GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, when I saw that it was you in the chair, I thought about scrapping a few things from my text, but I am pleased with the attitude you are taking. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am able to give Mr Laschet our full backing. I am delighted that the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Budgetary Control are taking exactly the same line for once. The proposal under discussion today is intended to provide a legal basis at Community level to cover the financing of the United Nations’ interim mission in Kosovo and of the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina. As Mr Laschet has made very clear, so far the EU contribution to the financing of these bodies has been made under the common foreign and security policy. We are talking very large amounts: EUR 28 million for the Office of the High Representative, 53% of which is actually to be funded by the European Union, and EUR 12 million to be funded by UNMIK (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo). The advantage of this new arrangement is that the amounts will in fact be raised from the common foreign and security policy pillar. What have we noticed happening in the past? We noticed that the European Commission, which is responsible by virtue of the Treaties for implementation of the budget, had no control over events under the existing arrangement, which is something the Committee on Budgetary Control pointed out time and again. This meant that, in practice, the Commission was actually only acting as paymaster and accountant, which ultimately produced lax policy, lax behaviour and a lack of commitment. A recent special report by the Court of Auditors has shown what this can lead to. We know, for example, that the Financial Controller in Bosnia-Herzegovina invoiced his services to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia as part of a contract signed with a company of which he himself was manager. That is what I call a conflict of interests. Incidentally, our Committee on Budgetary Control intends to come back to this special report at a later date. Be that as it may, this draft regulation will enable Parliament to exert more influence over the financing of these peace agreements and so, for example, we will be able to place appropriations in the reserve if we want to secure better financial management. Responsibility for implementing the appropriations will no longer be shared between the Commission and the Council but will soon fall solely to the Commission. That is a positive development to my mind, because it means that in future we will also be able to use our discharge procedure as a means of control. This draft regulation fits neatly into the framework of a policy that is directed at good management and which takes notice of what becomes of taxpayers’ money. I think we should give Mr Laschet’s report our full backing and vote unanimously in favour of it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Our position on culture depends on the type of policy it promotes and the values, principles and aesthetic standards it puts forward. The prime question is whether cultural activities function for the benefit of the workers and contribute to social progress or whether they function for the benefit of big business, extending its control and increasing its profits. The report expresses the need for cultural processes relating to the performing arts to be incorporated – ideologically, politically and socially – into EU policy. It wants the theatre to serve the ‘European ideal’ and to apply policies such as mobility and lifelong learning. And it targets Mediterranean countries and the Central and Eastern European countries in particular. What, however, is this ‘ideal’ we are being called on to support? If it is not clear, how can we be expected to aid and abet contradictory procedures, which resolve a few temporary problems (intellectual property rights, movement, education), but which also expose the fact that these problems were caused by the intervention of big business in each country's culture? Similarly, we disagree with the dominant role of private companies and patrons and with the hazy outline of the nascent ‘European cultural identity’ and the methods being developed to impose it. That is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece abstained from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the previous two cases we have considered dealt with issues of free speech and the conditions of maintaining robust political debate. This case raises no such issue. It is a case concerning a traffic violation, as the second to last paragraph on page 10 of my report says, 'the charge against Mrs Jeggle relates to the offence of dangerous driving since it is alleged that when driving her car on 4 May 1999 she acted recklessly and in gross violation of road traffic regulations by overtaking another vehicle at a point that did not afford sufficient visibility to do so.' We are not in any sense called upon to form a judgment on the truth or falsity of these allegations or on Mrs Jeggle's conduct. We are called upon only to decide whether an allegation and a trial on a matter of this kind attracts parliamentary immunity which ought not to be waived. The German authorities have rightly halted proceedings which were already quite far advanced on learning that Mrs Jeggle had been elected to this Parliament and in due course sent a request to Parliament for Mrs Jeggle's immunity to be waived. We come up here against what I regard as an extremely important principle: that we elected politicians ought to enjoy no special privileges over our fellow citizens. Members of a democratic assembly of this kind should only not be subjected to harassment or persecution for carrying out their duties. We are agreed, Mrs Jeggle as fully and firmly as anybody else, that traffic offences are not covered by that principle and that Parliament should never claim immunity for any of its Members on a matter of this kind. Mrs Jeggle has passed to me word through another colleague that she is unable to be present in the House this afternoon and she wanted to assure me, and the House, that this is no intentional discourtesy on her part but an unavoidable conflict of obligations. I am very happy to pass that assurance on, because it certainly has been the case that at no point in the discussion of this matter has she in any way deviated from the view which I am putting to the House. This is not a case where Parliament should insist on a Member's immunity and I have no hesitation at all in reporting to the House the unanimous view of the Committee on Legal Affairs that immunity ought in this case to be waived on the request of the German authorities.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the dramatic apology of the Yugoslavian President, Mr Kostunica, also referred to by my fellow Member, his admission of guilt and the guilt of the Serbian people – something which many nations have never done – is a gesture which does him credit and which will make an important contribution to improving the climate in the region. Politically, Mr Kostunica is associating himself with the decisions of the international community which considers that Kosovo is still part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, at the same time, is lowering the hopes of the Albanians of Kosovo of achieving a state of independence. What kind of tension – a tension which naturally seems paradoxical to us, even with the return of some of the Serbian refugees – could be generated by this lack of self-determination so longed for by the Albanians? In your opinion, Commissioner, on the basis of your conversations with him, to what extent is the moderate Mr Rugova likely to be willing to agree to enter into dialogue with his democratic counterpart in Belgrade?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Kindermann’s report is a good one, and we are dealing with a complex and very important subject. Furthermore it is a politically very timely report within the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy which is taking place and at a time when there seemed to be proposals which questioned or removed this aid for the renewal or modernisation of the fleet. I would therefore like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Kindermann, on this work and I would like to ask Commissioner Fischler, please, to take good note of what the European Parliament says today and I hope he will approve the Kindermann report. Mr Fischler, it is wise to put things right. Therefore, I ask you to take note of this, if Parliament takes this approach. From Mr Kindermann’s report, as approved in the Committee on Fisheries – improved, I believe, by the amendments we have presented – I would like to highlight the following: firstly, the fleet policy is crucial and has a great impact on fisheries, but also on the regions dependent on fishing and, ultimately, on the economic and social cohesion of Europe. This is a very important aspect which is highlighted in the report. Fleet policy is an important political instrument, but it is not the only one. There are others to be considered, such as technical measures, the TACs, fishing bans, fishing days, etc. Increasing the capacity of the fleet does not mean fishing more, but fishing better, with more security, with greater habitability and with greater hygiene and health guarantees in terms of the treatment of fish on board. We therefore still need the FIFG aid for the renewal and modernisation of our fleet, which is a crucial aspect if we are still to have fishermen and a competitive fleet. We therefore ask the Commission to adopt measures to increase the capacity and tonnage of renewed vessels. We therefore also ask, within the framework of the reform of the fisheries policy, for the introduction of uniform criteria and objectives to measure the capacity and the segmentation of the fleets of the Member States, as well as the creation of a system for the inclusion and exclusion of vessels in the registers in order to guarantee that capacity does not increase. In summary, we are dealing with a clear and concise report which I hope will reflect the approach of the Committee on Fisheries and this Parliament as a whole to the reform of the common fisheries policy which is getting closer, by opting – in accordance with our wishes – for the maintenance of a renewed, and therefore competitive, fisheries sector and not, Mr Fischler, for its dismantling. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should simply like to thank you for your words and say that, if ever a delegation did go to Ramallah and Jerusalem, I hope that it would be able to meet not only representatives of the institutions but also some representatives of civil society in Palestine and Israel, because I believe that peace will only be restored in the Middle East if civil society is mobilised.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As the report points out, between 1975 and 2000, the world has gone through some 120 monetary crises, which the IMF defines as depreciation of a currency by more than 25% in the course of a year. Regrettably, however, even in the knowledge that every such crisis involves enormous costs for the countries involved, as happened in the Asian crisis in the summer of 1998, the report offers no basic measures that could prevent the emergence of new crises with any degree of effectiveness. Data from the Bank for International Settlements shows an enormous increase in international financial activity, which practically doubled in the 1990s, with trading on stock exchanges appearing increasingly disconnected from the real economy. This, combined with an increase in the speed of circulation in the financial sphere has heightened instability, thereby helping to increase the gap between richer countries and developing countries. Despite the report’s considerations and criticisms, specifically regarding the lack of democratic accountability of the IMF and its use by the USA and the G7, does not offer much by way of an alternative. On the contrary, it suggests from the outset that it is unrealistic to expect the creation, in the foreseeable future, of a United Nations organisation that would exercise full universal powers of regulation and supervision, when this is precisely the path that should be promoted and pursued in order to achieve fair and democratic international relations that provide solidarity and are concerned about development and the fight against poverty. Although it is to be welcomed that the rapporteur acknowledges that starting from scratch on growth and on combating poverty will require cancelling the debts of the poorest countries, it is disappointing that he does not put forward any other practical proposals, such as a Tobin-type tax or abolishing tax havens and that the majority in this House has rejected every move in that direction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I want to thank the committee and its chairman for a well-considered report. The increasing flow of refugees in recent years shows the need for a common refugee policy both within the EU and globally. The various Member States’ more or less panicky reactions faced with people’s desire to find sanctuary and a new life in Europe have struck a very discordant note, given the humanitarian values the EU stands for. There have been many tragedies on the EU’s borders, involving vessels that have gone down, desperate refugees who have hidden in containers and refugees who have tried to swim their way to Europe. On many occasions, I have felt depressed by quite a few of the proposals from the Member States and the Commission whose main aim seems to have been to stop, impede, deport and expel. Those who have spoken of an EU that is developing into a fortress Europe are, unfortunately, not completely mistaken. Against this background, this proposal for a directive is along the right lines. The rights of the individual are emphasised, and repressive measures do not dominate. It is certainly true that common asylum rules are needed within the EU, but there also needs to be scope for individual Member States to make more generous assessments. The committee has guaranteed this scope. The committee also strengthens the rights of the individual under the Geneva Convention in relation to the position of children, the ability to hold refugees in custody, greater knowledge on the part of those who have to deal with matters relating to refugees and reasonable periods within which applications are to be processed. Quite simply, it is a question of increased legal certainty. I am nonetheless a little uneasy about the Council’s future handling of these issues. We must safeguard the absolute requirement under the Geneva Convention that every refugee shall have his case examined individually, just as Baroness Ludford said. As I see it, there are no safe countries. If, as Europeans, we are not completely to forfeit our good name, a different refugee policy based upon respect, openness and legal certainty is required. It is not countries such as Nauru that can be expected to assume responsibility for people fleeing from barbaric regimes such as that in Afghanistan. Empathy and humanitarianism are required even more now, a week after the tragedy in the United States.

Political group: ELDR
Earlier this evening we discussed a concrete case before the European Court of Justice under question 3, the so-called Journalists’ Case. What amazed me, in following the discussion, was the fact that the address by the Council of Ministers too – it was of course the Council of Ministers which stood accused in this case – was classified as secret. I really do think it is unreasonable for a particular institution’s opinion on a political issue to be classified as secret if there are no very special reasons indeed for this. I wonder if the Council of Ministers considers that the increased openness which is now hopefully to come within the EU ought also to embrace the Council of Ministers’ addresses to the European Court of Justice. Finally, I want to say that it is especially pleasing to have a minister from the Alliance here too.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report of the panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural sources of energy is particularly brave. Normally those reports are quite vague about names and surnames, but here the names of the various people responsible are listed. In that respect too it is an extraordinarily useful report. It makes it clear that not only government leaders in the region and of course a number of the ‘war lords’ in the areas involved but also a number of industries in Europe with export and import operations that are illegal, or at least involve the use of illegal material, share a great part of the responsibility. The report is lucid and clear in its recommendations. It is in fact the second such report after the Fowler diamond report. It also gives us the opportunity to operate quite effectively as an international community. Mr Verhofstadt said here earlier in the week that if we had this in Europe, it would be called a world war. The number of people affected by this disaster is extremely high. I believe that it is right – in terms of equal treatment and application of the right criteria – to use the same standards in the Congo as we use elsewhere. We are capable of doing so, because we know a number of the companies. We can get them round the table. We know a number of the governments with whom we have links. We can also exert heavy pressure on this point. It is a complicated game. That is clear. Uganda, Rwanda, Congo, the new debate, the Lusaka agreements, the facilitation of a dialogue. If we do not remove the source, however, the financing of the arms trade and armed conflict, will continue. We can make everything dry up there. I would consider it of extreme importance if the European Commission, in fact Mr Patten with his colleague Mr Solana, would think about ways of mounting specific operations in the context of the UN Security Council to exert sufficient pressure to bring it to a halt. On that point one more comment for the Belgian Presidency. When he was here this weekend, Mr Verhofstadt, together with Minister Reynders and others, very quickly released credits that had been blocked. Now of course I understand that there is a need to get the parties around a table and get them moving. At the same time, though, you must of course be careful. Making loans available and not at the same time making firm demands and meanwhile allowing the illegal exploitation of natural resources, is not the most credible way of going about it. I am in favour – and that is a lesson from the past and on that point we need not be outdone by the Americans – of being hard and clear. In fact exactly what we have said in previous debates: deeply committed, but also hard and clear and making our demands, on our own industry, our own Member States and the six countries involved. I hope – and expect – that you will support the Belgian Presidency in such a way that it will lead to some effectiveness on this point.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I rise to speak on the subject of Cuba. During the previous part-session, we approved a vote rejecting the wave of repression that the Cuban dictator has unleashed on his people, having imprisoned scores of intellectuals, writers and artists. The Cuban dictatorship, however, then summarily sentenced three young men to death for having hijacked a boat – an undeniably serious act – in a trial that was summary and harsh, and which provided no guarantees. This House cannot remain unmoved by this behaviour by the Cuban dictatorship. This House, which has condemned the existence of the death penalty in various countries across the world and which has condemned all countries enforcing the death penalty, cannot remain unmoved by this irrational and barbaric behaviour by the Cuban dictatorship.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would first of all like to extend my sincere congratulations to Mr Sterckx on his excellent report. It has come, I believe, at a time when the aviation industry is very much in the limelight, what with the takeover agreement between Swiss Air and Sabena, the breakdown of the marriage between KLM and Alitalia, as well as the vicissitudes surrounding Malpensa. One could therefore say that there is a lot of commotion in the industry and this makes the report all the more topical. Despite the many advantages described by Mr Sterckx, the liberalisation of aviation has not given us heaven on earth – or not yet anyway. Just as Europe and EMU will need to be restored ecologically and socially, we will have to assimilate liberalisation with measures designed to better organise the airspace, increase safety and improve consumer and environmental protection. It became apparent during the Strasbourg debate on night flights only two weeks ago that European legislation on aviation leaves a great deal to be desired. Liberalisation without a common aviation policy and without a unified airspace will inevitably lead to problems. It is estimated that air traffic will double in the next fifteen years. At present, one in three flights is delayed and 450 000 flight hours are lost annually, and unless far-reaching measures are taken, the situation will only get worse. What is actually preventing us from taking a number of additional measures, except for a powerful lobby of airline companies and a misconceived concept of sovereignty in some countries which refuse to let go of the management of their own national airspace? We have a unified market, free movement of people and a single currency. Why can we not move towards a single European airspace more rapidly? Moreover, I fully endorse the idea of a common transatlantic air space, provided that this is not subject to unilateral European concessions. This is most certainly a lesson we need to learn from the vicissitudes of the hushkits affair. As far as the allocation of slots is concerned, I believe that more consideration should be given to environmental criteria, such as noise and exhaust fumes. In addition, the government should invest more in measures which improve the quality of life of those living near airports. This is often the case and is most needed at smaller, regional airports. In summary, and by way of conclusion, I would like to advocate a pax avianautica. The ingredients of the pax avianautica which we need to pursue are a unified airspace, a common aviation policy, viable airports in a comfortable environment, increased safety and strong, European airline companies. My home town of Ostend, with its noisy and unsafe, regional airport, will not fully understand the meaning of the European Union until we have achieved this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, right from the start, the scientific assessment of the northern hake stock has been carried out on the whole stock and there are not sufficient grounds at the moment to distinguish separate components within it. As you have said, however, the total allowable catches and quotas for 2001, which were set by the Council of Fisheries Ministers in December last year, have introduced something new: there has been a greater percentage reduction in allowable catches in the Bay of Biscay than in all the other northern hake fishing areas. I should like to ask you what reason there was to justify this discrimination against the Bay of Biscay.

Political group: Verts-ALE