of the standing of Parliament. Thirdly, with respect to the freelancing of translation and interpreters, I have no problems with improving efficiency and exploring ways to achieve this, but the statement we have here is an ideological standpoint with no evidence to support the assertion that freelance translation will be more cost-effective and of the quality required to meet Members' needs. This also runs in direct contradiction to the emphasis in the report on developing the Podestà report further with regard to the linguistic regime for enlargement. Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group, we are interested in working in cooperation with the rapporteur at the next stage when we get to estimates, to strengthen the report and to achieve consensus in this key budget area. However, cooperation is only achievable if it is a two-way process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in no way do I wish to contradict the excellent reports by Mr Brok and Mr Titley which I support, in the same way as I support the comments that they have made. These reports quite rightly emphasise the progress made since last year in the area of the CFSP and in that of the ESDP. We have made progress, for example, by establishing the ESDP bodies, in the fight against terrorism and conflict prevention. I am thinking of the Balkans and of how specific crises have been managed. Alongside this progress, however, it must be noted that things have not been going too well just lately. Europe’s voice often cannot be heard. Several speakers have told you this, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. Here are some examples: the European Union played no part in the military action in Afghanistan, although the Member States participated. In civilian matters, the Union once again provided substantial humanitarian and material aid, but its political role remained very low-key. In Iraq, in response to US intentions, the Union did, to its credit, reiterate the role that the United Nations should play. But what can the High Representative do, when confronted with the conflicting positions of the members of the Council of Ministers? Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what are you, personally, doing today, on behalf of the European Union? You have proposed absolutely nothing! And what has our wonderful Mediterranean policy achieved, not only in the Middle East, but in Maghreb and the Mashreq countries? The European Parliament is not the place where we will answer the question ‘what can be done?’ To sum up, I would simply like to make one comment: the CFSP and the ESDP are intergovernmental policies. Once again, this method is showing its limitations. If our governments continue to disagree or choose silence or inaction, if, therefore, the Union has no genuine foreign policy or any genuine security policy, then we must change method and perhaps use the Community method instead. The answer lies primarily in the hands of the ministers. But as you said, Commissioner, nothing is a substitute for political will. (Applause)

Political group: PSE