GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, three months ago, in this very House, I had the opportunity to express my thoughts regarding Mr Milosevic. In my view and, I believe, in the view of the large majority of my group, Mr Milosevic is largely responsible for one of the worst tragedies the Serbian and other peoples of the former Yugoslavia have ever known. (Applause) Mr Milosevic had to answer for his crimes and had to face international justice sooner or later Admittedly, the circumstances surrounding his transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal sullied the historic step forward that this move represented. From this point of view, I feel a sense of frustration, not so much because a judgment of the Constitutional Court of Belgrade – the legitimacy of which is doubtful – was breached, but rather because the dignity of the democratic forces in Serbia and Yugoslavia was violated. These forces have been forced to split in the face of financial pressure from a great power which, moreover, itself rejects the principle of an International Criminal Tribunal. Nevertheless, we still demand to see Mr Milosevic answer in full for his crimes and I am dismayed to hear a member of my group speak in his defence and, furthermore, make statements in the press which I personally feel are unacceptable. (Applause) In our view, men and women who were wrongly imprisoned go by the name of Nelson Mandela or Leïla Zana prisoners of the past and the present. The values for which they are fighting are at the other end of the spectrum to the objectives pursued by the former leader of Belgrade. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
deputising for the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, I would very much like to thank Mrs Schroedter for the work she has done on this and to explain to colleagues that I am speaking for my colleague, Mrs Flautre, who followed this for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but who is unfortunately ill. I would like to draw people's attention to Amendments Nos 1 and 2 which were agreed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs but not accepted by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. These amendments deal with the social economy and the need to provide social risk capital and support financially local schemes to develop employment opportunities and strengthen social cohesion. In the past, this Parliament has viewed the social economy as an important potential provider of employment. These amendments also fit in with this Parliament's view that social exclusion is a serious issue needing constructive action. We hope that those considering rejection of these amendments have very powerful reasons to offer to both Parliament and their citizens who are seeking employment. In her report, Mrs Flautre also drew attention to an area where coordination is sorely lacking, yet desperately needed. The Commission proposals refer to the four pillars of employment strategy and the five fields of action of the European Social Fund. But the lack of specific guidelines here is particularly to be regretted, as the idea of linking Social Fund assistance to the employment strategy will be put into effect for the first time during the 2000-2006 programme. It could be said that the omission gives the impression that the Commission too has no idea how to provide maximum coordination between European Social Fund assistance, which is subject to review after three and a half years, and the Member States' annual national plans for employment. We hope that the Commission can reassure us that this was an oversight which is now being dealt with constructively.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, with rather more levity. Last night in the Committee on Budgets when the refreshments were being distributed, Mr Colom pointed out that the small cartons of milk were marked “for distribution in schools only”. Had it said “for schoolchildren only” one could understand why it was being distributed in the European Parliament, but it was marked “for schools only”. Could we find out why this has happened? It is so embarrassing. I know we campaigned for more school milk but, on this occasion, we did not want it here. (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for all the effort she has put into these negotiations. I have two short questions. The first is, over what period is the training compensation system going to be worked out and the code of conduct developed? I ask because I believe it is very important to have a set schedule and a set time frame here. My other question is about the transfer fee level, which is still unlimited. So the question arises of how the solidarity fund will work, if it is really going to benefit the very smallest clubs. You mentioned 5% of the transfer fee, which would then be shared out. However, the key question is how this amount will be distributed and if it will then really benefit the clubs on the bottom rung of the ladder.

Political group: PSE
I have voted against the Daul resolution on the CAP mid-term review, which calls for the present European agricultural model to be maintained and reinforced. This is very bad news for the developing countries and for Africa, where most people live by agriculture. European agricultural subsidies deprive farmers in developing countries of the ability to compete with their European counterparts. Furthermore, export subsidies lead to agricultural surpluses from the EU being dumped in developing countries at prices that are lower than those at which those countries can produce them themselves. Income support independent of production may be justifiable; export subsidies are not. They distort the market, are fatal for the farmers in the poorest countries and go against all the principles of the liberalisation of world trade. The system is, above all, unfair: while in the 80s, the poorest countries were required by the IMF to abolish subsidies on agriculture, the rich countries still continue to subside their agriculture 20 years on. Who will end up paying for this? It will be the European taxpayer and the small farmers in the developing countries. The winners will be the large agro-industrial companies. (Text abbreviated in accordance with 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) - Nuclear sector (B5-0567/2002)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in view of the fact that Mr Patten has returned to the Chamber we cannot actually say that his infrequent presence amongst us is a measure of the Commission’s commitment to these issues. Nonetheless, those of us who have recently visited the area in question – I myself have just returned from Argentina and Chile – certainly wish to convey how very sceptically the European Union’s involvement in relations with Latin America is perceived. These relations are quite inadequate, and scepticism is particularly marked in the field of the social economy of small businesses and trade unions. I had the opportunity to discuss the situation with them just this week in Argentina and Chile. I cannot but agree in principle with the report being debated today. In general I also support everything aimed at increasing economic and trade relations with the countries in the area. In addition, I am in favour of the involvement of civil society in this and other aspects of the association agreements. Nonetheless, this support is tinged with criticism. Although reference has been made – for instance by Mr Marset – to international agreements on ethnic minorities, we believe that the fact that our group’s amendments have not been acted on in this and other areas is a serious shortcoming. True, progress has been made in the field of workers’ rights, incorporating ILO conventions. However, there has been no reference to the code of conduct for multinational companies adopted in the OECD. It has been argued that that is not Europe whereas in fact European companies are setting up in the countries concerned. No environmental measures have been adopted either. Furthermore, the new negotiating mandate does not include the specific references we had requested to structured and institutionalised involvement of civil society in this political dialogue. We therefore endorse in principle what has been said in today’s debate on the association agreements. However, we wish to reiterate our criticism of other aspects we consider essential.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the tightening up of the environmental liability legislation that we are discussing today is a very important subject. It is necessary if we are to repair and tackle environmental damage, but we also need it as a big stick to wield against damage occurring in future. The report before us seems to me to be a very workable compromise that should win a majority of votes. The rapporteur has, and I am very grateful to him for this, taken back one or two things like his tree fund, and the shadow rapporteurs Angelika Niebler and Markus Ferber have been working with the rapporteur to do all they can to achieve a workable compromise. That does not mean that I am completely happy with what we have before us. I have, however, promised Mrs Niebler that our group would support her because I want to give the proposal the benefit of the doubt. Why am I not happy? I wonder whether excluding certain sectors – the oil industry, the nuclear industry – is sufficiently well covered by the international agreements that are in place. I doubt it somehow. Secondly – and this is actually contradictory – we will be creating a new way of bringing the GMOs that are permitted back under this legislation. I have my doubts about this. Then there is the definition of habitat. What will it cost when two wild hamsters are removed when an industrial park is built; who can pay for that? I still have problems with the way in which habitat is defined. Thirdly, I believe that there is too little commitment regarding insurance. I would have preferred insurance to be made compulsory, because this would be relevant to small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular. This will now be reviewed after five years. Whether that is enough for it to work, I do not know.

Political group: PPE-DE
The ports between Hamburg in Germany and Le Havre in France, and all the Dutch and Belgian ports in-between, see the most competition of all ports. This is because together they serve largely the same extensive hinterland, including the German Ruhr district, through which flows of cargo can constantly move from one port to another. As a result, the transhipment costs per quantity of cargo are already lower in these ports than in America or East Asia. The effects of a ports directive, which aims to encourage competition in order to drive down the price of port activity, are the most far-reaching in precisely those ports. They cannot operate at still lower costs, and yet they are forced to do just that. In ports such as these, the risk of social dumping and deteriorating safety is much greater than where one port has a virtual monopoly over a smaller hinterland. The port or port town that has the strictest requirements regarding safety, environment, quality of work and working conditions loses the competition, and the worst port is the winner. Furthermore, the directive will force EU Member States to act contrary to obligations they have entered into within the framework of the ILO Convention. Opting for self-handling at second reading and declaring that votes on the obligations under the ILO Convention are not in order throws up conflicts for the third reading, and, after that, legal proceedings and strikes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to begin by congratulating our colleague, the general rapporteur Jutta Haug, on the way in which she has done her job, which has contributed immensely to the constructive atmosphere in which our work has been carried out in committee and in Parliament in general. The vote that is to follow this debate will mark the end of the long, complex process of approving the European Union budget for 2001. As a result of intense negotiations and successive compromises among the various institutions, the chances of its approval are reasonable. However, I should like to point out certain aspects that carry over to subsequent years. The budget represents, in payment appropriations, just 1.056% of the Community GDP. The financial perspective forecast 1.11% for 2001, which is not to mention the 1.27% that was being mentioned a few years ago. On the other hand, external cooperation programmes are still not multiannual, the difference between commitments and payments is still growing, some projects are still implemented very little or badly, there are unjustifiable and unsustainable payment delays, and Parliament has been confronted with faits accomplis with budgetary implications. Whereas there is no solution as yet for the first aspect mentioned, the GDP, and I am sure that Parliament will soon demonstrate its persistence with regard to the second, I must say that with regard to the third aspect that I have highlighted, I believe that the great novelty in the budget process in coming years is the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council for the Commission to draw up a report by 30 June 2001 to be submitted to the first two institutions regarding the progress achieved in a number of basic fields, such as the reduction in the amount outstanding, the simplification of the project round, improved programme implementation, a commitology review, the reform of the Commission, the definition and execution of implementation objectives, particularly in external cooperation, and the provision of more thorough information for Parliament in several fields. If the submission of such a report is not seen as just one more formality, the hopes that many of us have placed in this new step will be justified.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are critical of Mr Bautista Ojeda’s report on certain nuts and locust beans. In our view, the amendments tabled represent, in general, an out-of-date agricultural policy which does not meet the conditions and needs of modern global society. In the light of this, and with a view to the impending general review of the EU’s agricultural policy, we have chosen to vote against the report in its entirety.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank the Commissioner, both for his statement and for the ongoing debate with us which he puts himself through, as we ask him a great deal of questions, but gradually we have what is needed in order to do our work, and I believe that the seminar due to take place on 5 June 2001 will provide us with further information. I would also like to emphasise the need to create a European Research Area, and the need for the innovation that this represents, to make the Sixth Framework Programme more flexible and easier to access. I am thinking, in particular, of the European added value, which we will find if there is more interaction between the countries of the European Union, namely through grants provided to young people so that they can go and carry out research and work in other Member States and discover more about themselves. We must also be able to maintain the values and the knowledge that we have in Europe and not just watch these go elsewhere. Lastly, with regard to the specific programmes, I would like to emphasise innovation, this time in the area of sustainable development. This is an important subject, which we discuss a great deal, but it is an area in which still too little is done. I would like to draw my fellow Members’ attention to the fact that the Group of the is organising a meeting on this issue in Parliament, in Brussels and this will take place next week on 6 June. We would like to invite all Members to come and share their views on sustainable development, energy, renewable energy, the environment and ecology in particular, so that we can take these into account and make some proposals in this area which is of great interest to us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I believe that the adoption of this excellent report, prepared by my fellow Member, Mrs Lambert, has become a question of humanitarian and democratic urgency. In the absence of a common European policy on asylum and immigration issues, we are now witnessing unacceptable competition in Europe between all the governments of the various EU Member States, designed to downgrade the conditions for receiving refugees, so as to be the most unwelcoming and the most unattractive, and which also aims to criminalise refugees on the pretext of fighting against phenomena such as illegal immigration. The French and British Ministers, Mr Sarkozy and Mr Blunkett, are obviously no exception to the rule, and the agreement that they have recently reached in favour of the closure of the Sangatte refugee camp is a tragic illustration of this situation: this agreement seeks primarily to increase the repressive measures and to downgrade reception conditions in Great Britain. Refugees are now tagged, sorted and given a hearing without even having been officially informed of the agreement and the closure plan. Commissioner, this is a question that you could, in my opinion, raise with them with the approval of the UNHCR, which occupies a highly ambiguous position in this scenario. The people of Afghanistan have already demonstrated how strongly they oppose the proposal of EUR 2 000 that they have been offered to return home voluntarily and how insulting this proposal is to them. They are also drawing our attention to their tragic existence in Afghanistan which, if not tragic before the war, would certainly be so on their return home, to their children and their families, but empty-handed, let there be no doubt about that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we live in a paradoxical society. In economic policy, we in fact do all we can to increase efficiency, dynamism and response rates. In the harsh climate which then arises, there are more and more people who cannot keep up and who are marginalised and excluded. So the more the economy flourishes, the more people seem to be consigned to poverty. It is easy to become pessimistic. In spite of the fact that there is money around and in spite of the fact that Europe has never been richer, it appears to be more and more difficult to protect the weak and give the marginalised a proper chance. That is why Mrs Figueiredo’s report is very important and welcome. I want to congratulate her warmly on the report. It is about how the Member States are to be encouraged to do something to combat poverty and social exclusion. What is particularly good is that she emphasises so strongly that fine words are not enough and that solidarity costs money. The ideal, of course, is to be able to offer good work to as many people as possible, but in a tough competition-based economy there are many who do not cope. According to the report, this may be true of women with two jobs who therefore work both outside and inside the home. It may be true of older people whose knowledge is no longer needed. It may be true of people with mental difficulties and of large groups of people who do not have a good enough knowledge of the language in order to get jobs. Above all, it is no doubt true of the many people who work but who have wages too low to live on. All these groups are threatened by social exclusion if very extensive measures of support are not provided. The Member States must therefore allocate much more money than at present to social initiatives aimed at combating exclusion, poverty and social destitution. I mentioned what is paradoxical in society. According to the current ideology, people must take responsibility for their own lives. I believe, however, that social exclusion and poverty are caused by social conditions and that responsibility is therefore shared. In a good society, there must be room for everyone, and that means shared responsibility.

Political group: GUE-NGL
My question is simply this: can the Council assure us, in the context of the Cyprus negotiations, which I greatly welcome and support, that no deals on the opening of accession negotiations or accession itself are being made with Turkey behind the scenes?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very sorry to distress Mr Cappato, but I too am going to take a line which is not pleasing to him. This report states a basic position. It is not a response to the current situation, as some would have us believe. In actual fact, for many years, the UN has been maintaining a position against drug producers and pushers, clearly indicating the degree to which the different substances are dangerous and vehemently upholding the need to combat illegal trafficking and the spread of crime at all levels. After the 1961 UN Convention, there were further declarations: in 1971, 1988 and 1998. Now, in view of the Ministerial Conference due to take place next week in Vienna, the European Parliament is being called upon to present a proposal, to express its position. That is no easy task, given what we have just heard. Although it takes these broad premises as a starting point and appears to be well balanced, the report then comes more or less directly to the usual conclusions which regularly divide Parliament and public opinion too – that soft drugs, particularly cannabis, should be liberalised and legalised and that a distinction should be made between soft and hard drugs. Some of the Members asked just now how the report could be interpreted in that way, but the points are there if one reads the report carefully. Moreover, the method of treatment using alternative substances is clearly recommended as the most effective system, the most direct way of combating drug addiction. Here too, nothing could be further from the truth. As we are aware, this method is disputed in many Member States because it does not bring about the recovery of drug addicts but just stops them being a threat to society. In other words, the important thing is to remove the problem – this kind of method is not really intended to bring about the recovery of the individuals concerned. The report also appears to be deficient in that it does not combine the proposals for measures in the current situation with pre-emptive initiatives to limit the phenomenon in the future. In any case, the attempt to liberalise cannabis as a non-dangerous substance is unacceptable in that there is no scientific evidence to this effect. Although it may be true – and here I am opening a window for those who hold a different view – that not all those who start by smoking cannabis go on to take hard drugs, it is now an established fact that all those who are now slaves to heroine started by smoking pot or grass. These different opinions have already emerged, during the course of the debate in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and it is no coincidence that this report was adopted by 24 votes to 20. The documentation is clear for the most part, then, confirming how difficult it is in this matter to proclaim absolute truths or to provide conclusive, unquestionable solutions.

Political group: PPE-DE