GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we had a similar debate a year ago and the fact that it has taken a year before negotiations even get under way shows how difficult it is becoming to find fish stocks for our massive EU fleets to exploit. The EU is ever more dependent upon the goodwill of other countries to let us fish. We knew five years ago this situation would arise. When Morocco signed the last agreement, it said it did not want another agreement of the same type and it has kept to that position. In the five years, what has the Community done? It adopted a multiannual guidance plan which was far weaker than what was recommended by the scientists and the Commission. The Commission recently highlighted the implications of this. Then it adopted a structural fund, which will continue to pay for new vessels and the enlargement of existing ones, albeit with some controls. Yet, once again, the Council watered down what the Commission had bravely proposed. Consequently we are left with a problem of excess capacity and dwindling fish stocks. There will need to be further cuts in TACs this Christmas. The Commission is forced to look further and further afield to find fish. The Moroccan case is a special situation in that many of the vessels involved are relatively small and fishing close to home. We agree that the lack of this agreement has had a severe impact. But while we have plenty of vessels that cannot find fish in European waters, or even in areas where they have traditionally fished, at the same time we have some businessmen, or even business conglomerates, in northern European countries that are building enormous new vessels, which will be forced to depend on fishing far away from Europe. Given the difficulties in accommodating these vessels in the normal agreements, their owners are making private agreements with the governments of third countries. Since these are private agreements with no Community involvement, there is no transparency, no access to information, no public accountability. This is a very serious situation. Who is to control these vessels? I would like the Commissioner to give us a detailed account of its activities and their impact. We will support the resolution, but we have to make it clear that nobody has any given right to exploit the resources of another country if it does not so wish. That should be taken into account. We must look at solving our own problem here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, by rejecting the text that has been proposed to us on port services, I am expressing my personal opinion but I am also acting as a mouthpiece for the objections that have been expressed by a large number of trade union organisations. This project, known as self-handling, will allow ship owners to carry out any port service using their own personnel and equipment. It also opens the way for all sorts of abuse by the crooks involved in maritime transport. Indeed, the directive does not of course force ship owners to pay their personnel the current salaries of dockers, nor even to respect labour legislation. Ship owners can make workers, who are taken on without guarantees, work for low pay and subject them to whatever working conditions they want. This will result in secure employment in port areas being axed and an increase in the number of workers with insecure jobs, who are badly paid, over exploited, inexperienced, with all the threats that this entails for the environment and safety. We reject this directive. Its enforcement would threaten all those that earn a living from port services; it would increase the risk of accidents and pollution. We also reject it because it puts workers from different professions – seamen and dockers – into competition with each other – in order to make conditions harsher for both groups, for the sole benefit of ship owners. Opening up port services to competition stems from the same retrograde mindset as opening up rail transport, air traffic control, postal services or telecommunications to competition. We are opposed to it. Port services, like all services used directly or indirectly by the entire population, should be public services and protected from damage such as competition and the race for profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, in a short intervention on this matter, I would like to ask Mr Swoboda not to make this kind of racist and xenophobic statement. It is to the Arab world, to Arabic culture, that Europe today owes its entire Greek heritage; it is to the Arab world that it owes all its understanding of Greek culture. Mr Swoboda, please stop using this kind of language, because I do not think that it has any place in today’s Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report highlights the extraordinary work carried out by the democratic Cypriot authorities to implement the Community acquis in Cyprus and thereby make good their commitments. Although a reunited Cyprus is not considered a criterion for accession to the European Union, which I am pleased about, a peaceful political settlement is still a priority. Turkey also needs to support the efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement as quickly as possible, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. The European Union must exercise all its influence in this regard. With regard, more specifically, to possible accession by Turkey to the European Union, we should not forget that the real issue of Europe’s borders remains unresolved. The European Union should therefore create an area of privileged relations with our closest neighbours, Turkey, Russia and the North African countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, naturally enough the rapporteur and some of the previous speakers have already alluded obviously to what for me is one of the crucial political elements – if not the crucial element – of this draft budget. But, as rapporteur for the interinstitutional agreement and the Financial Perspective, I feel compelled to emphasise it. Few people interpreted Berlin as a success: the European Council confused austerity with miserliness. I will not repeat my criticisms: I refer you to the Minutes of the plenary sittings. Between 25 March and 6 May, we held the last round of negotiations between Parliament and the Council. During that long and intense month of bargaining, Parliament made an effort to persuade the Council that there was more to the Union than the EAGGF and the Structural Funds, that the remaining 20% of the budget was also used to serve the Union’s objectives and that, often, it affects issues which were politically very sensitive. The Ministers implicitly recognised the obstinacy of their leaders, but did not want to find fault with them barely five weeks later. For this reason they only accepted the slightest and most miserly alterations to Category 3 (Internal Policies) and Category 5 (Administrative Expenditure). The insuperable stumbling block was Category 4 (External Action) and not even the war in the Balkans persuaded them to accept the higher figure. One of the Ministers who negotiated and who is now a Commissioner came to recognise that it was possible that the Financial Perspective would have to be revised before it entered into force, but that we would have to wait until the Commission provided an estimate of costs. Once again, the Council confused the multiannual budgetary framework, that is to say the Financial Perspective, with the budget itself: a self-interested short-sightedness which hindered suitable and appropriate political decision-making and which led to a bungled handling of the budget. What is the situation? We are beginning to see the cost of the needs of Kosovo, there has been an earthquake in Turkey and a political disaster in East Timor, not to mention the need to pay for the fisheries agreement with Morocco, which the government of the principal country involved must have forgotten in the negotiations in Berlin. The Council intends to resolve the matter by cutting a good proportion of the aid to Russia and the Mediterranean area with the rest coming from proportionate reductions in the other external programmes. Very cunning. The Financial Perspective has also failed to take into account the question of the accession of Cyprus and Malta. I believe that we should bear in mind that the interinstitutional agreement includes a mechanism for revision of the Financial Perspective for these cases, and that it is there to be used when necessary. There are those who keep an empty bottle in the fridge in case their visitors do not wish to drink anything. If the Commission now presents a proposal for revision of the Financial Perspective, think of that bottle, Madam Minister.

Political group: PSE
The European Parliament is right to indicate its concern about the situation in Russia and to recommend to the Council that it promote human rights, democracy, media independence, the development of civil society, religious freedom, the rule of law, and transparency, with special focus on seeking an urgent improvement of the situation in Chechnya. Finally, it clearly indicates the responsibility of the Russian state for the acts of violence in this dirty war. There is, however, a gaping hole: the social issue. We cannot ignore it, or even regret the slow progress of reforms, when the EU completely agreed with swift liberalisation in Russia. The privatisations were, however, criminal (with financial giants turned into monopolies for next to nothing and huge tax evasion), which explains why Russia’s disgraceful oligarchy meets with indifference from the citizens. Russian citizens are currently going through the privatisation of the pension system and of community services and the reform of the labour code. Education and health reforms are also under way which include a fall in tax levies. It is significant that the resolution does not recommend anything concerning union rights or a fairer distribution of wealth. Faced with such a lamely one-sided resolution, I abstained from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first I should like to congratulate Mr Poos on his work, Mrs Mechtild Rothe on her efforts all these years as Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, Mr Oostlander, Mr Brok who is not here and, of course, Commissioner Verheugen, who unfortunately had to leave. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a fact that we are at the moment holding a general political debate on the prevailing climate in the run up to the referendum on Saturday rather than on the content of the Annan plan, because a debate on the content of this plan, despite the fact that its positive points far outnumber its negative points, could turn into a detailed debate lasting several hours. The positions of my fellow Members and of the Commissioner and the President-in-Office, and all the disappointments expressed in this House about the climate prevailing at the moment in Cyprus, bring me to the conclusion that, apart from the yes or no vote which has been debated closely here too, we should also hold an analytical debate on the proposal by the speaker of the Cypriot parliament, Dimitris Christofias, to postpone the referenda, especially in that postponement would need to be accompanied, on the one hand, by the clarification of certain points in the plan which are creating problems, such as security issues – I would ask Mr Patten to convey to Mr Verheugen the question of primary law and of people taking recourse to the courts – and, on the other hand, by work being carried out in the Security Council on the new resolution we want, which will include guarantees. I think that these two poles will certainly help to reverse the climate. Finally, I want to finish by saying that, of course, an opinion needs to be expressed and this opinion of the European Parliament is being expressed through the resolution tabled by Mr Poos, together of course with all the amendments which have been proposed. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, open access to the port services market and equal opportunities in this field are not only appropriate but also a requirement of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded. Regulation and control are needed in this particular field to ensure that no State provides financial assistance to its ports, since this is a serious threat to free competition between Community ports. However, there are certain aspects which should not be exclusively regulated by the EU. Member States and their constitutional bodies with competencies in this field should maintain their capacity to include their own specific standards for the invitation to tender for contracts for supply of port services and for the protection of workers affected. Additionally, pilotage, mooring and the handling of cargo, including stowage and trans-shipment, since they are compulsory services, should not be included in the Community Directive liberalising port services, but their regulation should remain under the control of the Member States and their port authorities, for reasons of the safety of maritime traffic. In an airport, there would be chaos if there were more than one company providing air traffic control. In a port, there should only be one authority for pilotage and one for mooring, for the same reason.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The British Conservative Delegation of the Group voted against the Martínez Martínez report on specific measures for agricultural products for various countries. My colleagues and I are wholly sympathetic to the special needs of the EU's outermost regions given their isolation and the problems this causes. However, it is our view that the Commission has produced a sensible proposal to combat their difficulties and that going beyond this, as the rapporteur proposes, is not justifiable in terms of policy or budgetary implications. Across Europe, the agricultural sector is in severe difficulties and stretching its budget further does not seem feasible at this stage. Similar thinking instructed my delegation's decision to vote against Mr Martínez Martínez's other report on structural measures. - Report Fraga Estévez (A5-0185/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my Group is delighted about the fact that an agreement will be reached to regulate the day-to-day practice of mutual assistance in legal affairs. The aim of regulations is to define the reciprocal rights and duties of States or citizens or those applicable in the relationship between citizens and government. The present proposal is complex, because it deals with agreements between Member States but has far-reaching consequences for the citizen-government relationship. It is precisely in the field of legal protection that the Council’s proposal leaves a great deal to be desired. In the words of rapporteur Mr Di Pietro, the proposal even contains colossal shortcomings. Thanks to the agreement, it is possible to create a chain of legal assistance requests, whereby each link represents authorities and criminal law systems of different Member States. The chain is arranged in such a way as to ensure that it cannot fall as a whole within the competence of one court. Additional measures are hence required, such as the obligation on the part of criminal investigators to give evidence in every criminal case in which their material is used. The fact that the Council’s proposal rides roughshod over the principle of proportionality is also hard to deal with for my Group. There are certainly no restrictions in its scope. As such, the agreement applies not only to fighting serious crimes and organised crime. In fact, it is not written anywhere that it is restricted to criminal law. It is, therefore, conceivable that the European Union will soon be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that the rights of the citizen will vanish in the dust.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I congratulate Mrs Terrón i Cusí on her work. The Commission’s proposal for a directive on the entry and residence of third-country nationals again places the emphasis on legal or illegal immigration and raises the issue of employment as a prior sine qua non condition for granting stable status. I welcome the improvements contributed by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to the proposal for a directive, but I would also like to stress that the rapporteur has shown great lucidity and has dealt with the issue without demagoguery. There are some interesting proposals and advances, in particular increased transparency, a simplification of the procedures and taking more account of the interests of third countries. In general the rapporteur moves in the direction of improving the rights of holders of residence and work permits and stresses the need for all foreigners to be given equal access to education, training and housing assistance. I regret that these proposals have not been backed up with real figures and that the report has not placed more emphasis on access to citizenship. We must all work to guarantee the principle of free movement, to increase the opportunities for workers to find work and enrich their professional experience and to promote mobility with a view to creating a closer union between peoples. (Written statement abbreviated in accordance with Rule 120(7) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
I thank the Commissioner for that very comprehensive answer and congratulate all those in the EU who have come to the aid of the Iraqi people at a very difficult time. I have two brief supplementary questions. One is to ask the Commissioner's view on how he sees the aid emanating from the Madrid Conference fitting in with our other aid commitments, particularly in areas in Africa and elsewhere where there are conflicts which receive less media coverage but in which people are still suffering. How does he see those conflicts being resolved? Secondly, what is his view of the implementation of existing humanitarian aid during the humanitarian phase? Is he satisfied with that aspect, given the political pressures from individual Member States on the whole approach to Iraq?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, when we discussed this last week in the Conference of Presidents, my group – the Liberal Democrats – voted to have a debate today and not to postpone it. I regret that my remarks today will mostly be about process rather than content, because I think that we still have not found the correct process. I would, however, like to salute the work the Commission has done this year and to acknowledge the enormous progress in the preparation of the launch of the euro; the very substantial progress on enlargement which we very much welcome; the work which is being done in south-eastern Europe; the break-through on the World Trade Organisation and the very stimulating programme on sustainable development. All of those and the work on the common area of justice and security are to the credit of the Commission. I very much agree with the focus of next year's priorities which are sensible and acceptable, particularly in that we need to work closely together on promoting the Community method in building the future of Europe. There are, however, questions in the legislative programme to which we need answers. Why last year was only 45% of the programme processed by this time of the year and 55% not? How is it that 117 or 118 new items not foreseen were added? I do not mind flexibility – that is good in politics – but this seems rather more chaotic than one's definition of flexibility. I fully respect the Commission's right of initiative, but I would urge that the Commission should not simply start in February with a general statement of priorities and then, in November, bring forward a specific work programme. We need an intensive dialogue between times and some intermediate staging-posts at which to make evaluations. We believe, Mr President of the Commission, like you, in good governance and this Parliament will commit itself to being a high quality player in terms of the input and impact on co-legislation, but that requires criteria. We need to discuss with each other – and this is not an attempt to interfere with the right of initiative of the Commission – is the law necessary? Is it proportionate? Does it respect subsidiarity? Is it transparent and accountable? What are the options for implementation? Can we do some kind of regulatory impact assessment before we go down the line? The Commission already has a wonderful process of consultation in place with social partners. Share this process with us as well, not because we want to interfere with your right to make the final call, but because we too are players and we cannot be left to one side or not get documents till the eve of a debate. Our President has communicated to you a scheme that we would commend. Our Conference of Presidents backs what she has said. Our Committee on Constitutional Affairs backs what she has said and if we can do that, next year we will discuss politics more and process less. We have got to get it right. We have to do this early to avoid a repetition of this unnecessary mutual incomprehension which helps none of us to bring good governance to the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
My Group voted in favour of the Jackson resolution on Structural Funds in the environment because we believe in the principle of ensuring effective implementation of environmental law – in this case, the wild birds and habitats directive. However, we are surprised that Members of this House voted for the original proposal in paragraph 7 to cut off funds to some of our poorest regions in the EU. Indeed, the Commissioner, in a response to the debate, said she would not be stopping approval of key funding programmes. Members of the Environment Committee clearly cannot be aware of the undue delays that any non-approval of Structural Funds programmes would create, nor indeed of the new budgetary procedure that could involve not only delays but the loss of millions in funds in the case of the UK to Merseyside, South Yorkshire, the Highlands and Islands, Northern Ireland, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. These are vital life-line funds for jobs and growth. I therefore welcome the fact that this House voted by a majority against cutting off resources. The Commissioner would, in any case, have had no legal competence to stop approval and therefore I am glad that, at the end of the day, common sense has prevailed in our vote.

Political group: PSE